At the latter end of the previous owners tenure the pitch wasnt maintained. It certainly is now with I think 50k spent on it last season. Id imagine that Stephen Kenny would insist that it is not an area to penny pinch. Im open to correction but I believe when the original surface layer was replaced due to changes in regulations requiring a retrofit, to save on installation costs GM provided the labour to lay the replacement layer (Fieldturf did contribute to the replacement cost I think). It was probably done with guidance but hardly the same as having the manufacturers do the job. The first surface looked seamless, the second surface the joins were visable. Whether this has anything to do with the criticised quality i dont know but it is a possibility. I do know from playing on it myself that it not as bad as many people claim and my knees are fooked from previous torn cartilage injury. Granted i'd not be playing with anything like the intensity of LoI players but still...
As is often said the biggest advantage to Dundalk's surface is as much psychological and the longer opposition managers, fans etc push the pitch advantage line the greater the advantage is as players are tentative with some refusing to play on it at all. It is the same surface that was initially installed in the Luzniki in Moscow. Granted it was lifted for a Champions League final, but it was fascinating to see how England, for example, coped with it Euro 2008 (installed 2005) and what the media made of it. There wasnt a fraction of the moaning from the English that there has been about Oriel's surface and they are quite a moany bunch especially when they lose which they did 2-1.
eg
"England coach Steve McClaren says the artificial pitch in Russia's Luzhniki stadium is no excuse for failure in Wednesday's vital Euro 2008 qualifier.
The England team trained on an exact replica in Altrincham on Monday and McClaren said: "It is a flat pitch and there is absolutely no excuse."
or Colin Little:[SIZE=2] "We did our pre-season on it, which you couldn't have done years ago," he said.
"No-one picked up any injuries and we probably got more injuries the year before when we did our pre-season on the grass.
"There's loads of give in them. It's like a bit of suspension. Years ago they were slate based and felt like you were running on concrete.
"I coach at Crewe where we have got one and technical director Dario Gradi prefers to play on them rather than the grass."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...ls/7041476.stm
I am being selective as in the same piece Juan Pablo Angel and Gareth Whalley mention the difference in recovery time after using an Artificial surface to grass surface. This implies to me that there is no absolute consensus for or against and that there are players that aint that bothered either way. Is it really going to be any worse than a hard summer pitch that may not be watered (its an avoidable cost if finances are tight) or badly divoted. Although long warm spells are not that common when it does happen the pitches are damn near bare rock hard and i have left a layer of skin on such a pitch on more than one occaison.
Im sure there are plenty of us who have played in the street for hours on end or on a concrete schoolyard so a surface with different effects on the ball cant be that alien, not all indoor football halls have sprung floors either but dont get derided for being tough on previous injuries.
I get that it is not ideal, it has to be nearing its sell buy date and as ive mentioned before the annual testing occurs with every Dundalk fan holding our collective breaths! We cant afford an expensive change back to grass when there are many more pressing needs like a sweet shop for the future visits of Longford.
Pitches across league have been getting plenty of criticism, long grass in Dalymount, Derry's slope, Jackman, previous waterlogging in Tallaght so our own little patch shouldnt be excluded but worst pitch in LoI? Far from it!
[/SIZE]
Last edited by Nesta99; 25/03/2015 at 6:44 PM.
It is proven beyond doubt, just by a cursory examination of LOI games in the 2014 season, that Dundalk performed better on away turf than on home plastic, once you discount the mud meadow that Bray Unknowns use.Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Thats just plain wrong.
2.5 points per game at home against 2 points per game away. 2.8 goals per game at home vs 1.6 away.
What were Cork's stats over the same period?
2.4 points and 1.7 goals home, 2 points and 1.3 goals away
ppg are similar for both teams, but 2.8 goals per game at home is huge.
Nothing to do with having a great goalscoring team, the Oriel Roar and a pitch where it was possible to play football on.
Last edited by GCdfc; 26/03/2015 at 12:21 PM.
What pitch are you on about GCdfc??
This one?
100% of those home goals were to do with the fact that away teams can't defend the high bouncing ball...
Or you know, it was one factor among many and Dundalk were the best team in the country regardless
I see they've watered the attacking end.This one?
Hiney Park.What pitch are you on about GCdfc??
I saw all the home games last season and I can't recall too many goals that were due to the opposition failing to defend high bouncing balls.
As you know, Dundalk tend to play a quick passing game and keep the ball on the deck.
There were a number of very high scoring games, we put 7 past Drogheda (but then everyone was trouncing Drogheda at that time), 5 past Derry (who had turned up with a reserve side) and 5 past UCD (who couldn't defend).
The one factor that was noticable at home was that the pitch lends itself to quick passing and teams tended to tire in the second half as they didn't have the fitness levels needs to keep pressing the ball. As grass surfaces tend to be quite poor in Ireland, Dundalk couldn't play as quick a passing style away from home. Some teams even started letting their grass grow and not watering the pitch to slow Dundalk down. However, that is appearently fair.
lucky that Dundalk haven't a green pitch, saves them painting the other half of it!This one?
One half will be better maintained than the other obviously as no black rubber will be seen kicking up.
Last edited by Nesta99; 26/03/2015 at 6:59 PM.
Unfortunately they've spent the budget on tayto and coke for the boardroom!
Everyone gets more points at home than away though. Dundalk were more ahead of average away from home than at home last season though. As were Cork.
I didn't think their boardroom were the tayto and coke type...also what is it about tayto and coke that the Dundalk fans keep on harping to me about?
Typically understated - it was way more than that
Don't be trying to drag Harps into your misfortune.I didn't think their boardroom were the tayto and coke type...also what is it about tayto and coke that the Dundalk fans keep on harping to me about?
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
Obviously evident during the drubbing of Cork where the high bounce added to Corks reluctance to make a tackle racked up a few home goals and then cost the title last day! The benefits of our pitch are such that every club should be clamouring to install one to level the playing field (especially in the Brandywell).
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks