The Wembley pitch

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Good ol' Trev (Brooking)

 

I'd be f***ing livid if we'd lost the FACSF partly due to a slip because the pitch was (known to be) s***

 

It was not only Michael Dawson, the Tottenham Hotspur defender whose crucial slip led to Portsmouth's opening goal, who was left red-faced by a Wembley pitch that his manager, Harry Redknapp, later labelled "a disgrace" on Sunday.

 

The head of the organisation that represents UK groundstaff yesterday said criticism of the Wembley surface, which continued with a fierce onslaught from the PFA chief executive, Gordon Taylor, was damaging their image and called for an independent inquiry utilising expertise from across the industry to solve the problem once and for all.

 

Taylor and Redknapp joined a growing list that includes Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsène Wenger and David Moyes who have criticised the surface over the past year. The Spurs striker Peter Crouch said the state of the surface was "ridiculous". Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti, perhaps unsurprisingly given his team's record at the new Wembley, proved a rare exception yesterday when he said the pitch was "not a problem".

 

England fans fear the friendly against Mexico on 24 May will turn into yet another inquest if it results in further injury scares. There is a rugby union match at the stadium this weekend, followed by a heavy May programme that includes the Football League and Blue Square Premier play-offs and the FA Cup final.

 

"The pitch is a big concern," Taylor said. "It is becoming an embarrassment for the FA and it needs to be addressed and addressed properly. There is no point worrying about the finances of Wembley if people are going to be wary of playing there because the pitch is not up to it and you don't get a fair contest."

 

A pitch that has been relaid 10 times, and is typically criticised for being slow, heavy and treacherous, has faced increasingly trenchant complaints from managers and players in recent months. After the Carling Cup final James Milner claimed it was worse than many non-league pitches.

 

The number and variety of events held at the national stadium, partly to help pay off the £757m spent building it, are part of the problem. But that is just one of a range of factors cited by experts as possible causes of the malaise, including the number of times it has been relaid and the amount of wind at pitch level.

 

Fabio Capello, the England manager, raised concerns about the use of the pitch for rugby union before the Egypt friendly and the decision to let Saracens play Harlequins at Wembley this weekend was believed to have been a factor, albeit a minor one, on the list of frustrations in the weeks leading up to Ian Watmore's dramatic departure as FA chief executive.

 

The issues add credence to the claims of Steve Welch, the former groundsman who carried the can for the last but one bout of sustained criticism, that the problems cannot simply be laid at the door of the ground staff. Following his departure he claimed not enough attention had been paid to the pitch during the tortuous construction period and that it had been laid unnecessarily early.

 

The Sports Turf Research Institute, which helped oversee the original laying of the pitch and took on an expanded role following the departure of Welch, is well respected but appears unable to have found an answer. Geoff Webb, the chief executive of the Institute of Groundsmanship, suggested the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd may have to fundamentally rethink their business model if the problem is to be resolved.

 

"Many Premier League stadia serve as excellent examples of football surfaces," he said. "Their playing surfaces are clearly sacrosanct and non-football events are limited in scope and nature. Surfaces are not replaced regularly; they are managed and maintained year-round to a very high level."

 

Wembley has hosted everything from motor racing to ice skating as its operators have searched for profitable events to fill out a calendar of football matches and pop concerts that have re-established it as one of the best known venues in the world. It is believed executives are examining other ideas that would reduce the reliance on big-name rock acts.

 

The need to keep servicing the loans that were taken out to build it make it vital that Wembley continues to host a range of money spinning events. Already, the FA is committed to subsidising WNSL to the tune of around £20m a year until at least 2012.

 

"Is it chicken or egg? We would see the pitch as the altar and you build the church around the altar. But unfortunately, with commercial pressures these days, you build the church first and put the altar in later," said Webb.

 

Yesterday Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA's director of football development, denied that the use of the stadium for non-football events was a major factor. "I don't think that's the particular issue. It has to have other events to pay its way but, if you do have those, how frequently can you change the pitch? We put a pitch down which worked pretty well the latter part of last year. This one didn't, so what was different on this one?" he said.

 

"It's something we want to get right but some of the bigger league clubs have had their problems earlier on [with new stadiums] and it's something we have to hope the technical people will get right."

 

The Emirates is frequently cited as an example of a stadium that did just that, involving pitch experts from the earliest stages and employing the Desso Sports Systems technique of injecting 20m artificial fibres into the natural grass to help strengthen the playing surface. But it is unsuitable for Wembley due to the need to frequently take the pitch up. There is currently a two-month gap between Green Day playing on 19 June and the Challenge Cup final on 28 August that might provide a window for yet another rethink.

[Buzz]

I'm going to Green Day so will dig a bit up and have a goooooood look at it.

[Sion]

Serves them right for having the semis there in the first place.

[Epic Swindle]

The whole ground is crap and a massive waste of wedge.

[Buzz]

The whole ground is crap and a massive waste of wedge.

Yeup, when you think about what they could have done or got for the money, it's even more f***ing ridiculous. I aint been there or Emirates, but a couple of mates who have done both prefer the latter and one of them is a Spurs fan!!!!!

[Sion]

Should have just adapted Twickenham so you could do that thing where you remove the pitch under the stands and saved £700m to develop the piss poor grass roots football programme in this country.

[Cobs]

Yeup, when you think about what they could have done or got for the money, it's even more f***ing ridiculous. I aint been there or Emirates, but a couple of mates who have done both prefer the latter and one of them is a Spurs fan!!!!!

 

i've been to both and Wembley is much better, maybe not £300m better but still...

 

Should have just adapted Twickenham so you could do that thing where you remove the pitch under the stands and saved £700m to develop the piss poor grass roots football programme in this country.

 

 

was that ever feasible?

 

and if the RFU told the FA to get f*cked?

or residents of Twickenham told the FA to get f*cked?

or Twickenham Council told the FA to get f*cked?

 

 

 

 

what's really annoying about all of this is that even with Semi Finals being played there we've not 'qualified' for one match there yet. Can't wait for our fans to take the place by storm, one day....

[Sion]

 

 

 

was that ever feasible?

 

 

I have no idea

and if the RFU told the FA to get f*cked?

I can't imagine the RFU rejecting any proposal if they were offered a % of the gates.

or residents of Twickenham told the FA to get f*cked?

or Twickenham Council told the FA to get f*cked?

they already have the rugby there, can't see much of a difference with 12-15 more games a season

[Cobs]

 

I can't imagine the RFU rejecting any proposal if they were offered a % of the gates.

 

 

 

In May 1998, the Rugby Football Union board turned down an approach from the FA to stage football matches at Twickenham.

 

 

 

 

 

they already have the rugby there, can't see much of a difference with 12-15 more games a season

 

multiplied by 80,000 extra people on your doorstep on each occasion and you can't see a difference?

[Raj]

i've been to both and Wembley is much better, maybe not £300m better but still...

 

I've been to both too and I agree.

[Cam]

When the Olympics stadium is done they should just move all the concerts & crap to there and keep Wem-ber-lee for the football, rugby & gridiron.

 

That said, it makes little sense to have a) both of the stadiums anyway and b) for them not to be used week-in week-out by the likes of Spurs & West Ham. I'd be jealous as **** if they were but if they paid through the nose for them I'd accept it as best realistic scenario.

[Gerry]

they already have the rugby there, can't see much of a difference with 12-15 more games a season

 

haha I take it you don't know a lot about the residents of Twickenham then?

[John am Rhein]

I'd be f***ing livid if we'd lost the FACSF partly due to a slip because the pitch was (known to be) s***

 

yeah, but I'd be delighted if Spurs did

[Eskimo]

haha I take it you don't know a lot about the residents of Twickenham then?

 

Also pissed up footy fans v pissed up rugby fans, big big difference..

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

yeah, but I'd be delighted if Spurs did

indeed. And I am