jr
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,199
Member is Online
|
Post by jr on Jan 24, 2018 10:19:16 GMT
When is the next EFL meeting on 3G? Thought there was going to be one before Christmas. I have not heard what Bruce said to BT Sport, but surely he is playing to the media here by having to return to grass. Previously it was trying to win EFL over regarding the financial problems the lower divisions clubs are under. I understand it is only the Premiership and Championship leagues are against 3G pitches, divisions 1 & 2 are apparently all in favour of it. But it must be realised there still a huge difference in the skill set between Grass and 3G, it has narrowed and more is still to be achieved, but those that go along with this argument have experience to back it up and of course they run the league and any confrontation to their knowledge of the game must be resisted. Some still argue top flight football should be only played on grass, perhaps all of the EFL is top flight, but that argument went out with soft leather balls and boots, this is all about football surviving for the future, the lower divisional teams cannot be allowed to go under due to problems other than skill or fan base, something must be done, it is very much a supporters game as well. If League 1 and 2 were in favour then it would have been voted in last time. As I understand it the majority of League 2 are in favour but it's the ex Premier and Championship clubs in League 1 (perhaps apart from Wigan! I'm sure Dos has been bending Paul Cook's ear!) who are not in favour. I expect a compromise will be reached and they will allow 3G in League 2 next season. |
|
|
|
Post by KingBob on Jan 24, 2018 11:45:41 GMT
When is the next EFL meeting on 3G? Thought there was going to be one before Christmas. I have not heard what Bruce said to BT Sport, but surely he is playing to the media here by having to return to grass. Previously it was trying to win EFL over regarding the financial problems the lower divisions clubs are under. I understand it is only the Premiership and Championship leagues are against 3G pitches, divisions 1 & 2 are apparently all in favour of it. But it must be realised there still a huge difference in the skill set between Grass and 3G, it has narrowed and more is still to be achieved, but those that go along with this argument have experience to back it up and of course they run the league and any confrontation to their knowledge of the game must be resisted. Some still argue top flight football should be only played on grass, perhaps all of the EFL is top flight, but that argument went out with soft leather balls and boots, this is all about football surviving for the future, the lower divisional teams cannot be allowed to go under due to problems other than skill or fan base, something must be done, it is very much a supporters game as well. If League 1 and 2 were in favour then it would have been voted in last time. As I understand it the majority of League 2 are in favour but it's the ex Premier and Championship clubs in League 1 (perhaps apart from Wigan! I'm sure Dos has been bending Paul Cook's ear!) who are not in favour. I expect a compromise will be reached and they will allow 3G in League 2 next season. |
|
|
|
Post by KingBob on Jan 24, 2018 12:04:09 GMT
If League 1 and 2 were in favour then it would have been voted in last time. As I understand it the majority of League 2 are in favour but it's the ex Premier and Championship clubs in League 1 (perhaps apart from Wigan! I'm sure Dos has been bending Paul Cook's ear!) who are not in favour. I expect a compromise will be reached and they will allow 3G in League 2 next season. If that is the case then, they will have to do something at end of the season if one or two 3G teams get promoted, I am sure they will just allow Div 2 to have it and make a proper decision by end of next season, the ENL understand the financial problems. Its all wait and see time till start of new season. What I understand, once 3G and drainage is down, swapping back and forth is not a problem, cost would not be prohibitive, not another half mil. In fact going back to grass would be a better playing surface, but the community element would go, plus the extra dividends. |
|
oohaah
Top Performer
Posts: 3,142
|
Post by oohaah on Jan 24, 2018 12:17:40 GMT
In fact going back to grass would be a better playing surface Au contraire mon amie. I am utterly sold on the fact that 3G is the better playing surface, both from a footballing point of view, and to the health and safety of the players (I know we have a larger squad this year but it's a tribute to the pitch that we have been able to operate with a lower squad than most other NL teams over the last few years). Opposition managers may bitch and whine over it but you get very few complaints from visiting players after a match. |
|
|
|
Post by KingBob on Jan 24, 2018 12:34:19 GMT
In fact going back to grass would be a better playing surface Au contraire mon amie. I am utterly sold on the fact that 3G is the better playing surface, both from a footballing point of view, and to the health and safety of the players (I know we have a larger squad this year but it's a tribute to the pitch that we have been able to operate with a lower squad than most other NL teams over the last few years). Opposition managers may bitch and whine over it but you get very few complaints from visiting players after a match. I was not trying to be contradictory about grass being a better surface, but that is what others have remarked, even Arsene Wenger would not get drawn into the arguments and even a top ex-pro remarked about the Sutton pitch ..... we all complain about playing on plastic pitches, but once the whistle is blown it is all forgotten, and and he played on the 1970's pitches which were dangerous. So with the passage of time, I am glad they are lot safer now. |
|
|
|
Post by timall on Jan 24, 2018 13:07:38 GMT
If that is the case then, they will have to do something at end of the season if one or two 3G teams get promoted, I am sure they will just allow Div 2 to have it and make a proper decision by end of next season, the ENL understand the financial problems. Its all wait and see time till start of new season. What I understand, once 3G and drainage is down, swapping back and forth is not a problem, cost would not be prohibitive, not another half mil. In fact going back to grass would be a better playing surface, but the community element would go, plus the extra dividends. "...grass would be a better playing surface..."
Yet the reality is, for many clubs at many grounds, the surface is actually a mixture of grass, mud and sand. Furthermore it doesn't take much rain for the surface to also have puddles, particularly when such "grass" pitches are far from level and smooth. That leaves a number of "grass" pitches a long way from a good, let alone a better, playing surface.
|
|
jr
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,199
Member is Online
|
Post by jr on Jan 24, 2018 13:41:14 GMT
Watch the National League highlights on Sunday and see how bad the grass pitches are. The majority are a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by KingBob on Jan 24, 2018 14:01:39 GMT
Watch the National League highlights on Sunday and see how bad the grass pitches are. The majority are a mess. I was referring to properly prepared pitches with drainage, whether grass is better to play on is down to others to prove it, it is not my opinion. Perhaps I meant to say, grass is more the currently acceptable playing surface, but possibly even that is incorrect |
|
|
|
Post by nonleaguefooty on Feb 2, 2018 16:12:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Feb 2, 2018 16:25:48 GMT
Hi, good blog - just a minor correction: the astroturf pitches used by QPR, Oldham etc were not 3G. 3G is the next generation of artificial pitches, the technological advances have been significant. Neither does 4G exist, it's still the same technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 2, 2018 16:26:36 GMT
Read your blog via Twitter earlier today. A very good read! |
|
|
|
Post by timall on Feb 2, 2018 16:33:37 GMT
Dan, firstly thanks for coming to our forum.
I have read your blog piece also, but whilst I am (more than) sympathetic to the "pro 3G" side of the argument I feel you have sacrificed an element of credibility in saying "they use VAR and goal line technology..." when you make your case. They, being the EFL, don't use VAR or goal line technology. The Premier League do, and so does the FA run FA cup, but neither are currently in use in the EFL.
You could argue they should use all 3, but to be consistent and credible you can't make the argument they use 2 out of the 3 so why not all 3, as that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 2, 2018 16:40:41 GMT
Dan, firstly thanks for coming to our forum.
I have read your blog piece also, but whilst I am (more than) sympathetic to the "pro 3G" side of the argument I feel you have sacrificed an element of credibility in saying "they use VAR and goal line technology..." when you make your case. They, being the EFL, don't use VAR or goal line technology. The Premier League do, and so does the FA run FA cup, but neither are currently in use in the EFL.
You could argue they should use all 3, but to be consistent and credible you can't make the argument they use 2 out of the 3 so why not all 3, as that's not the case.
He doesn't say they specifically do. The way it's written I read it as football in general is implementing modern technology. Also the EFL have sanctioned the use of VAR in the League Cup, which is organised by the EFL. The technology to get the feed to the League's TV HQ centre in Uxbridge is only currently available to Premier League Clubs. No credibility lost by the author at all. |
|
|
|
Post by timall on Feb 2, 2018 16:54:50 GMT
Dan, firstly thanks for coming to our forum.
I have read your blog piece also, but whilst I am (more than) sympathetic to the "pro 3G" side of the argument I feel you have sacrificed an element of credibility in saying "they use VAR and goal line technology..." when you make your case. They, being the EFL, don't use VAR or goal line technology. The Premier League do, and so does the FA run FA cup, but neither are currently in use in the EFL.
You could argue they should use all 3, but to be consistent and credible you can't make the argument they use 2 out of the 3 so why not all 3, as that's not the case.
He doesn't say they specifically do. The way it's written I read it as football in general is implementing modern technology. "Why can’t the EFL accept that it is 2018, football is modernised, and we have to move on with the times. They are already implementing goal line technology and VAR into refereeing decisions – why can’t the EFL allow a modern take on football turf?"
This is exactly what he wrote on the blog.
The immediately preceding sentence has EFL as the subject. The next sentence starts with "They". It would be an extremely unusual use of English for the "they" in this case not to specifically refer to the EFL, especially so given the final clause in that sentence once more specifically states the EFL.
Now whether you read it as "football in general" is irrelevant. He "specifically" did mention EFL with respect to his argument, and others will read it that way too.
As I have said, I have no issue with making good arguments in favour of 3G pitches, but as someone who now uses words as a living I think, as it stands, the argument is weakened unnecessarily and a minor edit here would make the blog both more readable and credible in the points he is trying to convey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 2, 2018 17:01:47 GMT
He doesn't say they specifically do. The way it's written I read it as football in general is implementing modern technology. "Why can’t the EFL accept that it is 2018, football is modernised, and we have to move on with the times. They are already implementing goal line technology and VAR into refereeing decisions – why can’t the EFL allow a modern take on football turf?"
This is exactly what he wrote on the blog.
The immediately preceding sentence has EFL as the subject. The next sentence starts with "They". It would be an extremely unusual use of English for the "they" in this case not to specifically refer to the EFL, especially so given the final clause in that sentence once more specifically states the EFL.
Now whether you read it as "football in general" is irrelevant. He "specifically" did mention EFL with respect to his argument, and others will read it that way too.
As I have said, I have no issue with making good arguments in favour of 3G pitches, but as someone who now uses words as a living I think, as it stands, the argument is weakened unnecessarily and a minor edit here would make the blog both more readable and credible in the points he is trying to convey.
Thank you for your lesson in English. How I chose to read it being irrelevant is quite offensive. I'm a reader as well as anyone else and saying that the way anyone reads its is quite a spiteful judgement to make on anyone. And perhaps reading the rest of my post may actually make you realise that you coming on saying he was wrong isn't the case. Your judgement is about as credible as you saying you had done a huge amount of research on postponed games from unknown sources in a 20 minute window to conclusively prove your point. |
|
