Analysis Corner: Life's a pitch
By Dougie Wright (@dougie_wright)
In any given game of football, the focus is usually on the managers and the players. That makes sense: these are the people whose abilities and decisions will decide the result of the match. However, it should be remembered that there are other factors at work too. One that often goes unnoticed is the pitch.
SPFL rules give clubs a decent amount of wiggle room in terms of how large a pitch is allowed to be.
Furthermore, clubs now have the option to play on an artificial surface. Of the twelve clubs in the league, only Hamilton and Kilmarnock have chosen this option.
Bearing that in mind, it’s interesting to see what kind of effect these different pitch types can have on both the hosts and their visitors.
Of the two teams to play on an artificial surface, we see contrasting effects. Last season, Hamilton were saved by their home form. Of their 35 points total, 25 of these came at New Douglas Park (as did their playoff final win over Dundee United).
On the other hand, Kilmarnock actually took more points outside of Rugby Park than they did at it. Both Hamilton and Kilmarnock train at their respective stadia, so it’s strange to see such contrasting effects. A decent guess would be that a combination of Killie’s mid-season change of manager and January shopping spree led to the team not really appreciating the ubiquity of the Rugby Park pitch.
As well as being artificial, Rugby Park is also the joint smallest pitch in the league. At 100 metres long and 64 metres wide, it’s 5 metres shorter and 4 metres narrower than most other pitches. Kilmarnock’s ground shares this honour with Tynecastle, where residents Hearts certainly benefit from keeping the pitch nice and cosy.
Only Aberdeen, Celtic and Rangers took more points at home last season than Hearts. Indeed, this perceived advantage was recognised by new coach Craig Levein, who insisted on cutting the Murrayfield pitch size to match that of Tynecastle during their tenancy at the home of Scottish rugby.
However, this has certainly come at a cost. Last season, Hearts played eleven games at “normal” size grounds. They took a total of five points from these games. While it makes a certain degree of sense to manipulate the pitch in your favour, it defeats the point if the team is then unable to adapt to regular surfaces.
On the other hand, there are certain teams in Scotland who just can’t handle these smaller pitches. Rangers played four games at Rugby Park and Tynecastle last year, and were rewarded with just two points for their efforts. Under Mark Warburton, the Govan side were renowned for playing a patient passing game that relied on the full width and length of the field. However, their adaptability was shown to be lacking when the pitch became much smaller.
The jury is still out as to whether playing about with your pitch makes a difference. In the case of Hamilton, you could make an argument that they only avoided relegation on the basis of training and playing on the same artificial surface. However, you could also say that this made them hopeless away from home.
That being said, just because you can’t prove an effect exists doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be mindful of it. As we’ve seen in Rangers case, the pitch might have more of an effect than we’d think
For more analysis like this, follow Dougie on Twitter (@dougie_wright)