Is the pitch too small?

[icenoodle]

Serious question dressed in idiot question's clothing...

I was thinking yesterday, watching the team trying to play possession football, is our pitch too small to play that style effectively at home? As far as I can tell from info on the Internet, the OF have 5 yards extra width at their grounds. Has this contributed to us punting the ball up more often than not? Not that the OF don't play eye-bleedingly bad football, mind you, but that's another thing entirely...

[Swanny17]

Serious question dressed in idiot question's clothing...

I was thinking yesterday, watching the team trying to play possession football, is our pitch too small to play that style effectively at home? As far as I can tell from info on the Internet, the OF have 5 yards extra width at their grounds. Has this contributed to us punting the ball up more often than not? Not that the OF don't play eye-bleedingly bad football, mind you, but that's another thing entirely...

 

No. Spurs proved that at Tynie a few weeks back.

[Sraman]

No, as proved by Spurs.

 

Ach, beaten to it.

[William H. Bonney]

If we can master the passing game on a tight pitch like tynie then most teams in the spl will struggle to beat us. We played a good passing game at white hart lane which is a large pitch.

[since.1902]

Serious question dressed in idiot question's clothing...

I was thinking yesterday, watching the team trying to play possession football, is our pitch too small to play that style effectively at home? As far as I can tell from info on the Internet, the OF have 5 yards extra width at their grounds. Has this contributed to us punting the ball up more often than not? Not that the OF don't play eye-bleedingly bad football, mind you, but that's another thing entirely...

 

Check our results this season (minus the spurs game) at home and away and that will answer your question

[magicTs]

Think this is a really interesting and relevant point. It wouldn't necessarily be the case with better players (eg Spurs!) but I definitely think it hurts us at times and particularly the likes of Templeton, Driver and Novikovas. I said after the Scotland v Lithuania game that Novikovas seemed to thrive in the big spaces of Hampden whilst at Tynie these guys are often doubled up on and teams can sit with a solid 4-4 or 4-5 and make things very difficult for us to go wide and get in behind. On its day like the derbies Tynecastle can be a big help when we tend to play at a high tempo but it also handicaps us in other ways for the more mundane matches.

[CJGJ]

Doesn't really matter as it won't and can't change at present.

[Except Today]

It's a very good op kudos

 

Ps wants to change to a more.contenital style of football

 

I think if that is the case shouldn't we be moving training to tynecastle

[cosanostra]

No, we usually seem to play terribly on big pitches like Parkhead, Hampden and Murrayfield.

I think the small pitch suits us to be honest.

[DalryJambo]

The size of pitch at tynecastle has been a problem for us over the last few seasons. It is to easy for teams to come and sit in in two banks of four, and soak up all our pressure, only to hit us on the break get one nil up and sit in again. In the seasons we've done well we would sit in and counter attack, picking teams off as we broke from the back with a mobile attack and runners from midfield.

 

I can't remember the last time we've scored a break-away goal with a through ball and a striker running through.

 

Spurs proved the passing game can work at the ground, but they are obviously a few levels above us.

 

50 years ago, when players weren't as quick and athletic the pitch would have appeared bigger because players couldn't cover as much ground.

 

On a positive note the small pitch works in our favour against the old firm and contributes to the success we have when they come to Edinburgh.

[Saint Jambo]

Would have agreed with this based on our games against Hibs and Aberdeen, but yesterday we played even more narrowly than ther pitch forces us to. We had 5 central midfielders on the park. Black on the right and Obua on the left kept drifting into the centre. In the second half the left looked better, but the right was still horribly exposed. A better team than St Mirren would have ripped us to shreds down the wings.

 

Playing so many central midfielders, most of whom are naturally defensive minded meant that we had no width and very little movement in the centre. The result was that even when passing the ball well we rarely did so with any pace. It was also the reason that playing the ball out from the back so often ended up with the ball going back to McDonald. The defesne lacked options as Black, Obua and Jonsson tripped over each other in front of them.

 

So all in all, need to worry about our skill level, our team selections and our tactics before we start worrying about the pitch limiting us.

[Spellczech]

No, we usually seem to play terribly on big pitches like Parkhead, Hampden and Murrayfield.

I think the small pitch suits us to be honest.

I think you missed the OP's point - he was talking about the new passing style Sergio is trying to bring in, not the hoofball we played under JJ and Csaba.

 

I think a narrow pitch inhibits the usefulness of wingers which doesn't help our squad which has 4 good wingers in it. Having said that good players will find space and a lot of our players over the last few years just stood around being marked when they didn't have the ball. You need your whole team to work hard as if just a few do it then they get picked up and the whole ethos of a fluid passing game is lost.

 

I suspect the size of the pitch is part of the reason Romanov is looking at relocating Hearts away from Tynecastle. Personally I have nothing against a move as long as we get nice steep stands next to a bigger pitch, then that's fine by me. Gorgie has no particular tie for me - was born in Fairmilehead so Hearts are the local team but Gorgie itself is a bit of a dump. Anywhere around south or west of Edinburgh would be fine as far as I'm concerned. Let Hearts open the local bar and benefit that way too, as long as there is plenty of parking and good transport links everyone should be happy.

[Das Root]

The size of pitch at tynecastle has been a problem for us over the last few seasons. It is to easy for teams to come and sit in in two banks of four, and soak up all our pressure, only to hit us on the break get one nil up and sit in again. In the seasons we've done well we would sit in and counter attack, picking teams off as we broke from the back with a mobile attack and runners from midfield.

 

 

This.

[cosanostra]

I think you missed the OP's point - he was talking about the new passing style Sergio is trying to bring in, not the hoofball we played under JJ and Csaba.

 

I think a narrow pitch inhibits the usefulness of wingers which doesn't help our squad which has 4 good wingers in it. Having said that good players will find space and a lot of our players over the last few years just stood around being marked when they didn't have the ball. You need your whole team to work hard as if just a few do it then they get picked up and the whole ethos of a fluid passing game is lost.

 

I suspect the size of the pitch is part of the reason Romanov is looking at relocating Hearts away from Tynecastle. Personally I have nothing against a move as long as we get nice steep stands next to a bigger pitch, then that's fine by me. Gorgie has no particular tie for me - was born in Fairmilehead so Hearts are the local team but Gorgie itself is a bit of a dump. Anywhere around south or west of Edinburgh would be fine as far as I'm concerned. Let Hearts open the local bar and benefit that way too, as long as there is plenty of parking and good transport links everyone should be happy.

 

 

No, I haven't missed his point. I understood it fine.

My view stands. Over my years as a Hearts fan, I always find that we keep many terrible performances for big pitches.

I like the small pitch with the close stands. It's what makes Tynecastle so great.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I think the OP's points a good one, and that's why UEFA want all matches played on bigger pitches, nothing to do with fairness, just that it suits the big teams who all play a passing game. Probably the main reason we aren't so good on big pitches is so obvious it's hardly worth saying, but we play at least 50% of our games on a small pitch so when we try to play on a big pitch....it's different and we're playing against a team used to playing on a bigger pitch.

I remember years ago Rangers played a Soviet Union team, who played a great passing game, and brought in the touchlines by about 5 yards. UEFA went mad and changed the rules so that couldn't happen again.

[DalryJambo]

No, I haven't missed his point. I understood it fine.

My view stands. Over my years as a Hearts fan, I always find that we keep many terrible performances for big pitches.

I like the small pitch with the close stands. It's what makes Tynecastle so great.

 

I think the point is that the way we are forced to play at tynecastle, due to the small dimensions makes it difficult to go to grounds with bigger pitches and do well. If we played all our home games on a bigger pitch I think we would have a better record in Glasgow.

 

I went to ibrox last season for the first time in a while and was amazed by the pitch size, there was so much space behind the defence and in the channels. It must be hard for the midfield and defenders to get used to the gaps and to cover them effectively against the better old firm players.

 

Conversely i think when we've play at Easter road (a team normally closer to our level than the old firm) over the last few seasons our wingers can use the space more effectively to our benefit.

[cosanostra]

I think the point is that the way we are forced to play at tynecastle, due to the small dimensions makes it difficult to go to grounds with bigger pitches and do well. If we played all our home games on a bigger pitch I think we would have a better record in Glasgow.

 

I went to ibrox last season for the first time in a while and was amazed by the pitch size, there was so much space behind the defence and in the channels. It must be hard for the midfield and defenders to get used to the gaps and to cover them effectively against the better old firm players.

 

Conversely i think when we've play at Easter road (a team normally closer to our level than the old firm) over the last few seasons our wingers can use the space more effectively to our benefit.

 

Yeah, I get it.

I think the small pitch gives us an advantage and not the other way round.

[magicTs]

 

Conversely i think when we've play at Easter road (a team normally closer to our level than the old firm) over the last few seasons our wingers can use the space more effectively to our benefit.

 

 

Completely agree with this point. I think some of our best performances played at a high temp have come at Fester as not only have we pressed hard and worked tirelessly we have used the spaces well which have seen the likes of Templeton thrive. If we had a bigger home pitch then I think we woule exploit the poorer teams far more easily as the better quality would shine through. Te bigger games against Rantic and the derbies would take care of themselves as we tend to be far more up for it in any case and the fans certainly make far more effort to have an influence. In short a bigger pitch will definitely be one of the benefits when/if we move from Tynie.

[4marsbars]

Yes the pitch is definitely too small and a good reason for relocating if we could afford it.

[DalryJambo]

Yeah, I get it.

I think the small pitch gives us an advantage and not the other way round.

Funny, and it shows its all opinion, but for long enough I've though its made it harder for us. So many teams come to tynecaslte only to sit in and hit us on the break. We don't have a creative enough midfield anymore to cut through teams so players are forced to pump it long and play off the scraps. If we get an early lead the games open up a bit, but it can be difficult for us to get the break through.

 

This passing game might help open teams up sooner in games if opponents forwards are dragged in to our half and their center mid players are forced to squeeze up a bit to fill in spaces we might be able to make space in the banks of 4 to play the ball about in the middle of the park. But we need players with a good first touch and the ability to pass the ball accurately and quickly.

[cosanostra]

Funny, and it shows its all opinion, but for long enough I've though its made it harder for us. So many teams come to tynecaslte only to sit in and hit us on the break. We don't have a creative enough midfield anymore to cut through teams so players are forced to pump it long and play off the scraps. If we get an early lead the games open up a bit, but it can be difficult for us to get the break through.

 

This passing game might help open teams up sooner in games if opponents forwards are dragged in to our half and their center mid players are forced to squeeze up a bit to fill in spaces we might be able to make space in the banks of 4 to play the ball about in the middle of the park. But we need players with a good first touch and the ability to pass the ball accurately and quickly.

 

Maybe. Interesting point.

[sac]

Disagree about pitch size, during pre-match warm-ups the ball rarely travels any more than a few yards, short passes/quick interchanges one-touch and close control etc.

 

At Old Trafford just now to give an example, ave pass length is no more than 10 yards either in one twos or in triangles with 3 players combining.

If PS concentrates on getting squad comfortable on the ball which is happening but getting them moving quicker off the ball and into space then we'll fare much better.

Thought one or two players looked slow or slightly off the pace yesterday, but pitch too small? no.If you're good enough you should be able to play anywhere.

[DalryJambo]

Disagree about pitch size, during pre-match warm-ups the ball rarely travels any more than a few yards, short passes/quick interchanges one-touch and close control etc.

 

At Old Trafford just now to give an example, ave pass length is no more than 10 yards either in one twos or in triangles with 3 players combining.

If PS concentrates on getting squad comfortable on the ball which is happening but getting them moving quicker off the ball and into space then we'll fare much better.

Thought one or two players looked slow or slightly off the pace yesterday, but pitch too small? no.If you're good enough you should be able to play anywhere.

 

However, with these training drill they make the area smaller as it is harder for the players with the ball to keep it. If you double the area its easier to keep the ball and to find space....which must equate to pitch size during games.

 

But I agree, good quality players could play on anything.

[kingantti1874]

The pitch size never bothered JC or Neil McCann or driver more recently.. This is a myth used to justify selecting 4 centra midfieldl players - 3 of them defensive if anything

[Footballfirst]

Up to the end of the Pieman days the pitch was 98m x 68m. At that time, the length wouldn't meet the proposed UEFA minimum length for Euro ties thus this was one of the reasons given for us to move to Murrayfield. Lengthening the pitch to make it compliant (100m) wasn't a problem in itself, but it would have put the corner flags too close to the floodlight pylons. A compromise was reached by also narrowing the pitch to 64m to ensure that there was enough space in the corners.

 

The 4M reduction in the width has effectively reduced the area of the pitch by 400 square metres.

[Footballfirst]

UEFA's recommended size for international matches is 105m x 68m (115 yards by 75 yards)

[Spellczech]

No, I haven't missed his point. I understood it fine.

My view stands. Over my years as a Hearts fan, I always find that we keep many terrible performances for big pitches.

I like the small pitch with the close stands. It's what makes Tynecastle so great.

yup you missed his point entirely... and it is the steep stands and proximity to the pitch which has been expanded as much as possible between those stands which you are enjoying, not the mere fact that the pitch is small.

[kennyblack'sshot]

The size of pitch at tynecastle has been a problem for us over the last few seasons. It is to easy for teams to come and sit in in two banks of four, and soak up all our pressure, only to hit us on the break get one nil up and sit in again. In the seasons we've done well we would sit in and counter attack, picking teams off as we broke from the back with a mobile attack and runners from midfield.

 

That's not how I remember Hearts playing in 85/86, 97/98 and 05/06. I think those teams took the game to the opposition rather than counter-attacked. The pitch is the same size for both teams and as we play on it more than any other team it should benefit us more often than not.

[Hawick Jambo]

If we moved from Tynecastle to a wider pitch, would we be able to narrow it for the visits by the Old Firm ?

 

I was just thinking about some of the comments on here and its a good debate, but if we currently gain an advantage from the width of Tynie against the OF, would we be able to utilise it again if we moved or would the SPL stop us

[DalryJambo]

That's not how I remember Hearts playing in 85/86, 97/98 and 05/06. I think those teams took the game to the opposition rather than counter-attacked. The pitch is the same size for both teams and as we play on it more than any other team it should benefit us more often than not.

 

I was to young to remember the 85/6 team but as I said the players won't have been as athletic in those days and effectively a pitch of a similar size is smaller these days. That sounds stupid, but as an example FIFA have discussed making the goals bigger because goal keepers are now on average 3-4" taller than a few years ago. I'm also sure if opta were to look at games in the 80's you wouldn't see players covering 10k plus in 90 mins...the game has changed since those days. Rugby players are also bigger and I've read some things about looking in to reducing the number of players on the pitch to make more space.

 

In the 98 team we used macann, Johnston and Cameron bursting on the counter attack on many occasions to unlock teams sitting in. It wasn't the only tactic, but it brought many goals.

 

Under burley we steamrolled teams in the first 20 mins of most games, but tbd we then had a far higher standard of player at our disposal.

 

Most teams come to tynecastle and are happy to get a draw, possibly nic a win and a tight narrow pitch makes that task easier.

 

Assuming we should generally have the better, fitter players (out with the old firm) and obviously going out with the intention of winning all our home games can anyone suggest why we would rather play on a tighter pitch? Other than making it easier for 2 center halves and a holding midfielder to cover for attacking wing backs and possibly spreading play from one side to the other with one pass I can't think of many more.

[oh ah grantona]

No, as proved by Spurs.

 

Ach, beaten to it.

 

Spurs done it with pace and power we dont have that well not yet in matches i have seen with sergio, Also we will never be given the time spurs got from us, but if sergio can get it out of us then great

[david mcgee]

Well if the ammount of cramp and blowing out of their rectums is anything to go by i would say no.

 

Remember being bored enough to check pitch sizes once before and seem to remember Tynecastle aint as small as you would have thunk.

[Francis Albert]

A bit of a red herring IMO. The pitch at White Hart Lane is 100m by 67m compared to Tynecastle's 100m by 64. One and a half metres on each touchline is equivalent to just one and a half strides or so, so it isn't surprising that Spurs looked perfectly at home at Tynecastle.

 

Players movement off the ball is a far bigger factor in playing a passing game.

[world_3]

I was to young to remember the 85/6 team but as I said the players won't have been as athletic in those days and effectively a pitch of a similar size is smaller these days.

 

I remember them well and they were just as fit as today's players. Fought like tigers all over the pitch for the full 90 minutes.

[Dagger Is Back]

Nowt to do with pitch size.

 

It's more a case of

 

Too slow in the build up phase - we look slow and ponderous on the ball and we're not quick enough of mind or foot. When Spurs played us it was like they were playing a game of chess and always two or three steps ahead

Our movement off the ball is shocking - we don't offer ourselves when we're in possession

Our control can be dreadful at times - first touch is clumsy

 

A good team can play on any size of pitch. Poor excuse IMHO.

[cosanostra]

yup you missed his point entirely... and it is the steep stands and proximity to the pitch which has been expanded as much as possible between those stands which you are enjoying, not the mere fact that the pitch is small.

 

Oh dear.

Could you please just not reply to my posts?

I'd really rather not engage you in debate as it's just pointless. You've admitted in the past that you don't even bother to read posts before replying and you usually don't seem to understand them when you do.Then you like to just invent things and pass them off as true. I'm not really meaning in this case but more so in the past. It's really too tedious and frustrating to even try and engage with you so I'd just rather not.

Thanks.

[davemclaren]

A bit of a red herring IMO. The pitch at White Hart Lane is 100m by 67m compared to Tynecastle's 100m by 64. One and a half metres on each touchline is equivalent to just one and a half strides or so, so it isn't surprising that Spurs looked perfectly at home at Tynecastle.

 

Players movement off the ball is a far bigger factor in playing a passing game.

 

 

Correct. Passing is only one aspect. Off the ball movement and pace are the other two that differentiate good teams from mediocre ones. However I'd take getting the passing right for starters.

 

I don't think pitch size has much to do with it.

[Spellczech]

Oh dear.

Could you please just not reply to my posts?

I'd really rather not engage you in debate as it's just pointless. You've admitted in the past that you don't even bother to read posts before replying and you usually don't seem to understand them when you do.Then you like to just invent things and pass them off as true. I'm not really meaning in this case but more so in the past. It's really too tedious and frustrating to even try and engage with you so I'd just rather not.

Thanks.

No probs since you seem to find it too difficult to write what you mean to say. Heaven help us if you're an administrator on this site - no wonder it's become a bit rubbish in the last year...

[cosanostra]

No probs since you seem to find it too difficult to write what you mean to say. Heaven help us if you're an administrator on this site - no wonder it's become a bit rubbish in the last year...

 

Your posts have always been rubbish. It's like trying to converse with Father Dougal or one of the Chuckle Brothers.

Let's us not reply to each other ever again.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Oh dear.

Could you please just not reply to my posts?

I'd really rather not engage you in debate as it's just pointless. You've admitted in the past that you don't even bother to read posts before replying and you usually don't seem to understand them when you do.Then you like to just invent things and pass them off as true. I'm not really meaning in this case but more so in the past. It's really too tedious and frustrating to even try and engage with you so I'd just rather not.

Thanks.

 

 

Your posts have always been rubbish. It's like trying to converse with Father Dougal or one of the Chuckle Brothers.

Let's us not reply to each other ever again.

 

 

 

 

 

[J.T.F.Robertson]

 

 

 

 

So it is! This place is getting feckin worse.