Sounder/Seahawk brass claim that not just the moisture, it's the lack of sunlight, most months out of the year, the sun does not shine enough on the field. you decide for yourself whether thats believable, but for alot of the winter, sun rises around 8am and goes down around 4pm.
I think the worst part, is that it goes against all the MLS propaganda about putting the game first. If it was about the game first, they'd make sure it could be played at the highest quality possible, and veteran players didn't have an excuse to blow off games due to a fear (founded or not) of getting injured.
I will defer to the PNW residents who have more personal experience in those conditions but I would point out that Scotland is pretty similar in terms of rainfall and worse in terms of sunshine during the winter and they still have grass: http://www.currentresults.com/Weath...and/temperature-rainfall-average-november.php http://www.currentresults.com/Weath...and/temperature-rainfall-average-december.php As far as the injury thing, I don't know what studies people are referring to, but from my own personal experience, I am 29 years old and I play in full-field 90-minute leagues 3 times a week, about once or twice a week on turf and once or twice on grass depending on scheduling. I haven't had a major injury yet but the difference is night and day... my muscles and joints feel awful the day after playing on turf and it takes me much longer to recover than when I play on grass. This is just my own personal experience so I would defer to any studies on the matter.
It all depends on the install. Community fields generally don't use the latest and greatest models and they get a ton more use and they tend to be around for longer. End result is that you can't compare the wear and tear on a player from a community field to that on a professional field. As far as studies, just fire up the google machine and type in grass vs artificial turf and you'll find quite a few. The end result is that the injuries on grass and turf are similar in numbers, with turf having higher skin abrasions than grass, but grass has more serious injuries that cost players more games. Also, the lower leg injuries are different with grass having higher incidents of ankle sprains and strains and turf having more knee injuries.
Except you're ignoring the whole issue with grass getting more ankle injuries and more serious injuries.
Grow lamps? Those will allow photosynthesis, but they don't cause enough evaporation to make a dent. This issue in Portland isn't the quantity/quality of light, its the amount of rain and the lack of evaporation in the winter months.
I also think the use of "more" implies the increased rate is significant, which it isn't. The difference is negligible to the point of being pointless.
Surprised Dessomaster hasn't made its way to the US yet. New England should get grass once they get their own stadium. Portland should get grass, unnecessary to have an artificial surface. Seattle can't help it that they play on carpet. Vancouver will never be able to get grass in BC Place.
It will be expensive for Portland to replace the surface every year after pointy-ball destroys it every Novermber/December.
Are these a thing, anymore? I'm sure somewhere, but at C-Link, where they are replacing the turf every two years? I went 20 years ago at the KingDome, it wasn't really my scene. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this is going on at the Taco Dome, but C-Link?
I'm not sure if it is monster truck rallies. I think those are at the Tacoma Dome, but wthe CLink does have a motocross event every year.
Field warmers, negative pressure airflow drainage, and desso grassmaster should really solve that problem for Jeld-Wen... The field warmers and negative pressure airflow drainage should dry out the field on the overcast PNW spring and fall days, the desso will act as anchors for the natural grass and the combination of all three will encourage the roots to go deeper. I think out of the three PNW teams, the Timbers are the ones in the "best" position to install a grass field.
Yes, those propaganda ministers running MLS should kick Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, and New England out of the league until they play on proper soccer fields with natural grass that cows can eat. Never mind these are the only places they can play at. Never mind the rainy PNW weather. Never mind these teams also share these stadiums with other sports and events. Never mind that three of these teams are among the best attended in MLS. You are 100% right. MLS must always put the game first and therefore Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, and New England must go! Someone think of the children!
Because, clearly, I spend a lot of time learning the vegetation growth quirks of every region of the USA.
How much better does fake grass get than what MLS teams are using? Honest question. Personally, I don't like it, and I think 'the climate doesn't support it' is a lazy excuse while 'we share a stadium with a football team' is more a sign that maybe they need their own stadium than anything else, but it's hard to complain too much from where the league was ten years ago. At least the gridiron lines are few and far between these days. But really, I guess my question is conceeding that field turf will be around for at least a few more years in a couple of places, do these teams already have the best stuff on the market, or does it get better? Does it get truly cost prohibitive to get excellent field turf? Is even there such a thing as excellent field turf?
I don't care for the turf and I'm not especially sympatheic to the argument that grass can't be grown in some of these stadiums. But, after reading Rafa Benetiz' blog (of all things), I've started to wonder if there isn't some benefit to turf -- that it might actually result in a more watchable game. Benetiz has been blogging about MLS (no, really), and his succicent critique of the league is: "they have to increase the tempo of the game. Good skills, but they need more pace." http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/index.php?act=mostrarBlog&id_entrada=79&idioma=in If you think that's a fair criticism (and personally, I do), my sense is at least in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland those teams play a lot faster on the turf. Perhaps the juice from the crowd has a lot to do with that, but I also think the turf is factor. I'm still not a fan of artificial turf, but I think it is worth considering whether the surface actually may produce a better, more watchable game -- at least for teams that play on it regularly and can adjust to it.
Then you should better educate yourself on climate and its effects on these types of things. I'm not being a dick either. I'm being honest. It isn't a lazy excuse. Perspective ? People think of Scotland as a wet ass place. It is. HOWEVER, where the vast majority of the SPL teams are situated (the South and East portion of the country) they only average about 34.3 in of rainfall annually. Portland averages 36 inches. In today's world yes, there is such a thing.
Understood. I'd argue that the cliates are prety comparable, but I'm no expert. What do J-League teams use? I'd wager the Japanese climate is warmer than Portland but Japan can be a really rainy place too. Is this an issue with the J-League? From what I gather most Japanese baseball teams use field turf.
It doesn't. The teams have the latest generations that were available at the time they were installed. The Sounders have FieldTurf's latest and greatest model that came out this year, Portland and NER have the FieldTurf model that was replaced by the one the Sounders have. Vancouver went with a different manufacturer, Polytan, but it was their current model. The argument could be made that one manufacturer is better than another, but considering Polytan and FieldTurf are apparently industry leaders, I doubt the difference is that significant.