The strike called by NISO last month was mainly concerned with the standard employee contracts and the right for players to choose their own equipment, but perhaps the one area where the labour union for Norwegian sports athletes has been most vocal is the almost unilateral introduction of artificial pitches in Norwegian top-flight football. The Norwegian F.A. – NFF – recommend that all new stadium projects should include an artificial surface. This much to the dismay of many players and NISO who, quite rightly, has real concerns around the lack of information about the long-term risks that a constant use of artificial pitches may pose.
However, some context is necessarily. Even when I last graced artificial pitches in Norway almost ten years ago as a goalkeeper they were frequently softer and more comfortable than many grass pitches. Whereas I often needed long trousers or padding on hard grass pitches, the tiny pieces of rubber covering modern artificial pitches meant that even with no protection there were limited damages to my thighs and knees when I flapped at various shots and crosses. It’s a technology that is constantly evolving and Norwegian clubs does always seek out the most state-of-the-art surface.
The attraction for NFF and the clubs is obvious. A harsh winter climate makes most grass pitches in Norway virtually unplayable from around November/December to March. Even with the under soil heating and constant care given to grass pitches at the top level, the playing surface will usually not hit peak condition until June/July. With the introduction of two more Tippeligaen teams from the 2010 season the league most now accommodate 30 games, pushing the natural barriers of when football can be played. This year’s start of 18th of March the earliest ever recorded. If all or most clubs were to introduce artificial pitches not only would a future expansion of the league become possible, Norway could also conceivably switch to a autumn/spring season with a long winter break, as is being operated in the slightly more southern and milder climate of Denmark.
That would also eliminate what many argue is the inconvenient truth of NFF's warm support for the project; that having an artificial home pitch gives you an advantage over teams who play their home matches on grass.
It's not difficult to find arguments against this, the most obvious being that there has still not been a Norway league champion whose home turf isn't grass. In addition, while there are six Tippeligaen teams this season who play on artificial pitches, all the other clubs use them throughout the pre-season months and over a third of all away games this season will be held on artificial pitches. In addition, all but the oldest players in the league would have virtually grown up on the surface, so widespread has it become throughout the country, making it inconceivable that any player wouldn't be familiar with the surface.
And yet still there are some interesting stats which points to the continuous improvement of the ‘artificial’ teams compared to the ones that play on natural grass. The third placed team in the last three seasons have all had artificial home pitches and this season has seen some very intriguing patterns emerge.
After most teams have played ten games the top four places are taken by Tromsø, Strømsgodset, Aalesund and Stabæk, all teams with an artificial home surface. Another non-grass club, newly promoted Sarpsborg, is doing much better than expected in 7th place and have quite an astounding record, winning 4 out of their 5 home matches, while only getting two points in five away games.
Tromsø and Strømsgodset has an identical home record, winning 5 and drawing one, with both their draws at home coming against another ‘artificial team’. Away they have only achieved three points each from three games, their four games against ‘grass teams’ resulting in two draws and two defeats.
All in all, after ten matches the ‘artificial teams’ has a distinctly different home record than the teams with grass pitches. At home, they have played 32 games, won 21, drawn 4 and lost 7, a total of 2.1 points per game. The ‘grass teams’ have a combined home record of 41 games, won 14, drawn 11 and lost 16, a total of 1.4 points per game*.
So a quirky, freakish stat or evidence of the advantage in having an artificial home pitch? There are certain some abnormalities in the stats. For example, Stabæk does not only play on an artificial surface, but their stadium is also indoors. Yet their away record is significantly better than at home, even with all but one of their travels being to grass pitches. They’ve lost three home games, two of them to ‘grass teams’. Those teams were Lillestrøm, who beat them 7-0 and the then bottom placed Sogndal, who secured their first win of the season at Stabæk. Similarly, the last team with an artificial home ground, Odd Grenland, have been equally bad wherever they have played, but still with a marginally better away record. The four teams expected to challenge for the title before the season started, Molde, Rosenborg, Vålerenga, Viking and Molde, have all had starts ranging from decent to terrible. With all of them normally playing on grass, their collective dip in form is another explanation for the stat.
So no conclusive evidence yet about the potential advantageous of artificial pitches, but it is a debate which will be a constant presence in Norwegian football discourse in years to come. In Tromsø, Strømsgodset, Aalesund and Stabæk there is still a genuine possibility that this season will be dominated by teams playing on an artificial surface. The current front-runner Tromsø may not only secure their first title, or the first league championship for a team from the north of Norway, they might also add first ‘artificial’ champion to their potential historic achievement.
However, some context is necessarily. Even when I last graced artificial pitches in Norway almost ten years ago as a goalkeeper they were frequently softer and more comfortable than many grass pitches. Whereas I often needed long trousers or padding on hard grass pitches, the tiny pieces of rubber covering modern artificial pitches meant that even with no protection there were limited damages to my thighs and knees when I flapped at various shots and crosses. It’s a technology that is constantly evolving and Norwegian clubs does always seek out the most state-of-the-art surface.
The attraction for NFF and the clubs is obvious. A harsh winter climate makes most grass pitches in Norway virtually unplayable from around November/December to March. Even with the under soil heating and constant care given to grass pitches at the top level, the playing surface will usually not hit peak condition until June/July. With the introduction of two more Tippeligaen teams from the 2010 season the league most now accommodate 30 games, pushing the natural barriers of when football can be played. This year’s start of 18th of March the earliest ever recorded. If all or most clubs were to introduce artificial pitches not only would a future expansion of the league become possible, Norway could also conceivably switch to a autumn/spring season with a long winter break, as is being operated in the slightly more southern and milder climate of Denmark.
That would also eliminate what many argue is the inconvenient truth of NFF's warm support for the project; that having an artificial home pitch gives you an advantage over teams who play their home matches on grass.
It's not difficult to find arguments against this, the most obvious being that there has still not been a Norway league champion whose home turf isn't grass. In addition, while there are six Tippeligaen teams this season who play on artificial pitches, all the other clubs use them throughout the pre-season months and over a third of all away games this season will be held on artificial pitches. In addition, all but the oldest players in the league would have virtually grown up on the surface, so widespread has it become throughout the country, making it inconceivable that any player wouldn't be familiar with the surface.
And yet still there are some interesting stats which points to the continuous improvement of the ‘artificial’ teams compared to the ones that play on natural grass. The third placed team in the last three seasons have all had artificial home pitches and this season has seen some very intriguing patterns emerge.
After most teams have played ten games the top four places are taken by Tromsø, Strømsgodset, Aalesund and Stabæk, all teams with an artificial home surface. Another non-grass club, newly promoted Sarpsborg, is doing much better than expected in 7th place and have quite an astounding record, winning 4 out of their 5 home matches, while only getting two points in five away games.
Tromsø and Strømsgodset has an identical home record, winning 5 and drawing one, with both their draws at home coming against another ‘artificial team’. Away they have only achieved three points each from three games, their four games against ‘grass teams’ resulting in two draws and two defeats.
All in all, after ten matches the ‘artificial teams’ has a distinctly different home record than the teams with grass pitches. At home, they have played 32 games, won 21, drawn 4 and lost 7, a total of 2.1 points per game. The ‘grass teams’ have a combined home record of 41 games, won 14, drawn 11 and lost 16, a total of 1.4 points per game*.
So a quirky, freakish stat or evidence of the advantage in having an artificial home pitch? There are certain some abnormalities in the stats. For example, Stabæk does not only play on an artificial surface, but their stadium is also indoors. Yet their away record is significantly better than at home, even with all but one of their travels being to grass pitches. They’ve lost three home games, two of them to ‘grass teams’. Those teams were Lillestrøm, who beat them 7-0 and the then bottom placed Sogndal, who secured their first win of the season at Stabæk. Similarly, the last team with an artificial home ground, Odd Grenland, have been equally bad wherever they have played, but still with a marginally better away record. The four teams expected to challenge for the title before the season started, Molde, Rosenborg, Vålerenga, Viking and Molde, have all had starts ranging from decent to terrible. With all of them normally playing on grass, their collective dip in form is another explanation for the stat.
So no conclusive evidence yet about the potential advantageous of artificial pitches, but it is a debate which will be a constant presence in Norwegian football discourse in years to come. In Tromsø, Strømsgodset, Aalesund and Stabæk there is still a genuine possibility that this season will be dominated by teams playing on an artificial surface. The current front-runner Tromsø may not only secure their first title, or the first league championship for a team from the north of Norway, they might also add first ‘artificial’ champion to their potential historic achievement.
*This is a stat based on a previously version taken from a twitter discussion between @bjornarpet and @fotballanalyse
No comments:
Post a Comment