Get Turf Out of MLS

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by clarendon_united, May 21, 2012.

  1. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    Wait... if more passes are played forward... doesn't that sort of shoot the whole argument about players don't play through balls because the ball just rolls out of bounds?

    Regardless, 3.2% difference isn't that large imo. Did the study mention how the home teams played on the road? Compared passing percentages in away games vs home games? I could see a situation where the differences in the teams are what is creating the difference or similarity.

    Decent start, more games need to be looked at though.
     
  2. Wazzu Gunner

    Wazzu Gunner Member

    Mar 21, 2008
    Ballard, WA
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is this a serious post?
     
  3. eboe

    eboe Member+

    Columbus Crew
    United States
    May 23, 2006
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Boy, that Seattle turf looks AWESOME. :ROFLMAO:
     
    Kilgore and clarendon_united repped this.
  4. Wazzu Gunner

    Wazzu Gunner Member

    Mar 21, 2008
    Ballard, WA
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Congrats, only took you 3+ years to beat the Sounders.
     
  5. revsrock

    revsrock Member+

    Jul 24, 1999
    Boston Ma
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If anyone saw how bad the Gillette field was come September when the had grass from 2002 to Nov 2006. You would see that even if not ideal for soccer that field turf was better than the dirt field they played on was.
     
    Shopping Cart Man and Wazzu Gunner repped this.
  6. eboe

    eboe Member+

    Columbus Crew
    United States
    May 23, 2006
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Really, I was just talking about the turf lol...
     
  7. clarendon_united

    Feb 13, 2011
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not a Seattle Sounders (in MLS, when the well-marketed marching band carnival on carpet was unveiled to the public) fan, so I care more that my team is playing on a surface that doesn't break down my players' joints, I value it over how well my ownership markets to bring attendance from 1k to 36k. You see, I'm a soccer fan, not a "finances" fan.
    All flawless leagues! If they do something, it must be something that we should do too! Never strive for the best! Ignore factual things like quality of play in favor of comparison to other random leagues!

    If you're arguing that turf isn't a far inferior surface, and that these 4 teams with long-term turf plans haven't put non-soccer stuff ahead of soccer stuff, you're just trying to convince yourself.
     
  8. Boloni86

    Boloni86 Member+

    Jun 7, 2000
    Baltimore
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Gibraltar
    There's a difference between a ball lobbed forward to the striker and a lateral or diagonal through ball from midfield to the wings.

    I know Alonso has sort of mastered how to execute this on turf so it is possible. But Alonso has been playing on that surface for awhile now. Most others struggle.
     
  9. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is why the study only tracked the away team. It eliminated the possibility of the home team's familiarity of the turf throwing off the results.
     
  10. Kappa74

    Kappa74 Member+

    Feb 2, 2010
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    If you have followed the discussion you will note that the 4 teams that play on artificial turf will probably not get a grass field for some time, perhaps ever. To preserve the purity and the health of the game here in the US, would you like to see these teams leave MLS?
     
  11. clarendon_united

    Feb 13, 2011
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're telling me that the group of owners known as MLS has the power and resources to search for a stadium site and build it for a team that doesn't exist (which they shouldn't be doing and should be concerned about existing teams' stadium situations), and doesn't have the power and resources to ease teams playing on carpet into being serious soccer organizations? Please. Business $$$ Business $$$ Contrasts $$$ and way down the line soccer, is what you're excusing. $'s fine, but put soccer first.

    These four silly organizations have the means to put the actual game first and have decided not to. They deserve to be called out on it, and those who go the lawyer route to defend them are their lackeys. I prefer to support a team whose foremost goal is soccer, but if you have no problem being a pawn and won't even speak out, go for it. You don't have to leave the stadium, you just have to have a voice.

    If the public allows bigwigs in money making enterprise to make it all about money without being reminded about the real reason behind the enterprise, it'll get worse and worse. If your team plays soccer on a carpet (and if you really try, you can play soccer on grass in all of these locations) your team is more of a joke than any other team. I'd be ashamed, but I'd admit it if DC played on a rug, gave knees arthritis, and made the actual game unwatchable.

    I can excuse temporary situations. Like you said, this is what these teams and a lot of their fans think is acceptable. Ha.
     
    Kilgore repped this.
  12. terrier

    terrier Member

    May 31, 2011
    Netherlands
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    I wholeheartedly support the cause of getting rid of plastic turf in this league, but creating another thread here to whine about it does nothing. The only party with the unilateral power to make this happen across the board is FIFA. Go complain to them and move this thread to "You Be The Don."
     
  13. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I wish moderators could ignore people because the level of your incompetence is staggering.

    Neither Seattle, Vancouver, nor New England will have grass fields as long as they share stadiums with football teams. Of those two, only New England has a realistic chance of building their own stadium in the near future. So, would you prefer that Seattle and Vancouver leave the league permanently?
     
  14. Kappa74

    Kappa74 Member+

    Feb 2, 2010
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Calm yourself down. Your monologue does you a disservice. I was not telling you anything nor was I excusing anything. In fact, I was just asking you a question. You seem to be the type not interested in a discussion on the matter, so I'll just withdraw the question.
     
  15. Kejsare

    Kejsare Member+

    Portland Timbers
    Mar 10, 2010
    Virginia
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are completely correct, oh wise erudite soccer supporter. Portland has abdicated its power in the stadium situation to other forces. Those forces include: The Multnomah Athletic Club, Portland State University athletics, Portland Public School District, The Oregon Sports Athletics Association [OSAA], the Portland Rose Festival Committee, the City of Portland [the owners of the stadium], Mother Nature, Tanner Creek, Goose Hollow Neighborhood Association, any civic minded/religious group that wants to rent the stadium, The god Neptune and his incessantly destructive water. There is even possibly a United States Football League in JELD-WEN's future.

    I've already describe the means it takes to get grass at the site. It hasn't worked that well in the 80 years prior to the first generation turf that was installed in the 1960s. Today's turf has a sand base, a $1 million dollar e-layer, spines in the turf grass, rubber in-fill, an ability to raise the spines again and again, and more.
     
    Hippanonymous and HailtotheKing repped this.
  16. SAFC Yank

    SAFC Yank Member

    May 15, 2007
    Bellingham, WA
    Club:
    Sunderland AFC
    In my less charitable moments, I rather like that my team plays on turf simply because of how much some people get irked about it.
     
  17. Kejsare

    Kejsare Member+

    Portland Timbers
    Mar 10, 2010
    Virginia
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not to mention the playing condition of the field after the deluge in Portland on Saturday would have made the game an instant peat bog. However, the turf did nothing of the kind and played flawlessly like the first half. An aberration for Portland to have a lightning storm, but nevertheless it happened.

    0.84 inches of rain was observed that day. And it all came down in less than an hour.
     
  18. OnlyOneTInFootball

    Mar 15, 2011
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Never have I watched a Timbers home game after their elevation/expansion to MLS and thought afterwards, oh man, if only they had played that game on a grass field.
     
  19. Ganapper

    Ganapper Member

    Apr 5, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I happen to like that style of play. So it suits me fine.
     
  20. Shopping Cart Man

    Sep 21, 2006
    Jacksonville, FL
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you meant this and this.
    The X Games haven't been at the Home Depot Center since 2009.

    I'm surprised it took this long for this example to be brought up. That Disney movie with The Rock in it finally did the field in.

    I'll say Montreal and Seattle (last year) were definitely different, in particular the 2011 Seattle home opener where it seemed like everyone struggled with their first touches. But those situations have been explained already. Portland, Vancouver, New England, and Seattle (this year) are fine.

    [On a side note, I wish we had popcorn smileys for OP's like this one. ] :D
     
  21. ftruscot

    ftruscot Member

    Feb 20, 2002
    Franklin, MA
    September wasn't the worst, by then it had some time to recover a bit from the previous NFL season. The really horrible months were April and May when the field was still ripped up from ugly late-season Patriots games. Grass around here doesn't do much growing until mid-late April into early May, depending. The field was mostly sand and divots. It was almost impossible to play the ball on the ground. It made for much uglier soccer than the turf does.

    The other factor, beyond the normal abusive nature of football in regards to grass, was that Mr. Bill Belichick actively discouraged proper maintenance to the field. He felt that a poor surface (and that's poor for american football, mind you), gave his team an advantage against teams with skilled offensive players (the kind that worry about rolling ankles and twisting knees). It got so bad that the NFL deemed the playing surface unfit and even granted an exception to their rule about changing surfaces mid-season.

    Grass isn't magic. It's presence alone doesn't make a field more playable, or a soccer game more watchable. The situation matters. It would be nice, though, if there was a MLS utopia where all games were played under the smiling colors of magnificent rainbows on perfect green pitches which have been carefully manicured by magical unicorns.
     
    Kejsare repped this.
  22. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    Isn't this how the games are played in England? :D
     
    Kejsare repped this.
  23. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, count me as a turf-hater. I've played on it. I've watched games on it. And you'll never be able to convince me that:

    1) It doesn't have a negative impact on the quality of play. Both inherently because of the high bounces, inability to play balls into space effectively (especially on crested pointy ball fields instead of flat pitches), the virtual elimination of slide tackles, and some degree of unfamiliarity from the opposing team.

    It doesn't mean you can't get an entertaining game in Seattle, or Portland, or Vancouver, or even New England, but the same teams playing on grass would be better.

    2) Turf isn't harder on your body than grass. I've had too much personal experience with the older stuff (I think everyone would agree on that). And even talking with people who play on the newer stuff, though they admit it is improved, still not as forgiving as grass.

    I think most people on here who are the turf-lovers are either MLS fanboys who can't take legit criticism, or PNW fanboys.
    ==============================

    Now, this doesn't mean I don't acknowledge their are some obstacles in those cities. There are legit issues with stadium sharing with pointy ball and the effect that would have on grass (in NE, Vancouver, Portland, and Seattle). However, that would have zero effect March through August, and I think some creative scheduling could help with the rest, or at least minimize it (front load the home schedules for those teams).

    Still, I think the biggest obstacle is greed. The teams want the money from multi-use stadiums and don't want to spend the $$ on a new stadium with the technologies that would make it feasible to grow grass there. And finding a location for a stadium in as good a location as the the current ones (especially in Seattle and Portland) is virtually impossible.

    The league wanted the expansion $$ from those markets, and the ticket sales they'd deliver, but didn't really care too much about the quality of the game, or the long term effect on players, as long as the stadium was full, and they could brag about the atmosphere.

    Don Garber is the main culprit, if he'd stop handing out expansion franchises to turf fields (RSL, Toronto, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver), then there would only be NE, who went turf to save Tom Brady from having to play on a muddy field that almost injured his knee one time. Still, the Don wanted the expansion cash more. Fine, that's his right as commish. But don't tell me you care about the quality of the game first when you clearly don't.

    Nor do I buy the idea that "you can't grow grass in the PNW." I find that laughable. No, there may be issues with sunlight in Seattle's stadium, or with the water table in Porltand, but the real reason is they just didn't really care enough to try, or want to spend the money necessary to do so.
     
    Kilgore and eboe repped this.
  24. Kejsare

    Kejsare Member+

    Portland Timbers
    Mar 10, 2010
    Virginia
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Poster above did not read the thread. Nearly everything you raise has been addressed.

    Let me spell it out for you.
    http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/fqc_football_turf_folder_342.pdf
    Conclusion, FIFA testing on shock absorption is within natural grass [in science terms turf = grass].
    Conclusion, FIFA testing on rotational resistance is within natural grass.

    And I could go on.

    I've read and studied the materials. I've concluded that natural turf has vastly improved in alleviating past grievances, but has still not removed other problems such as abrasions. I've listened to the critics time and again, but I've researched and listened to all the new studies about turf that have come out in the past decade.
     
  25. SeaFan77

    SeaFan77 Member

    Oct 7, 2011
    Federal Way, WA
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    yea, it is, I didnt consider the roof covering the field during rainy season. but I can tell by your snarky sarcastic response your implying something, be a man and say it out loud or have an opinionated response
     

Share This Page