By Tony Tannous
July 20th 2009 @ 6:22am
Related coverage
Memo to A-League groundsmen; time to roll out the carpet
Sydney's Mark Bridge (left) and Perth's Jamie Harnwell in action during Round 16 of the Hyundai A-League between Sydney FC and Perth Glory in Sydney, Sunday, Dec. 21, 2008. AAP Image/Jenny Evans
It’s an image that lives long in the memory. In May 2005, more than two months before the pre-season competition for the inaugural A-League season, the FFA gave us a sneak-peak into its new world with a double-header at Gosford’s Bluetongue Stadium, part of its process of deciding Australia’s participant at the Oceania club championship.
Most will remember it as the day Nik Mrdja snapped Andrew Durante’s leg during the second match between the Mariners and the Jets. That memory was sickening.
But it was another image, that day, which warmed the heart.
It came at half-time in the first game between Sydney FC and Queensland Roar, and it didn’t involve any player or a football.
It was the sight of the Bluetongue groundsmen, armed with a spading fork, out prodding and patting down the lush green surface. It happened again ahead of the second game, and then at half-time once more.
It was ‘new football’ and a new professional attitude towards to the quality of the canvass, or so it seemed.
Little wonder the back-of-the-net.com reporter that day rated the pitch a nine out of ten.
As I watched the groundsman prod-around, gob-smacked, my mind went back to days of watching NSL matches at places like Leichhardt and Belmore Oval, and Parramatta Stadium, which at times resembled Bondi beach, such was the amount of sand dumped on them.
While there were some very goods ones, especially at football-only places like Marconi and Hindmarsh, overall, the pitches and stadiums weren’t great.
One of my pet hates growing up was the sub-standard treatment (or non-treatment) afforded the game by ground-staff across the country.
How many big games – grand finals and Socceroos internationals – do you remember being played on fields where line-markings and sponsorship logos were everywhere? What chance did the game have at club level?
Naturally, my hope ahead of the A-League launch was that the carpet would be rolled out, across the board, a point I made in an early email to John O’Neill and Matt Carroll.
Surfaces in the inaugural season, I thought, were pretty good, especially in the context of where the game had been.
But things have steadily declined, and last season even Bluetongue resembled a patchwork quilt.
Elsewhere, across the multi-purpose facilities like Suncorp, Docklands, Westpac and SFS, the game continues to have to work alongside the likes of Andre Rieu, the two rugby codes and AFL.
It’s a fine balancing act. On the one hand the FFA wants to enhance its package by playing in the best all-seater stadiums, with excellent spectator and hospitality facilities.
Yet the bumpy surfaces often sell the players, managers, and fans short, as the quality of games suffers.
It’s one thing to be able to get into a modern stadium and find a comfortable seat, but most fans want to see good football on good pitches, and there’s no better way to build a brand than by enhancing the on-field product.
And to do that, players must be given the best surfaces, at training and on match-day.
As the governing body tries to encourage more and more ball-playing through its introduction of small sided games and the national curriculum, it would do well to take in the words of the respected Roy Hodgson, who takes a calculated stab at the inferior state of our pitches just over three minutes into this grab, even if he bundles Docklands and Robina into the same ‘AFL’ basket.
Naturally, things should improve over time and with the introduction of stadia like the rectangular one in Melbourne, but the technical heads at FFA and out in club-land would do well to stay in the ear of ground administrators.
And fans, paying a decent dollar to attend, should also maintain the rage.
Last night, for example, I was back at Belmore Oval for the first time in a while. The game between Sydney FC and Sydney Olympic was an eye-sore.
You won’t be surprised to learn the surface was a shocker.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(55)
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
This was mentioned last week in another article in which I stated that groundsmen must be reeducated into providing surfaces that are conducive to playing top class professional football. You cant change the status quo of football sharing with the Rugbies AFL & concerts etc,but you can change the knowledge of ground staff in preparing the turf. I remember as a lad turning up at Hillsborough & marvelling at the wonder of the billiard table pitch. I compared it to the local grounds I played on some on mountainside like slopes & mud up to the ankle & envied the professionals of Wednesday having the luck to play on such a pitch.
It is also one of my pet hates in this country Tony.Although I do understand the reasons for it,nevertheless it has to be changed if this country is serious about presenting football at its creative best. Which means more on the ground crisp accurate passing & dribbling. Cant be done on a bumpy pitted pitch. Every sport who plays on the ground benefits.
whiskeymac said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Fair point Tony, stands to reason that if the playing surface is poor the passing game will be poor and teams, and in particular defenders not willing to risk a bumpy stray pass, will be more inclined to hoof it.
whiskeymac said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
towser i agree with this too “Every sport who plays on the ground benefits” – surely its in everyones interests to havea good surface – less injuries, cleaner bounces (even for Sherrins and the like). Is it that there are just a few grounds being pounded non stop all year in a drought or that the science/ application by the groundstaff isnt there? it wld seem a little strange for aussie groundstaff not ot be aware/ trained in upto date ground management – maybe the stadia or clubs just arent investing in them as they should?
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
whiskeymac
That is the first stop for the ground surface improvement bus,the grounndstaff. Personally I have no in depth knowledge of their capabilities in relation to ground preperation. But if their are benefits for all,surely its logical to set the standard to the level of the surfaces of the pitches of professional football clubs in Europe.
Midfielder said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Some interesting things have come out of Bluetounge as we have to move two of our games for maintenance … we asked why not during the NRL season… one of the easons is because the ground grass is prepared for a winter season not a summer season … I wonder how many other grounds are the same..
GeneralAshnak said | July 20th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Thankfully not Hindmarsh, still the best little ground in Australia – now if only we could have it seat 50k and be in the cbd…
Ryan Steele said | July 20th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
GeneralAshnak, you’re right in some ways. Hindmarsh is definitely the best place to watch an A-League match, in terms of shap and how close one is to the action, but it’s an extremely poor stadium that meets very few of the FIFA criteria that should be met in a league that’s trying to garner attention on the world stage.
It’s one of those annoying situatiions. In the days of the NSL, it was the place to be. Nothing could beat its quality. Now, with the A-League and Socceross as two respectable football products in our nation, it is very much below par, and relatively ignored by the State Government, the body that owns the ground. So much so, that Adelaide Oval is an even more viable option for many of our football events.
With Clive Palmer’s billions, perhaps Skilled Park is the place to be for the upcoming year, as the new Glamour club will probably be looking to distinguish themselves as the premier club in Australia, both on and off the field, and spending money to uphold the pitch quality to – at the very least least – a good playing standard.
Ideally, that would set off a domino effect, pushing other clubs/stadium owners to follow suit, in order to maintain respect. And that’s exactly what we need.
Tony Tannous said | July 20th 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Any chance of picking up the Hindmarsh surface and transfering it around to mult-purpose venues?
Tony Tannous said | July 20th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
While the quality of the surface doesn’t always correlate with the quality on the pitch, in my opinion the Mariners played by far the most pleasing football on the eye in season one.
With players like Pondeljak and Gumprecht pulling the strings, that’s perhaps no surprise, but they had a great surface on which to knock it around on.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 20th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
The continued growth of the game will see an improvement in pitch conditions as football contributes an increasing percentage of annual revenues for multi-purpose stadia. This is particularly the case for those sharing with rugby codes as the game is generally harder on the pitch yet generates less gate receipts than the large crowds seen at the AFL venues. As any Wigan supporter can tell you, sometimes you have to make the most of what you have.
One issue may be stadia who need to have football expertise introduced to their management team. This is something that the FFA should probably support for those stadia that regularly host the Socceroos.
Hindmarsh is an interesting question pertaining primarily to capacity (it is next to the parklands and soon will have a tram line running to it so access isn’t such an issue). Certainly Adelaide have consistently been a high performing club in the A-League despite only being a mid-sized. It would be interesting to know how much the pitch conditions have contributed to their success.
GeneralAshnak said | July 20th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
I would suggest quite a lot. If you look at our results we are much better at home; I would suggest this is in part to do with being able to play a better passing game at Hindmarsh than we can elsewhere – from memory we actually had a really good record against CCM at their home which may have been contributed to by the, initially, high quality of the surface. Maybe the groundskeepers for the other stadium need to come to Hindmarsh for some pointers on how to produce a great playing surface…
Pippinu said | July 20th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
A better passing game!!
General – let’s not get carried away!!
Ryan Steele said | July 20th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
General, a lot of it is to do with the size of the stadium, rather than the quality. On a large pitch – such as the oval-shaped stadiums, and even the Club World Cup venues – Adelaide have been exploited many times for the tight movement of their play, and in response the defence opens up quite easily, trying to cater for the size of the field.
Pitch quality may have some part to play in their home success, but it’s more about how they’re used to playing. Hindmarsh is a small stadium, in comparison to most. It can be a lot harder to carry the same formations and tactics from that ground, to another.
GeneralAshnak said | July 20th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Ryan: I have noticed that at home our defence is quite compact and our midfield spread nicely – away we tend to have a compact midfield and spread defence. I had just never put the two together! Maybe Viddie needs to play 4-2-3-1 away from home more often…
Pips, I noticed your live blog on the MV supporter pack – what did you get in your AUFC one (closet supporter that you are), I assume that your members pin is kept descretly tucked inside your jacket at all times? ;P Looking forward to the game against you blokes at the end of the week!
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Regarding pitch size. Something I normally take much notice off. Quite a lot of possible variations. As long as its a rectangle & not a square.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4200666.stm
Hindmarsh dimensions 120m by 78m according to Wiki:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindmarsh_Stadium
At top class football stadiums the dimensions are 105m by 69.5m. Shorter & narrower than Hindmarsh. So according to these stats they are already playing on a larger football pitch.
http://www.learning-through-football.co.uk/Fact/02-Grounds/Pitches%20and%20Posts/Pages/02-PitchMeasurements.html
This sets the brain ticking why if in an era of faster fitter stronger professionals arent we playing on pitches which are the maximum allowable for length & width. This would open up play more surely. Seems far more sensible to me than the suggestion of increasing goal size. Might as well have a midget(can you say that today?) as a goalkeeper then . Nobody over 1m is allowed between the sticks.
Pippinu said | July 20th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Towser
yes, yes, and yes – spot on about the field dimensions – very few fans seem to be aware of just how broad the rules are in this respect.
Here’s a quote from a blog I wrote on this subject about two years ago:
“For instance, and this is just an example that comes to mind, others may know of other examples, I discovered towards the end of last year that the field dimensions are not really all that strict in the laws of the game. In fact, for non-international games, the field dimensions that are possible are truly broad – quite literally!
I was investigating this because I noticed that teams were coming to the Dome with the express purpose of holding the Vics’ potent attack out, in the hope of either grabbing the point or even pinching a 1-0 win. Both Adelaide and Newcastle managed a 1-0 win in the middle of the season, Perth lost 0-1 to a last minute winner, and SFC managed a 0-0 draw (played in front of 50,000 fans). Two weekends ago, Perth managed to get its nil-all result. With the top of the table Mariners coming to the Dome, quite possibly playing before a crowd approaching 40,000 – surely we do not want to replicate these sorts of games, both in terms of game plan and scoreline.
So these results got me thinking: these games are played at the Dome; the ground is much larger than any traditional rectangular stadium that might be 50 to 100 years old; as a consequence the crowd is miles away from the action; but, as the rules state, the Victory actually has a very broad discretion to play with the largest dimensions possible, thus bringing the game closer to the crowd and perhaps even complementing its natural attacking flair and mitigating against teams that simply wish to sit back.
The first question: who decides what the ground dimensions are for A-League games? The Victory’s management? The FFA? Fox? The groundsman? The 16 year old apprentice who is told to mark it out? Who? Is there an insistence that all dimensions are identical at all games? Is some leeway allowed for individual grounds. Does a range of specifications exist, or is it a matter for each club to determine within the broader FIFA laws of the game?
Given the breath of dimensions that FIFA allows, and given the Vics’ potent strike force, shouldn’t they be marking out a field that is at the maximum end of FIFA regulations (and which would comfortably fit within the Dome’s dimensions, bringing the play closer to patrons)?
Next question: why?
All of a sudden, visiting teams cannot count on a gameplan based on restricting the Vics’ strike force – they will need to have a game plan on matching it because the gaps will be there for both teams – more goals will be possible and the visiting team will have to be amongst them if it wants to get anything out of the game. It will most probably suit the Victory (and why not, afterall, it’s their home game), but most importantly it will suite the A-League generally and its most important stakeholders: the members, Fox, and television viewers.
So – could it be – at least as far as the Dome is concerned (and maybe some other pitches) – the answer could lie in the dimensions of the ground utilised. Let’s not go for the lowest common denominator, rather, let’s go the other way!
The FFA, and maybe individual clubs, need to think creatively, out of the box. For once, can we please stop pretending that the game is still played in the 1880s!! “
Pippinu said | July 20th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
I should add to the above excerpt from an old blog – it was written on the assumption that a superior attacking team would prefer a wider pitch – but I’ve since discovered that that’s not necessarily the case.
In fact, some of the very strongest teams in the world much prefer to have a narrow pitch.,
Why?
Because they will back themselves to hold the weaker team to a low score (or zero goals), while backing themselves to eventually find a gap or two and score.
So, if even strong teams are entering the comp with that express purpose – it’s actually a pretty poor state of affairs all round.
Personally, I’m staggered that individual clubs are allowed to pick and choose their own field dimensions to suit themselves.
About time the FFA took matters into their own hands and laid down some minimum standards (and yes, preferably so as to keep the game as wide open as possible).
agga78 said | July 20th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
The surface for Victory games last season was a disgrace, only the Final had a half decent surface, but the rest of the matches were marred by a sometimes dangerous surface (glass after the rave). Bluetongue looked like a beach, The Jets ground was terrible, Suncorp I thought was very good considering the Rugby and concert, the rest had very decent surfaces the best being Wellington’s ground that was a carpet too bad the team were rubbish. Melbourne’s new pitch will be great at the new stadium even with the rugby league, but for the moment Melbourne has by far the worst pitch in Australia and it really takes away from the quality of the game, But Ettihad Stadium don’t care about the football now that we are moving to the new ground and we can expect the pitch to be even worse this season.
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Pippinu
Looking at the dimensions.Why havent top European clubs expanded the pitch? Surely it advantages clubs like Manchester United to have a larger pitch. The top 4 EPL clubs pass quicker & more accurately than the rest into what would be larger spaces. With generally fitter faster players who would be receiving the ball . It opens the space for Gigg & Ronaldo type players to run at defenders. Yet their pitch is smaller than Hindmarsh. We must be missing something.
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Pippinu
Wrote above before I saw your last post. Still doesnt make sense to me though that they prefer a narrower pitch with better players available.
Tom said | July 20th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Agree with the comments about how good Hindmarsh is. Been there twice for Victory games and I think its just a brilliant place to watch a football match.
Art Sapphire said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
Pip – It is common practice for weaker teams to narrow their pitch dimension, especially when they are about to play a much stronger opponent (an F.A cup tie for example). This makes it easier to defend in numbers behind the ball. As long as they are within the rules of football they are perfectly entilled to do so. Anything extra to improve your chances.
Vicentin said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
A team with less technical ability, but great fitness may feel they’re at an advantage on a big pitch while – as Pippinu noted – a technically accomplished team should be capable of playing on a postage stamp of a pitch and be confident they can get through a tight defence. Wide open spaces will cover over the technical deficiencies (poor first touch) of some teams – you can get away with a hell of a lot more.
Tony, I was surprised a how good the pitch looked at Leichhardt Oval (usually a RL ground) when Sydney played against the Mariners. Have to say that even a junior level there are grounds our team (who like to play it on the ground) play better at than others. Unfortunately our homeground is one of the crap ones – could explain something…..
regarding the variations in the permissable sizes – I’m sure there are some grounds (more at State League level) that just don’t have the real estate to go to the larger sizes ….try fitting an extra metre per side at Lambert Park without a major infrastructure bill.
Art Sapphire said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Fifa Laws of the Game state -
Dimensions –
Length minimum 90 m – maximum 120 m
Width minimum 45 m – maximum 90 m
International Matches
Length: minimum 100 m – maximum 110 m
Width: minimum 64 m – maximum 75 m
As you can see most professional football teams would play on pitches that meet international requirements.
Here are some examples.
Nou Camp and Siro have dimesions of 105m x 68m
Bernabeu is 107m x 72m
Stamford Bridge is 103m x 67m
Pippinu said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
The range of responses from knowledgeable football people in relation to pitch dimensions goes to show that it’s actually a very complicated subject!!
I initially thought exactly as Towser and Art have expressed it. The top teams aren’t just more technically gifted, you’ll find that they score above avearge an pretty much every count (including fitness, speed, athleticism, etc) – so it would have made sense to me that top teams would prefer wider ptiches and weaker teams narrower pitches.
But – I have come across Vicentin’s view as well – that top teams actually prefer the narrower pitches because they will be more confident of breaking through than the weaker team.
Either way – whatever the truth of the matter is (and personally, I think it’s good that there is no single truth), what I don’t like about it is that there are teams that think along these lines in terms of determining the pitch size – regardless of whether their weak or strong.
I agree with Vicentin that with older grounds, there simply ain’t a metre to spare in any direction. I know of some grounds used in the VPL in Melbourne where houses are visible virtually up to the dugout!!
But speaking more broadly, and in an Australian context (plenty of new pitches, marketing the game, trying to garner interest, etc) – it seems to me – why on Earth is the FFA allowing clubs to formulate pitch sizes intent on strangling games?
Shouldn’t the FFA have an interest in presenting an attractive product to the Australian market place?
It’s just an interesting perspective.
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
See all points also,including Vicentins explanations,but also am inclined to waver on the side of uniformity. Saw poor first touch yesterday at Ballymore(preseason Roar v Jets) by both teams. Wouldnt have made an iota of difference the pitch size.
If we adopt uniformity then all factors technique faster fitter players will even out over a season.
The proverbial “level playing field”.
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Also ,yes in a competitive market like ours the FFA does have a responsibility not just an interest in presenting an attractive product. Primary consideration in my book is improving technique. Pitch size can improve the spectacle not just in this country but throughout the world. Not all football fans are outright purists looking for Messi on his sixpence every match.
Tony Tannous said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Missed that game Vincentin, good to hear Leichhardt is playing better these days.
I have vivid memories of Chris Trajanovski running around Leichhardt with sand flying all over the place. Ditto with Lindsay Wilson and Brett Emerton at Belmore.
Arsenal are the perfect example of a technically proficient team that played great on a compact pitch at Highbury, although I wouldn’t begin to know what the difference in dimensions is between Highbury and Ashburton Grove
Pippinu said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Art
you’re quite right that clubs playing on grounds used for internationals will come within the international ranges – and your examples bear that out.
But interestingly, we see that strong clubs like Chelsea, Inter, AC Milan and Barca are playing with widths of 67 to 68 metres (a relatively narrow pitch), which underscores this point about strong teams choosing to go with narrow pitches (I would see anything at 68 metres or less as narrow, and anything above 72m as wide).
Is there a big difference between 64m and 75m at the elite level?
Yes, absolutely!!! It’s a massive difference.
In pure mathematics, it’s making the ground larger in area by over 16%.
But most importantly, your back 4, for arguments sake, go from guarding channels of 16 metres to guarding channels of almost 19m.
It doesn’t sound like a lot, but in the course of a whole game, it makes a big difference.
If the back four focus on compressing the space in the middle, standing 15m apart, in the narrow pitch, there’s only 9 m either side of them, but in the wider pitch, there’s 15m either side of them – and all of a sudden, that extra 6m either side of the full back starts to look like a yawning gap! (that teams who play with width will try to expose).
Alternatively, if the full backs are marking attacking mids who play with width, the gaps in the middle start to look a bit more penetrable than would otherwise have been the case.
Of course, move beyond the international standard of 75m, and well, your talking about plenty of gaps!!
Personally, I think the greater width provides a greater test of a team’s defensive capabilities and tilts the balance a wee bit back towards the attacking team (which isn’t a bad thing).
Tony Tannous said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
“Saw poor first touch yesterday at Ballymore(preseason Roar v Jets) by both teams. Wouldnt have made an iota of difference the pitch size.”
Towser, did the poor first touches yesterday have anything to do with the quality of the pitch surface, as apposed to the size? or was it the quality of the players in your opinion?
FIsher Price said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
The Emirates has a much larger pitch than Highbury.
Towser said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Tony
Players no doubt about it. The pitch looked from the stand immaculate. Could have been pre season rustiness but this was from Roar players who even in mid season last year had inadequate technique. Also without appearing critical of our own they are Australian born players.
Pippinu said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
I got the impression Towser’s comment was more a reflection on the players than anything else!!
Tony Tannous said | July 20th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
What I’d love to see, and perhaps this a dream, is kids coming through the system being provided the best surfaces to develop their game, and then the best surfaces to strut their stuff on game-day, and this should be consistent rather than sporadic, which it currently is.
It’s a long way away, maybe, but Hodgson’s comments are a reminder, at a tme when we are attempting to improve the overall quality of our football, that players need to right tools.
Maybe then these same home-grown players in five or ten years time will have a more assured touch, in part because they are being developed better and in part because they are being developed on better surfaces.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 20th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
I used to play field hockey and the difference between a grass pitch and an artificial one was staggering. The key difference was that you didn’t have to anticipate what the ball was going to do and therefore could think a move or two ahead whilst waiting for the ball. Once you had the ball it was the same; you could concentrate more on the position of players and potential opportunities and threats and less on ball control. It is amazing what a difference it made both as a game and as a spectacle.
The same follows for football (though as a goal keeper it didn’t particularly help my cause. All hail the cow paddock).
Art Sapphire said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Pip and everybody else who is interested – “Stoke win war over pitch dimensions”
from Teamtalk.com
Rory Delap’s throw-ins will still be causing problems next season after the Premier League rejected appeals to make Stoke widen their pitch.
Stoke claimed 10 home wins in their debut Premier League season as visitors struggled to cope with their physical, high-tempo style and the not-so-secret weapon of long-throw specialist Delap.
The Potters narrowed and shortened their pitch to the minimum size, 100m x 64m, allowed by the Premier League after winning promotion and went on to score eight goals from Delap missiles.
This upset some of their rivals with some claiming all 20 pitches should be the same size, 105m x 68m, as required in the Champions League, but the proposal was rejected at the Premier League chairmen’s conference as it failed to get the two-thirds majority required.
Stoke chairman Peter Coates said: “We were determined to fight our corner on this. We argued that the rules have been in place for many years and, for many years, clubs have decided on their own pitch size to best suit their playing methods.
“It wasn’t just one club in favour of this proposal, but we put our case very strongly and spoke to a number of clubs beforehand.”
Chief executive Tony Scholes added in the Stoke Sentinel: “Tony Pulis hasn’t decided yet on what size the pitch will be next season, but we wanted to make sure he had the flexibility to choose. Every club has to play to its own strengths and it is perfectly reasonable to decide the size of your own pitch, within the rules of the game.”
Delap’s long-throws set up Stoke goals at the Britannia Stadium against Aston Villa, Everton (twice), Arsenal (twice), Sunderland, Bolton and Middlesbrough.
I checked Stokes stats from last year and they make quite remarkable reading.
Home record – 10 wins 5 draws 4 losses – 22 goals scored, only 15 conceded
(4th best defence for home games in EPL)
Away record – 2 wins 4 draws 13 losses – 16 goals scored, 40 goals conceded
(most goals conceded away from home by any team in the EPL)
By narrowing the pitch to 64m and playing a very physical style they have made it very difficult for superior opponents to score goals at their home ground. Ofcourse, it also helps Delap with his throw-ins.
However, put them on a normal pitch away from home and they struggle.
You have to hand it to Tony Pulis at Stoke as he found a way guarantee EPL surival for his team on a limited budget.
Pippinu said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Art
terrific article!!
Of course, I hadn’t thought of the Delap speciality in the above discussion – good on Stoke for sticking it up ‘em!!
This also gets me thinking of a corrollary, and that’s your corner specialists – get the width to suit the range of your corner specialist, and that means goals!!
I’m not an expert on the subject, and I’ve never really given it any thought to be honest, but you might have a bloke who can swing them in, inch perfect, right on 40 metres – so clearly, you want to be able to use the full width of 75m in that situation – and have have ‘em queuing up at the back post!!
Art Sapphire said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
The problem is Pip – it is easier to narrow a pitch than to widen it.
If you widened a pitch to 75m, throw in and corners will then be taken from the first row in the stand at most grounds
What I found interesting in the piece was how the chairmen of the big clubs wanted uniform pitch dimensions but they could not get the two thirds votes required to make the proposal stick. A victory for the little clubs over the big clubs.
Pippinu said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Art
spot on!
Towser said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
This pitch thing has suddenly taken over my mind. I must admit I’ve never given it much thought a pitch is a pitch is a pitch. But no not at Stoke. Never really considered that clubs adjusted pitch width to the players at their disposal.
What if though Rory Delap gets injured or they change the coach to one whom prefers a more technical approach & buys a new squad of players. Do Stoke change the pitch dimensions to suit?
Is there an opening for an Elastic pitch company? Adjust the pitch to whatever size you want within the rules.
Pippinu said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Towser
it’s a fascinating subject.
As Art has said, I sort of like the fact that Stoke have stuck it up the big clubs (it’s nothing short of a miracle that they finished where they did first season back).
I’m pretty sure that the dimensions are decided at the start of the season and the clubs stick with it for the rest of the season (but I’m not sure if that’s a strict rule, or just more convenient).
But who could ever have imagined that a player like Delap would come along, and have seriously competent, experienced, professional and highly paid defenders (and we’re talking the likes of Rio and Vidic), absolutely bamboozled by the length of his throws.
Once again, for me, it’s a breath of fresh air – the last thing a game needs is defenders so much in control of a game that you know a team is unlikely to score.
As for Stoke pursuing a more technical game, well, to be honest – it looks a long way off!!!
AndyRoo said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
In rugby league certain teams depending on the quality of their halfback would go with the min or max in goal length. I’m not sure if that has now been regulated.
Pippinu said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
AndyRoo
that reminds me that, was it the Storm? who had a shortish in-goal area? Clearly, if that’s the case, the opposition will always struggle with their kicks if their used to the full 10m (as opposed to 6, or whatever it was).
What are the rules for ground dimensions in League? I thought the length would be fairly standard?
In aussie rules, the size and shape of grounds is of a bewildering variablity.
Obviously they are all oval, but some are more oval than others!!
For instance, the MCG is something like 175 long and 160 metres wide at the widest point, i.e. very close to a circle (not surprsing since it was a cricket oval first and foremost).
Some grounds are far narrower, and thus have a truer oval shape.
Some grounds have deep pockets and flanks, such that a shot from the boundary can be very acute, others are not.
The old Waverly ground was an abslutely massive ground, from fence to fence the ground was something like 230 metres long, the playing surface itself was something like 201 metres long.
But then you go the SCG, and the playing surface is something like 151 metres (and even that might be an exaggeration!!)
The SCG is so small that it has inspired a number of innovations: flooding; the combined full forward/centrehalf forward position, and variations of Pagan’s paddock incorporating both of the former elements.
cab711 said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
1st time Ive been to that stadium. Its seen a few years thats for sure. Did any1 notice the Winfield Cup logo ontop of the Grandstand? Looks like ground staff had dropped 100L’s of Roundup on the edge of the field, very poor condition. If I had to guess I would say its a money issue.
Tony Tannous said | July 21st 2009 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
Perhaps we shouldnt even bother about uplifting the standard of ground surfaces – just narrow the pitches and develop some Rory Delaps.
Tony Tannous said | July 21st 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Art, on a more serious note, some really interesting stats re Stoke.
I remember Arsene Wenger being pretty livid after losing away to two Rory Delap missiles early in the season (Arsenal really struggled to defend them and lost 2-1), but of course, when Stoke visited the Emirates on the last day of the season they copped a 4-1 hiding.
From memory the tactic was very effective in the first half of the season, but teams might have worked out how to more effectively defend the tactic later in the season.
Art Sapphire said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Tony – my team West Ham was one of the 4 teams that won away at Stoke last season.
We did not have too much trouble handling Delap’s throw in.
Actually, his throw-ins should be easiers to defend than corners.
But I guess some teams were caught out with the Stoke’s physicality in the box early in the season.
The other impressive thing about playing Stoke is the home support. They are by far the noisiest lot in the EPL.
It will be interesting to see how things go for them this season.
AndyRoo said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Even if their easier to defend than corners…your defending a throw in, where as previously a throw in wasn’t a threatening event.
Players work on their free kicks, but you only want about two free kick takers. Some young uns should be working on their throws too.
It doesn’t have to be ugly football either, by having the ability to throw to the otherside of the field you open up more space and are more likley to be able to get the balll too the feet of a team mate in space.
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
AndyRoo – I think you’re right about opening up possibilities – but the Delap throw ins were something else again last season, it’s amazing to think that absolutely no one in the EPL knew about them!! (or that’s the impression I get)
I reckon it’s great that every now and then, someone or a team can pull a rabbit out of the hat and do something that we’ve never seen before (I honestly can’t remember any player coming remotely close to doing what Delap could do).
Also, I’m all for taking defenders out of their comfort zone!!
Tony Tannous said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Pippinu, while I’m not a big fan of the Rory Delap strategy, I can also see how it can be effective, and the stats support it..
Like you, it is interesting that his throws only really came to light last season given that he’s been knocking-about in the epl with Southampton and Sunderland for much of the decade.
With an Oz context in mind, I often cringe when I see Mark Milligan lining up for a ‘Delap’ – very ineffective in my mind.
Vicentin said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Ok, just checking out this “reply” function ….
Tony, I am of a vintage when I remember every time Australia got a throw-in anywhere near the penalty area the commentators would trot out ” and here come’s Australia’s long throw specialist, Kenny Murphy”. I still cringe when I hear the words “long throw”. Yes, Rory is very effective etc etc but it just brings back horrible memories.
Tony Tannous said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
I’m using the ‘reply’ for the first time as well…
Gee Vincentin, Kenny Murphy…that’s going back a bit. I can’t remember him much as a player, but from memory he might have coached the Knights (Melbourne Croatia) in the NSL.
Vicentin said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
the “reply” function did nothing and now it has disappeared altogether and Tony’s comments are now longer in a pink box….have I broken something?
Art Sapphire said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
I can just see it now – World 2010 – Australia late in the game needs a goal to get out of the group stage.
Mark Milligan does a Delap aiming for Josh Kennedy’s head in the penalty box.
From the resultant scramble, Timmy scores the goal that sends us through.
Tony Tannous said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Art, in 2010 we’ll take it. By 2022, let’s hope our solution is a little more intricate.