The Wembley Stadium pitch: A hallowed turf or a fallowed turf?

Ever since the construction of the new Wembley Stadium reached completion in 2007, the pitch has been severely criticised for its quality and how often it has been needed to be relaid. The facts don't look pretty for the new home of the English national football team, especially after being way over budget, with the actual cost of the stadium amounting to £798 million. Couple this with the length of time it took to finish the project, over seven years, critics and the public were already skeptical about how worthwhile the new arena would be.

After being nearly a year behind schedule, Wembley Stadium made its debut as host of the 2007 FA Cup final. Since then it was been relaid ten times, most recently in March 2010, less than three years after it was first opened. With ten times seeming an extraordinary amount of times to relay a pitch in this sort of timespan, and an 11th time is in the pipeline after talks last week, there is clearly something fundamental wrong with the state of the turf and its longevity.

One of the main reasons as to why this pitch is in such poor shape and has been needed to be relaid so often is that Wembley is not just host to football games, but also to other events, some of which can be described as "unfriendly" to grass. These occasions are held as a result of the extortionate cost of the arena, and so are seen as ways of recouping the money spent on the stadium to ensure it was not a financial loss. Some of these events include concerts and also high profile games for other sports, such as rugby union, American football and even motorsport.

All these have taken their toll on the grass, and it has been reported that the fortunes of the pitch will not be changing anytime soon, with the turf needing to be replaced approximately seven times a year right up to 2023. With the impending future of the stadium meaning it will still remain a multi-purpose one for the next thirteen years at least, will there ever be a solution for the poor state of the turf?

Each time the pitch needs to be relaid it costs £90,000, so this can only slow down the process of recouping the huge cost of the stadium. However, some people have argued that Wembley can be a multi-purpose stadium and retain a high quality pitch, with the Millenium Stadium being a good example. This Welsh arena, along with the Parken Stadium in Denmark, have managed to hold numerous events while never encountering the huge issues that Wembley have with their pitches, so this proves that the problem at the London venue is very much an individual one.

Wembley's high stands and roof have been blamed for the pitch not recieving enough sunlight and wind so it can become the same quality as the arenas just mentioned, but with careful planning and preparation this could easily be solved say many critics. There is also the danger of athletes suffering injuries, as it was reported during the recent Portsmouth versus Tottenham Hotspur semi final that players lost their footing as the grass cut up beneath their feet. Clearly a bad pitch does not just reduce the quality of a sport but also makes it more of a danger to whoever plays on the surface.

So what does the management of Wembley Stadium have to do to ensure that the pitch returns to the quality of the old Wembley, where it was envied all around the world? The extra sporting and musical events are obviously having a huge effect on the state of the turf, with the Superbowl in 2007 having a significant impact, as the grass hadn't recovered in time for the football match between England and Croatia a month later. As the future of the arena has already been decided as a multi-purpose venue, it is apparent that there will need to be a better team of groundsmen and experts to tackle and overcome the constant issues that face the pitch today.

However, ask any top footballer, and they will still tell you that one of their dreams will be to play at Wembley, no matter how critical people are of the pitch. Unless the turf improves, the question has to be asked, how long can the Wembley Stadium's reputation go untarnished before the state of the pitch overshadows the home of English football?

Second Album Syndrome

Musical talent has flourished in recent years, with bands such as MGMT, Friendly Fires and Passion Pit emerging from the undergrowth to produce critically acclaimed debut albums. Before these releases, all of these bands were an unknown quantity, only known of by the most die hard of music fans. However, many of these sorts of bands have been and gone, and failed to live up to the hype of their first albums. The Stone Roses are one of many big name casualties, with their first effort recently being voted in a NME poll as "The Greatest British Album Of All Time", while their follow-up, with a somewhat bland name, The Second Coming, sank without a trace. It also failed to appeal to our American friends across the pond, and this huge disappointment ultimately led to the band's break up two years later. The Knack, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Reverend And The Makers and The Killers have also suffered similar fates, however The Killers did bounce back and record a very successful third LP.

On the other hand, it is not all doom and gloom for bands wondering what direction to go in with their second album, with bands such as the Kaiser Chiefs, Kasabian and Paolo Nutini posting triumphant returning releases. Oasis is a familiar name that avoided crashing and burning by following up their outstanding debut Definitely Maybe with an arguably better record, (What's The Story) Morning Glory?
So what is it about sophomore albums that cause some thriving bands to capitulate and others to well...carry on thriving? Is it the added pressure to do as well, or even better, than their first collection of tracks, or pressure from record companies to produce music that is radio friendly and more mainstream, therefore maximising album sales? Or is it the pressure from record labels to rush out a second album right after the success of the first? There may never be a clear answer, but unpacking the theories surrounding the "sophomore slump" is a fine start.

No matter how good the band is, there is always a sense of anxiety surrounding an artist's second LP, perhaps that, unlike seasoned bands who can afford a weak release mid-way through a career, a poor follow up could end a promising band's confidence, and with that, their career. MGMT are a good example, with their well publicised defiance to not follow the paths of others and produce more radio friendly music in their follow up, but to develop their own sound, also refusing to release any singles, preferring fans to enjoy their forthcoming album, Congratulations, as a whole. This thinking can only be helped by their obvious discomfort with being in the musical spotlight, and while this is certainly not a bad thing, it is not something the public are used to. As a result the album may not appeal to the majority, but on the flip side could also be a victorious project against what is seen as the pressurised norm.

The BBC Sound Of... is a yearly poll that is carried out by various critics and creates a list of the most promising new talent the world has to offer, starting back in 2003, and this is an ideal place to observe how bands who were once heralded as musical saviours have performed since they made the list. Out of all the previous BBC Sound Of... polls, there are a few big names that seem to have struggled since their debuts. The Magic Numbers, although only finishing tenth in 2004, brought out their debut album, The Magic Numbers, in 2005, and it was quickly praised, while also being commercially successful, and thus the group released a quick follow up to this in 2006. However, that never came close to reaching the heights of their first, and consequently have produced nothing since, and this may be because their sophomore was never seen as a worthy successor.
Electric Six have also dropped out of the mainstream after coming second in the 2003 Sound Of... poll, releasing their huge debut the same year, Fire. Even though afterwards they disappeared into the wilderness, they are still making music with their seventh album in development, proving that there is obviously still a market for bands that have become less commercially successful. As a result this shows that it does not spell the end for bands who cannot again hit the financial highs of their debuts.
On the contrary, Franz Ferdinand have gone from strength to strength, developing their sound to fit current tastes, and even headlined the "Other Stage" at Glastonbury last year. On this basis, it may just be a case of certain bands worrying about how their music will fit an ever-changing culture, and how to balance their own raw sound with "commercial friendliness".

It can be seen that there is a varied success rate amongst the bands of today, and albums are far more scrutinised than they were back in the 1960s and 1970s where it sometimes took bands a few albums to find their musical feet. Record Companies also heap pressure onto bands to quickly rush out a second offering, especially if the first LP is hugely successful. Consequently, this pressure and the constant media hype could be the downfall of some bands, getting the patiently waiting public worked up for an album that is lower than the anxious expectations, and as a result, the record is panned. However there have been times where album sales haven't been everything, with The Strokes' second offering, Room On Fire, not recieving the same commercial warmth as Is This It, despite it containing one of their biggest hits, Reptillia. Despite less album sales than their first effort, it is considered by critics as a worthy follow up and must-have for everyones record collection.

New bands could do no wrong either by adopting the attitude The Killers have shown, by replying to huge criticism of their second album with a record that could be seen as equal to their debut, whilst also containing one of the anthems of 2008, Human. If more bands and artists had this mindset, then for every poor second album, there could be a stunning third.

We may not be any closer to discovering an answer to this issue, but there are many points to consider and think about. The pressures of todays society coupled with too much hype could easily be thrown forward as the resolution for this debate, and while this could be the majority of the reason for bands failing to produce at the second time of asking, there are other factors. Other ingredients such as the individual worries and dilemmas over whether to stick with the sound that thrust them into the limelight, or to develop it and become more "mainstream", can also be included. Whatever bands decide to do with their sophomore albums, there'll always be frustrating flops and continued successes, but for now, the debate rages on...