More news this past week that artificial sports surfaces are moving increasingly into the mainstream.

First up was the announcement that the Football Association has invested £125m into grassroots football over this past year. A figure not to be sniffed at and of course all investment into this level of the game has to be welcomed.

Sports Management reported that the national governing body’s grassroots investment increased from the £117m invested over 2014/15, with it due to rise further as the implementation of its flagship Parklife project continues to take off.

This is where the traditionalist may begin to a feel slightly less warm to the investment as around £50m is being used by the FA to build 150 artificial grass football sites across 30 cities - with the Premier League and Sport England matching the investment.

With this level of investment potentially available it does beg the question why not put more money into building brand new, top quality natural turf pitches? And alongside this invest more in recruiting and training a new generation of turf professionals?

The report says that the FA recorded a "record revenue" of £370m during the 2015/16 season - so to hear mention of a proportion of that going towards real grass surfaces and the skilled groundstaff who look after them, would have been most pleasing.

The other news of artificial surfaces gaining a higher profile in mainstream sport was the report on ESPNcricinfo which suggested that the ECB is considering the possibility of using artificial pitches in its proposed new T20 competition.

The report says that the ECB may want to use artificial pitches in this competition as it would be advantageous to batsman to score more runs and hence attract a larger audience and viewership. ESPNcricinfo says that Chris Wood, the ECB's Pitch Consultant, has been charged with researching how to introduce such surfaces ahead of the launch of the competition in 2020. It also says that Chris is looking into the best options and cost implications of laying such pitches close to the middle of squares in all first-class grounds.

The report goes on to discuss what they see as the pros and cons of the proposal. They say it will help in providing homogeneous conditions and decrease the chances of the bowlers to extract any help from the pitches. It will also enable the ground to provide centre-wicket pitches as required by the broadcasters. The artificial surfaces will provide uniformity of conditions to both the teams.

Drop-in surfaces have also been considered for the same, but they do not necessarily provide such uniform surfaces and they are not seen as cost-effective.

The cricket fan in me has immediate reservations about this idea. How anything which makes the game 'homogenous' can ever be seen as desirable I find hard to accept. The ECB would argue though that it's not people like me who they are trying to attract - it's the masses who currently don't watch cricket and have thus far been immune to the game's charms. If a game is full of boundaries, and less susceptible to inclement weather conditions, the potential audience who it can appeal to could greatly increase is the argument.

I know some traditionalists don't like T20 cricket full stop. To me it's a fun, differently enjoyable version of the sport, which no doubt has brought a new generation of fans and players to the game. But how much more big hitting and run-filled can the game be made before it tips over from being exciting to utterly boring? Why not just bring the perimeter rope in by 20 yards if that's the desire?

Even in a 20 over game, a traditional pitch still has an influence over the match result. It can add to the unpredictability, tension, surprise and shocks of the game.

What a shame it would be to lose all that.