Soccer on 3G vs Natural Grass. What effect does the surface have on the game?
Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge.
– Thomas Edison
Abstract
The 3G artificial turf pitches for soccer (football) are currently the best alternative to natural turf. It could even be considered a greater alternative. In this report, it was discovered that 3G AstroTurf pitches are definitely worth investing in instead of a natural turf pitch. Potential inconveniences, such as risk of injury, were found to be inexistent; injury rates on grass and 3G turfs were practically the same after a study of 2020 athletes. Furthermore, doubts about how realistic the turf is should cease to exist; the components of the artificial turf (such as rubber infill and a shock absorbent pad) ensure a reliable, realistic bounce that mimics grass to a large extent. Issues with finance are also non-existent; the yearly maintenance is considerably lower and the potential for revenue is certainly higher. The impact on the environment is essentially the only downside, with concerns related to CO2 emissions, through disposal of the turf. However, taking into account all factors, it is highly advisable that a club invest in a 3G artificial turf pitch.
Introduction
This report:
• Discusses to what extent it will be worth replacing a natural grass football pitch with a synthetic 3G one, with regards to maintenance, potential injury, environmental issues, and the physical properties of the turf in relation to gameplay.
Background:
• Since its ban from English football in 1998 over concerns that the bounce and roll play, artificial turf has come a long way. By 2001, FIFA declared a quality assurance programme for AstroTurf, and by 2015, Arsenal FC were using a 3G training pitch. Developments such as the 'Engineered System' of stone base, porous tarmac layer, and shock pad have contributed to a wider use and popularity in football. 3G surfaces have been developed to replicate natural turf, with more realistic properties such as reduced ball bounce and increased safety due to low resistance to turning and sliding. However, even with innovation, many still adopt a conservative view regarding the natural grass pitches
Aims:
• To assess to which extent installing a 3G AstroTurf pitch would be worth replacing a natural grass pitch, demonstrating the theory behind advanced 3G properties, compared to a standard grass pitch.
Main Body:
Methods/materials
• Materials were gathered to assess implications such as physical properties of 3G through research via databases such as JSTOR and Google through keywords such as ‘football’ and ‘artificial turf’, ‘injuries’, ‘friction’ and consequently finding examples of articles relating specifically to competitive football, and with third generation football pitches. To assess the physical properties of 3G pitches, results were obtained regarding friction, shock absorption; traction etc. Average cost of maintenance was also obtained from different companies regarding installation costs, repairs etc.
• To begin with, one of the most significant variables with an artificial pitch would be the gameplay and physical properties of a synthetic pitch compared to a grass one. Some key physical properties include friction, shock absorption, traction, and the impacts that the surface could withstand.
Results
Friction:
Synthetic pitches were found to have a greater friction than grass pitches; meaning a faster change of direction for players thus improving the agility of players, quickening the game, however too much friction was found to potentially increase injury risks of acute injury regarding bones, joints, and muscles ; one study found that a foot rotating on 3G would ‘compress its infills or pull them toward outer side of the foot’, lengthening the fibre and increase surface friction, which makes the movement of players harder. Furthermore, the friction coefficient of grass is lower than that of 3G AstroTurf, resulting in a higher friction, however it was found that after a study of 2020 players, during an 8 month season including a 2 month pre season, the rate of acute injury from a grass pitch to a 3G synthetic pitch the rate ratio on artificial turf relative to grass was ‘1.0 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.3; p = 0.72) for match injuries (table 2) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.5; p = 0.93) for training injuries’ , concluding that there was in fact no significant difference between the two turfs, thus showing that concerns regarding safety and friction could be futile.
Impact absorption
For an artificial turf to have greater absorption properties, lengthening impact time and distributing impact force is essential. This can be controlled by the amount of shock pad used underneath the 3G, and also the amount of infill (e.g.- rubber crumb) used. In addition to this, properties of the footwear chosen by the athletes will also have some impact. To test absorption of surfaces, mechanical methods have been used, providing accuracy and reliability, however they do not mimic human movement very effectively, thus, pressure insoles and force plates have also been used to test surface absorption more effectively, even though these methods may show pressure distribution over the foot rather than a more general impact absorption. Nonetheless, it was found that impact forces in running tend to range from around 2-3 times body weight (Frederick 1986; Nigg & Wakeling 2001), impact forces on 3G turfs were found to be roughly 2.3-2.6 times body weight for running and other sports specific movements (Meijer et al. 2006; Müller et al. 2010), hence showing us that the impact absorption for 3G AstroTurf is adequate for competitive, regular use.
Properties of turf in relation to the ball
The makeup of the 3G AstroTurf is designed to mimic natural turf – the sand and rubber crumb infill helps to support the turf, while also reducing the bounce of the football to a realistic height . Longer fibres on the carpet also provide a realistic and reliable ball roll and bounce. Furthermore, football companies such as mitre have developed footballs, which are made specifically for AstroTurf in order to create the most effective, realistic gameplay. Although even after great innovation, many are still sceptical – David Beckham refused to play on an artificial pitch in 2007 for LA Galaxy, however the majority of players are likely to not be as seasoned a footballer as David Beckham to be so particular about turf to play on.
Finance
The BBC stated that the average 3G pitch costs roughly £500,000, however the price will continue to decrease as more and more clubs decide to install artificial pitches. Crusaders F.C., for example, fitted theirs for £280,000. Furthermore, the potential for revenue with a 3G pitch is outstanding, possibly reaching £165,000 a year through practices such as renting out the pitch, for example. This extra cash could be important for a smaller club avoiding bankruptcy.
Environmental Issues
3G AstroTurf has been associated with environmental issues and also health issues for the athlete. Most 3G turfs share a common makeup, including polyethylene and polypropylene. The stabilising infill is made of rubber, and this component causes the most concern regarding the environment, however, providing a shock pad can reduce the amount of infill needed by 50-60% . Currently, the main choice of infill used is SBR, which are effectively used tires, which are broken down into rubber crumb form. The effects on the environment are often accentuated through the choice of the treatment of the material at the end of its life. SBR, the most common infill material, was found to release 200 kg CO2e per square meter when disposed as landfill. It was found to release roughly 600kg kg CO2e per square meter when disposed through incineration, and less than 200 kg CO2e per square meter when recycled . The CO2 emissions have a clear impact with regards to global warming, and the implications, which come with that. Effects of global warming are prominent currently, thus solutions for infill have been made e.g. cork and coconut fiber, however these account for less than 3% of infill used.
Conclusion/Discussion
In conclusion, the installation of a 3G AstroTurf pitch is definitely suitable for any growing club in England. Provided the turf is maintained regularly and doesn’t experience misuse, it is cleaned thoroughly and topped up with fresh infill every 2 years, the surface should last for 10 years, without problems. The solution of a 3G pitch is economically viable; A 3G pitch costs an average of £5,530 a year to maintain, compared with the yearly £48,000 needed for a quality natural grass pitch . Further concerns regarding injury have been disproved; it is clear that rates of injury on grass and artificial turf are extremely similar, and impact forces from running on both surfaces are equally similar. The properties of the 3G are also astoundingly similar to natural turf, and minute differences can be comfortably adapted to through regular use. The only negative factor is the environmental impact, however FIFA are looking to increase solutions regarding the production and disposal of artificial infill.