Perils of plastic pitches outweigh positives
Artificial surfaces have advantages but run of serious injuries suggest they are too dangerous
Ihave never been a supporter of artificial pitches, and the spate of recent injuries has only reinforced my doubts that they are a boon to business but a danger to players. Maybe it is because I am a traditionalist but, for me, a key part of the match-day experience was when you smelt the grass for the first time, which straight away put you in the right head-space to play.
I only had to train on plastic pitches towards the end of my career and those were the old 3G versions, which was like playing on a carpet. You would finish a session missing half your skin. The other thing I noticed recently was that when you run on the newer pitches, your feet become hot.
I understand why synthetic pitches were brought in. The pitch is the centrepiece of the stadium, but they are only using it once a fortnight. An artificial pitch can be used whenever needed. It is also a money-saver, because you do not need to relay and reseed the pitch.
I am a particular fan of allowing kids on to the pitch once the game has finished. When I was playing at Leicester and you went out for your warm-down after the game, there were loads of kids running around, while their parents were at the bar. That would not happen now. But Saracens have managed to recapture that community aspect.
The statistics also show there are far fewer collapsed scrums on artificial pitches, suggesting props do not want to end up face=down on an artificial pitch.
Those are the positives, but you had only to see the state of the Scarlets players’ arms and legs after their semi-final win on Glasgow’s artificial pitch to appreciate the concerns of many players. Then we had Wasps’ Jack Willis rupturing knee ligaments at Saracens.
Maybe he would have suffered the same injury on grass, but it does not seem to be a coincidence that we have seen Willis, Steffon Armitage and John Barclay all suffer long-term injuries on artificial pitches in recent weeks.
The information we have so far shows playing on artificial surfaces does not increase the incidence of injuries but there is an increase in their severity. Something that might have been a partial tear becomes a full tear, or a fracture becomes a shattered bone, because it does not have the “give” of grass.
The majority of players I speak to do not like them. It is the change from one surface to another week in, week out, that affects them. It is the muscle memory of playing on them one week and then the next week playing on grass. I know Exeter refuse to play Jack Nowell on those artificial pitches.
It would be interesting to hear the Saracens players’ views of the surface of Allianz Park. Maybe they will not say it publicly, but do they really love playing on that field? What does it feel like when four guys, effectively half a tonne, are lying on top of you in a ruck?
More research is needed, particularly around the long-term effects on joints. There are also worrying reports that the rubber crumb in synthetic pitches might be carcinogenic. I do not envisage this happening in the short term, but maybe further down the track we might see a collective lawsuit.
It is worth emphasising that artificial pitches vary. Twickenham has a blend of artificial and real grass and it is the most immaculate surface in all of rugby. More than anything, there needs to be more oversight and uniformity. If they can find a 4G surface that has enough give, then it has got a place. If they cannot, and the research shows it is causing more long-term injuries, then get rid of them.
Austin Healey is a proud ambassador for Jeep Grand Cherokee. Visit Jeep.co.uk