Join Now
A Sight for Sore Eyes
A sight that makes me want to drive to Toronto and buy everyone a beer:
What better symbol of what's wrong with MLS' expansion policy than sprinklers running, for the first time ever, in BMO?
Every sweep of those lovely arcs of water makes a mockery of MLS' illusions.
The equation smacks you right in the face:
1) Toronto has to put down grass for Real Madrid because top quality teams won't allow top quality players to play on Fieldturf.
2) Several MLS teams play on Fieldturf.
3) MLS is full of shit.
OK, so I cut some corners there. Sue me.
It's a good thing that MLS has absolutely no shame at all or this sort of thing would be really embarrassing. Barca demands that Qwest put down grass. Real Madrid demands that BMO put down real grass.
But there's nothing wrong with artificial grass.
I am occasionally - well OK, frequently - harsh on Andrea Canales, but as is my wont I'm delighted to agree with her when she's right and she HITS AN ABSOLUTE ROCKET TODAY when she calls the whole thing a "sham".
You go, girl.
She also brings up the problem of what MLS intends to do about the Anschutz Cup being contested on plastic this coming November.
No - as in NOT ONE, EVER - major professional championship has ever been played on Fieldturf in the history of the world. Yet that, apparently, is precisely what MLS intends to do in 2009. Of course we can argue about how "major" MLS truly is, but that begs the question: does MLS have aspirations of being taken seriously or doesn't it?
Time was, MLS pretended to care about the quality of play and how it stacked up against professional leagues elsewhere. But when every other expansion team (Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver) is playing on glorified Astroturf, it's clear that the priorities lie elsewhere.
"MLS: Major League When it's Convenient"
We simply cannot pretend that we are serious about soccer in the way that other countries are serious about soccer when we continue to play the game on what amounts to indoor fields without dasher boards.
It's not the same game, and Don Garber knows it. The fact that he pretends not to is, frankly, just embarrassing.
What better symbol of what's wrong with MLS' expansion policy than sprinklers running, for the first time ever, in BMO?
Every sweep of those lovely arcs of water makes a mockery of MLS' illusions.
The equation smacks you right in the face:
1) Toronto has to put down grass for Real Madrid because top quality teams won't allow top quality players to play on Fieldturf.
2) Several MLS teams play on Fieldturf.
3) MLS is full of shit.
OK, so I cut some corners there. Sue me.
It's a good thing that MLS has absolutely no shame at all or this sort of thing would be really embarrassing. Barca demands that Qwest put down grass. Real Madrid demands that BMO put down real grass.
But there's nothing wrong with artificial grass.
I am occasionally - well OK, frequently - harsh on Andrea Canales, but as is my wont I'm delighted to agree with her when she's right and she HITS AN ABSOLUTE ROCKET TODAY when she calls the whole thing a "sham".
You go, girl.
She also brings up the problem of what MLS intends to do about the Anschutz Cup being contested on plastic this coming November.
No - as in NOT ONE, EVER - major professional championship has ever been played on Fieldturf in the history of the world. Yet that, apparently, is precisely what MLS intends to do in 2009. Of course we can argue about how "major" MLS truly is, but that begs the question: does MLS have aspirations of being taken seriously or doesn't it?
Time was, MLS pretended to care about the quality of play and how it stacked up against professional leagues elsewhere. But when every other expansion team (Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver) is playing on glorified Astroturf, it's clear that the priorities lie elsewhere.
"MLS: Major League When it's Convenient"
We simply cannot pretend that we are serious about soccer in the way that other countries are serious about soccer when we continue to play the game on what amounts to indoor fields without dasher boards.
It's not the same game, and Don Garber knows it. The fact that he pretends not to is, frankly, just embarrassing.
Share
Post a Comment
Total Comments 45
Comments
-
You're right, but you'd be surprised to know that some European teams have considered playing on turf as well; such as Milan and Inter which, in the winter, often play on a shameful swamp rather than "grass". And to replace/adjust the pieces of grass that come away during the winter games, costs to these clubs 100K Euro each time, while maintenance of turf is financially speaking a joke. That was the reason why they considered it, however so far the change hasn't been done.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 06:23 PM by Theopisa 
-
"FIFA should not allow artificial surfaces. They should have some courage. They should stop it. It’s no good for the players, and somehow I hope the players have the ability around the world to stand up and say we’re not playing on this, plain and simple.” -Bob Bradley. Too right, Bob, too right.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 06:26 PM by CHthirteen
-
I think the problem with the new style turfs is in the grooming. When the turf is new, there seem to be few problems but after it's been broken in it's like playing in a parking lot. I'm not sure how this new turf is maintained but seems to me like a good combing out is in order everyday. I will argue that in many places around the world these field turfs are a necessity. What I will say that any MAJOR club that plays in a multiuse or shared facitlity, that facility should be built with a sliding grass system like the new phoenix stadium.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 06:58 PM by gibroni
-
The fact that MLS passed out expansion franchises to Toronto and Seattle, one of whom built a turf SSS and the other of whom told the whole league "we're playing in an NFL stadium with turf and we never plan on moving" is a disgrace. Spot on, Bill.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 07:08 PM by KennyWoo
-
You say it tongue in cheek, but that is in fact the proper conclusion.Quote:Originally Posted by Bill Archer1) Toronto has to put down grass for Real Madrid because top quality teams won't allow top quality players to play on Fieldturf.
2) Several MLS teams play on Fieldturf.
3) MLS is full of shit.
The worst thing about it is there's not even a discussion within MLS about getting the real grass for those friendlies. It's automatic. They don't even delay a nano-second. "What's that you want Mr. Laporta? Real grass? Done. Anything else? Foot massage? Massage with the full release? Consider it done, we're sending up Alan Hopkins on that last one."
Yet, when anyone brings it up for the MLS tenants, the execs always come up with these long, drawn out, exasperated explanations ... "It's just not feasible..It wouldn't work ... It's an impossibility."
It's all about convenience, as you say.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 07:23 PM by Asprilla9
-
RE: MLS Cup
Wasn't part of the ten years of whining from the PNW about Doug Logan promising Seattle a team and First and Goal's campaign to get the public to pay for Seahawks Stadium as a pro-soccer initiative the promise that a grass field would be put down for major soccer events in the stadium?
Or am I misremembering? Or is MLS Cup not considered a "major soccer event"?
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 07:28 PM by AndyMead
-
RE: Bob Bradley's quote.
Bob Bradley forgets the 2000 World Cup Qualifier in Barbados on that "ahem" grass field. Bob Bradley can pay to maintain the grass fields around the world. FieldTurf, and its ilk, are often economic choices. Sometimes necessary ones. I'm pretty sure every member of the USMNT that played in that game in 2000 would have jumped at the chance to play the game on the old indoor/outdoor carpet over concrete that Giants Stadium used to sport rather than the "natural" surface that that key World Cup Qualifier was actually played on.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 07:31 PM by AndyMead
-
Ouch!
Rubber grass is wholly inappropriate for the game, but the permissability of this doormat surface in soccer lays at FIFA's door; they approve of it. I know that some climates are simply not condusive to year-round verdant swathes of the real stuff to play on, but that ain't the case in Norf America.
Ask players how much they love it's tendon hyper-extending, joint jarring qualities. The 'orrible ping-pong effect it has on soccer balls makes matches played on the shite assume comedic characteristics.
And let's not get started on the Jackson Pollock effect of beef-ball fields overpainted with soccer pitch lines.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 08:05 PM by Shannbo5150
-
The 2008 World Series (Tropicana Field) and the 2006 Super Bowl (Ford Field) were played on FieldTurf, while oodles of WS games and SB's were played on AstroTurf. Is this parody that were all missing, Bill?
Well, since this website is called bigSOCCER and deals mostly with, you know, soccer, I didn't consider thta it was necessary to specify the sport I was referring to.
With all due respect, I don't see what the World Series has to do with soccer.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 08:32 PM by Eric B
Updated 05 Aug 2009 at 08:59 PM by Bill Archer -
soccer is in fact different than baseball and throwball, soccer players running 6,7 miles in 90 mins with 3 subs available makes turf a bad idea. MLS players have come out numerous times and stated it takes twice as long to recover after a game on turf as the natural stuff. In Am. Football there's only 12-15mins of actual action, baseball athletes aren't required to run often so turf there really doesn't matter. But soccer truly is different. Not to mention the ball "interacts" with the playing surface for a long part of the game in soccer, far more than a baseball or football, the later of which never bounces properly anyway, and turf versus grass in soccer becomes a no-brainer.Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 08:46 PM by Non-dairy Creamer
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
