BBC Home

Explore the BBC

148 comments

user rating: 3 star

THAT Russian Pitch

Euro 2008 England
by Arachnamania (U9532214) 12 October 2007
comment on the article

Just read an interview with Garry O'Connor in the Daily Mail and now I have the fear. Scottish international O'Connor played for Lokomotiv Moscow for a couple of years and said that he played on the plastic pitch of the Luzhniki Stadium 15 or 16 times. He believes that the chances of injury are enormous, and that several Russian league players refuse to play there. He recalls one occasion when the groundsmen laid so much water on the pitch before kick off that his feet were submerged!

As a Newcastle fan I can think of a certain player of ours who I am particularly worried about...

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Oct 16, 2007

piece of pi$$ - take a little off yer passes and you'll be grand...
Stop moaning and get on with it

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007

So you would be happy to have your countries play a crucial match on a surface they arent used too?

I agree that they are supposedly some of the best in international football but why should they be made to play in a condition they havent been in before for a now crucial match for our country?

I know its our teams fault for not getting max points which we have no excuse for so we put our eself in this situation but why cant it be played elsewhere on a proper football pitch?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007

There's definitely too much moaning about this pitch. Let's see:

1) The pitch is according to FIFA and UEFA regulations. Would you rather play on a deep-frozen pitch?

2) The pitch in the Stade de Suisse (where England might well play if they do qualify for Euro 2008) is an artificial pitch as well. So you better get used to it!

3) Some say it's not a 'proper football pitch'. Well, then WHAT is a proper football pitch? It is, as mentioned above, sanctioned by FIFA and UEFA! And why is it unfair that Russia has an 'advantage'? After all, it's their home tie with England. Is it not also an advantage for England to play in a 90,000 seater stadium, and other teams (especially from very small countries) have only 25,000 seaters? Is that not unfair? Why not play in stadiums of all the same size?

4) Those of you that say it's much more difficult to play on an artifical pitch - listen to this: it is different (every pitch, if grass or not, is different from every other pitch!), but football is football. Either you are technically good enough, or you are not. Simple, really.

5) Injuries. Ridiculous to read that it's much more dangerous to play on artificial pitches! In the US it's very common. Young Boys of Berne plays every home game on such a pitch, and they don't have more injuries than any other team. Same goes for the Moscow teams that play in the Luzhniki.

If England is up to it, if they play their game, they can beat Russia. If they don't, then it is not because of the pitch, but solely because the players weren't ready, or good enough.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by koosk (U5618835)

posted Oct 16, 2007

YAWN! PLEASE..Enough with the 'Plastic pitch'. Celtic go to Moscow to play a Champions League qualifier against the club team who play on this pitch as their 'Home' venue.Celtic who have been terrible away from home in Europe get an excellent draw out there and move on.This is England however so therefore we have to remember they are 'Special' in the eyes of the media,so anything bordering on the unusual will be patronised,rubbished,questioned..etc, to death! A result in favour of the Russians will see the pitch as being entirely to blame and UEFA will need to step-in(as all English based media will inform us).A result in favour of England and surely they will be challenging the England rugby team for 'TEAM OF THE YEAR' in the up-coming Sports Personality Of The Year awards,having gone out there and against all the odds,won on plastic! May I suggest they then lay such a surface at the 'ALL NEW' Wembley,since the supposedly fabby surface you now have,compared to the 'OLD' Wembley bowling-green,is a disaster...and maybe your rather poor 'Home' record at the 'ALL NEW' venue will improve.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by BRAND-0 (U5767525)

posted Oct 16, 2007

Maybe I've missed some vital info here, but considering the importance of the competition, why is ANY nation permitted to use an alternative surface?

The Russians will definatley have an advantage - though I conceed it's probably a small one - so it should not be allowed. Do they not have heated pitches in Russia?

Having said all that, I have played on the pitches that England practised on and it's not that different really. There's enough give underfoot too - it pretty darn amazing actually as you can wear moulds without them wearing down almost completely, plus they kind of sink in like a real surface (it's nothing like the astroturf pitches most of us have often used).

The only thing to not do is let the ball bounce. Otherwise, the usual problem of the ball not slowing down when rolling is the main difference - it just keeps it's pace and therefore even a slow rolling ball would probably make to one of the touch lines if left.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007


Agree in the main. It's not so much not letting the ball bounce as being aware of the different properties of the surface.

I've played on good and bad artificial surfaces and by all accounts this one is OK.

More concerned about their players than the pitch!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007

They will have that twelfth man too, I believe 80,000, a hostile crowd will be there and this is no friendly. Big homefield advantage will be there fan base: but this is probably one thing our boys are use to travelling around the Premiere League: and why really, the homefield advantage means sooooo much.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007

Should never have been allowed to happen - if someone gets injured - club vs country will get worse, and rightly so.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007

What's all the fuss about over the pitch. I may be wrong but didn't England play Argentina in the world cup in Japan on an artificial pitch? We played well and beat them 1-0. If we don't get a result then we weren't good enough its as simple as that.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 16, 2007

i'v played plenty times on an artificial pitch, i prefer it lol, i didnt see a difference whatsoever. NO EXCUSE

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 36.36%
    4 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3 27.27%
    3 votes
  • 2 9.09%
    1 votes
  • 1 27.27%
    3 votes

average rating:
3.09 from 11 votes