PDA

View Full Version : Artificial Turf Debate

Danny47
06 Jul 2007, 07:00 PM
It seems that the U-20 World Cup has brought a lot af attention to the arguement for/against artificial turf as half of the venues beong used for the tournament have artifical turf.

I for one, have never played on an artifical surface so I can't really comment on how different it is and whether those differences are good or bad. However, I have always seen football played on natural grass surfaces and to me its just like a tradition that sould not be traded in for something man-made. What do you all think of it?

Also, SI had an article today outlining the debate. It seems as if the South Americans in particular are having the hardest time adapting to the turf, or thats what they make it sound like.

One of my favorite parts of the aritlce though was this gem of ignorance from CONCACAF President and FIFA VP Jack Warner...

"Artificial turf is the future of football worldwide. At the Champions League in Europe, this is exactly the type of turf on which they play. So please, Argentina. Please."

Out of the 32 teams that participated in teh Champions Leauge last year only one team, Spartak Moscow, had an artificial turf in their home stadium. Interestingly enough Spartak's stadium, Luzhninik Staduim, is set to host the 2008 CL final, yet they have already anounced that a grass surface will be installed prior to the final.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/soccer/07/06/u20.turf.complaints.ap/

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=383543&cc=5901
coppa
06 Jul 2007, 07:30 PM
On turf the ball moves a lot faster.
GRBomber
06 Jul 2007, 07:54 PM
On artificial turf the ground is "harder", so the ball bounces more.
If a natural turf is in perfect conditions, than it's better.

But not all stadiums can maintain the grass in such good shape.

Artificial turf may be better than poor natural field.
Danny47
06 Jul 2007, 08:24 PM
On artificial turf the ground is "harder", so the ball bounces more.
If a natural turf is in perfect conditions, than it's better.

But not all stadiums can maintain the grass in such good shape.

Artificial turf may be better than poor natural field.

I understand this, as such is the case with Spartak Moscow. The weather doesn't allow for a natural grass surface so I can understand why they would go with that option, and that may be the case in Canada. However, I am against this whole "Fieldturf is the futre of football" crap cause in the majority of places, a natural grass surface can be maintained.
saabrian
07 Jul 2007, 07:17 PM
I have played on artificial turf. The main differences are that the play is faster, the ball bounces higher and slide tackling is not pleasant. While the new kinds of turf are less hard when you fall, these other dynamics remain. I think artificial turf is better than a crap grass field (hard, torn up, etc) but it should never be chosen over a good grass field.
HSEUPASSION
07 Jul 2007, 07:19 PM
On artificial turf the ground is "harder", so the ball bounces more.
If a natural turf is in perfect conditions, than it's better.

But not all stadiums can maintain the grass in such good shape.

Artificial turf may be better than poor natural field.

A very poor natural field, the park up the road has what I'd call a poor field but it plays better than fieldturf.