Barrow AFC.net

then having watched my first game on that surface, i say NO.
There were plenty of long aimless punts that ended up safely with each keeper and I guess we should be happy with a point, especially as we probably should of been behind during the first 45.
Both teams had chances in the opening minutes but the masters in most situations were defenders throwing themselves blocking any goal bound effort.
this was summed up nicely in the 43rd minute when it looked like Hannah had the goal at his mercy, only to be denied by a successful block.
Sutton built first half momentum and during a passage of play, their best player the tiny number 11 hit the post following a quick well taken corner.
In fact during the first half there were several times when we were all 'at sea', thankfully this seemed to get addressed for the second half.
Nicky boy was being overwhelmed and they were constantly raiding down his flank. There seemed to be plenty of heated discussion between, Williams, Hughes and Harvey,but it was wasted energy.
Danny boy managed to hold things together as we seemed to be second to a lot of stuff and constantly outmuscled, something i wouldn't of expected.
The home side looked much smarter in their pattern of play and I was grateful that we survived till half time.
And yes there was the one big 'Oick from JD that thankfully was sliced to Livesey who despatched it for a throw in. (from the customary back pass)
joel D was beaten twice in the first half, thankfully the post came to our rescue and the other piece of skill from their number 11 just flew over the bar, with JD beaten.
Why he, their 11 was allowed to run with the ball from the halfway line without any tackle is beyond me.

We looked much better during the second period and dominated the last twenty minutes and looked the more than likely to score.
Bennett had one great chance, but shot wide. Unfortunately Hannah didn't really get into the game. Nick Anderton unleashed a brilliant effort on about 83mins and their keeper made a wonderful save.
JW unusually looked off the pace, despite looking threatening for the first ten minutes. Harrison was well marshalled, I think they were concerned about his threat, but he did shine in the closing 15minutes.
it was a hard earned point and Joel made about three smart saves. the Mousse looked threatening on his forward forays.
but the HISS of the match had to be the referee who would not let the game flow, far too busy lecturing people rather than letting them get on with it. But then again, maybe that's what you have to do on a 3G pitch. GIVE ME GRASS anytime.

Southcoaster - you asked one question ....and sort of answered several others.

In terms of Suttons lovely 3G pitch what can be said in its favour is that was pretty true - by which I mean consistent across the entirety of the playing surface. Would I swap it for the surface at HS (which as we know has had a fair bit spent on it in recent years) - No. If I went to Old Trafford or the Emirates and found United or City playing on a 3G would I consider myself short changed - undoubtedly. However for those who've ever turned up at Frickley or Marine etc. to watch a game played on a swamp or a ploughed field then a 3G might have been a step forward.

Did it affect the game - yes it did. How? In ways both physical and psychological. Whilst the surface was consistent the bounce was by my reckoning approx. 50% higher than on a wet grass pitch. At one point a Dixon goal kick was allowed to bounce and must have rebounded 15-20 ft. As a result the players tend not to let it bounce or if they do they anticipate the bounce by scampering ahead of the ball. This does look quite odd at times. In most cases however the preference is to play the ball off the ground leading to what we saw a lot of this afternoon - head tennis. The psychology comes in because the players simply don't trust the ball to bounce so will instinctively try and keep it off the ground - noticeably there were few attempts at shots from us until late in the game.

Second factor was the weather which was wet. This caused the ball to fizz across the surface. If not played to feet it invariably went out. The pitch was not the widest either. I'd love to see the stats on throw-ins and corners. There seemed to be a lot of them. Sutton on the other hand did understand how their pitch works and in particular that if you do want to keep the ball on the ground you have to move it, and with it, quickly. Their play often resembled a rolling set of counter attacks designed to catch the defence out. Generally speaking though I thought the pitch actually tended to focus play in the middle of the pitch. At times there were a lot of bodies in a confined space.

As the game went on, the team adapted better and began to dominate. As a result we did not succumb as our peers have done and actually began to dominate the game. Sutton will not lose many on that pitch this season and any Sutton supporter that claims it makes no difference will need to explain away their away form which is as dire as their home form is good. It may help cement their status in the division but it creates a problem for them every other week.

If you watch football on it every home game no doubt you'll come to appreciate it and ignore its little nuances. Providing a grass pitch is true and good quality however I don't believe any 3G will give you the same potential for quality.

For all the above reasons todays point was a good one, hard fought for.

I'm with you guys. Definitely NO to 3G but I knew that anyway as I'm quite familiar with them. As said the bounce of the ball is ridiculously high and the pace of the ball off the pitch is like lightening. I've never met any footballer who has a good word for them.

I don't like them at all. I appreciate the comments about cabbage patch playing fields, the chances are if a club can't afford to keep grass then they'll never be ab;e to afford a plastic pitch.

Despite what we're told plastic pitches do not behave in the same fashion as grass and soil pitches and never will. Grass and soil give as you stop, turn, twist. 3G doesn't and as a result cause injuries, including a really bad triple break for my son a few years back.

If Barrow AFC invested in a 3G pitch then i would not go. Simple as. They are what they say on the tin. Plastic and horrible

Adam29 wrote:If Barrow AFC invested in a 3G pitch then i would not go. Simple as. They are what they say on the tin. Plastic and horrible

Best for income, terrible for football.... I played 2 weeks ago on the college pitch and my feet are still sore.....can beat the old sliding challenge on a wet pitch

Definitely a NO from me

How with have some coin then no.
They do make business sense though.

I've seen 4 games on Queen of the South's 3g pitch and all were decent games. Don't know whether the quality varies between pitches but these games were a good advert for them.

whitty1969 wrote: I played 2 weeks ago on the college pitch and my feet are still sore

That's age Neil, sorry, but you can't blame that on 3G pitches

After reading the various views on the 3G pitches I thought it 'd be interesting to get the thoughts of Sean Riley. I e-mailed him yesterday and he very kindly sent this reply.

Firstly, I have worked at Myerscough College for the past 13 years where they have a 3G surface. It is very rare that I see any students with any injuries related directly due to the surface. They train on it every day and play matches on it every week. They also have grass pitches and in my experience I have not seen any difference in injuries that may suggest the 3G as the primary cause.

My opinion is that the improvements over the years of 3G surfaces and development of suitable footwear makes it a good alternative to grass in the short term, or odd occasions.

I think players are more at home training/playing on grass rather than 3G and I wonder how much of psychological impact rather than a physical one this has on a player.

Having said that, I do know players that have had previous injuries/conditions including low back pain, hip, groin, knees and ankles feel that training on 3G aggravates a previous problem. The key word being aggravate and not cause of the problem.

A plastic pitch will mean we cant ground share with the rugby.

Why??

Widnes Vikings have one.

In the national rugby union leagues Burnage also have a 4G (fourth generation) surface and saracens have one also.

I don't particularly like them myself but fully understand why some clubs would choose to have them to maximise revenue. Massive improvement on previous plastic pitches which would slash your legs to bits after making a tackle due to the amount of sand needed

mall wrote:A plastic pitch will mean we cant ground share with the rugby.

Barrow RLFC have played on at least one plastic pitch, against London Skolars earlier this year. They were well beaten, mind.