Blind Hammer asks if the below par performance against Hull can be attributed to the new pitch.
By common consent West Ham did not look fit and energetic enough against Hull. Whilst the energy level against Burnley was not great, they dipped alarmingly against bottom of the table Hull and for large sections of the game West Ham were second best. Hull, like West Ham, had played 3 days earlier against Tottenham, but their Wednesday night exertions did not appear to sap anywhere near as much energy out of their game as it did us.
This has led to speculation, not least in the In Stadium commentary service that the pitch must be at least partly to blame for the struggles West Ham are facing in trying to physically compete.
It is not hard to see the logic of this argument. If there is a characteristic of the pitch which is making life difficult for West Ham then having to play on a difficult pitch twice in 4 days is likely to place West Ham at a physical disadvantage in the second game at least. The argument goes that the second team, in this case Hull, will be more refreshed from not having to play on a difficult surface.
So what could this problem be with the new pitch? The most cited difference between our new pitch and the pitch at Upton Park is the increased size.
At Upton Park we had a pitch that was 100 meters long and 64 meters wide. According to West Ham information on the new stadium the new pitch is five metres longer and four metres wider than at Upton Park, giving a new size of 105 by 68metres.
The West Ham website proudly informed us that we therefore have a pitch which is equivalent to that at Arsenal and Manchester United. This is slightly misleading, implying we have infrastructure placing us amongst the elite. Whilst it is completely true we have a pitch size equivalent to that at Arsenal and both Manchester United and City, it is also equivalent to the pitches at Southampton, Sunderland, Swansea, West Bromwich Albion and actually Hull themselves. This does seem to partly explain Hull’s comfort in playing on a pitch size at the London Stadium; they do it every other week.
In fact West Ham must be more used to playing on pitches equivalent to their new stadium than not. In 2012 the Premier League attempted to standardise pitch size to 105 metres by 68 meters. .” (Rule K21). Exceptions were however allowed if physical limitations made it impossible to comply. Tottenham are one of the clubs who are exempted.
However what the existence of this rule means is that any attempt to now amend the size of the pitch at the London Stadium would be illegal. However the fact that this is not, as has been suggested, a “big pitch” but actually a standard size pitch makes it makes it more likely than not that attributing pitch size to West Ham recent difficulties is a red herring.
So if the size is not the issue then perhaps we can look at the surface. There may be slightly more mileage here. The club website has also informed us that the new pitch is the same as that which is used at Wembley. There is no doubt that the pitch at the London Stadium will be subjected to more pressures than that which occurs over a normal premiership season. There are plans for the surface to be used all year around, the Stadium will host athletics events, has already hosted major concerts, and is apparently likely to be a venue for both county and international limited over cricket matches. On top of this the stadium is likely to continue to be the London home of Rugby League International matches.
All this suggests that we need a surface which is unusually hard wearing. Mark Hughes commented after Stoke City had achieved a draw at the London Stadium that his players had found the surface difficult to play on. Wembley has also had the reputation over years of being an energy sapping pitch so there may be some truth that the surface is not conducive to an energetic game in the same way as was possible at Upton Park. It I do not know enough about the technology of the pitch in detail to comment authoritatively but again this seems a little bit of a red herring to me.
If we assume that Mark Hughes comment is correct then a surface which opposing sides find difficult should, over time, become an advantage to West Ham as their players become familiar with its challenges. It is conceivable that if the pitch is generally energy sapping then there might be a consequence such as that we saw against Hull, with certain players liking exhausted and well off the pace, Cresswell in particular appeared to be physically struggling.
As a result we may need to learn to rotate our meagre squad resources more when we are faced with playing twice on this surface in a matter of days.
Finally Bilic himself raised a potential difficulty with the pitch in his interview with Gary Linekar. Bilic’s assessed the difficulty as not a concern with the size of the pitch itself but more on the space surrounding the pitch and the consequent sightlines for players. Bilic suggested that this gave almost an illusory, negative, Psychological impact on the players. He suggested that at Upton Park, a player in his own half could “Visualise” motoring from his own half to get into the opposition penalty area to create damage. He suggested that the difficulty of visualising this in the expanded surroundings of the London Stadium may be sapping the confidence of players who need to go on the lung busting runs from deep.
If Bilic is correct then presumably the only solution for this is to move as much training from Rush Green to the London Stadium as possible. The “psychological” barriers must be broken so that any psychological problems encountered will be suffered by unfamiliar visiting teams more than the home side.
If there are genuine difficulties with the pitch and sightlines then it is likely that this will be kept largely in-house and this is probably correct that this should be so. Visiting sides has quite enough of a boost from capitalising on negative stories about the Stadium already. Any remedial work needs needs to be planned and some difficult negotiations with the Stadium Operators should appear as a result.
My own feeling though is that pitch issues are largely red herrings to understanding this team under-achievement against Hull. As I have argued elsewhere we are facing a tactical challenge which has given us classic second season syndrome, allied to injuries to key players and inept summer recruitment. If we start to get recruitment right in this winter transfer Window then excuses about the pitch should fade and die.
COYI
David Griffith
.,
,, .