Will the speed of the ball on fake grass have an unintended beneficial effect on players? Chicago, Metro, and Dallas are all on faketurf right now. Metro will be for awhile, Fire will be done soon, and Dallas will be back on grass in 7 hundred days, give or take a few. The turf game is, uh, not fun to watch. I see the ball bounce too high, and I cringe. But in the case of Dallas, the game on TV made it look as though the fieldturf made passes move faster, and it also reduced the number of slide tackles. Will the speed of the ball and the incentive NOT to slide tackle, result in smoother, more efficient, less athletically-based (more tactical) soccer? Compared to the EPL and other leagues, MLS players slide tackle more, and take longer to move the ball...when on grass. Does anyone think that the surface might actually improve the touch of players who now have to focus on touch, improve the passing of players who can now pass quicker and have the ball roll true, and increase the speed of the game by forcing defenders to focus on positioning and stay on their feet? I keep thinking about the Concacaf Champions League, where MLS did not do as well as they should have. Playing a lot of games on turf might induce some change in how MLS teams play. comment as you will... PS, this is not intended as support for faketurf. The quicker it's gone, the better.
FWIW, I think that getting more young skilled Americans into the league is what is going to make a significant difference in the quality of play in the league.
What gives fieldturf an edge is that, regardless of weather conditions or whatnot, the field will stay as it is. That removes the danger of injuries related to rain or excessive use. If injuries are a natural part of the game, it should only occur during physical content between players. As for excessive use, no first-division league I know shares stadia with leagues of other sports. MLS should not be subjected to conditions that other leagues create and until every team has its own stadium, they'll have to adapt to the circumstances. This assurance that tendency of injury is decreased means that players can take more chances and be more aggressive with the ball and defending against players. If anything, there should be a greater incentive to slide tackle, and with the season only three weeks old and the fieldturf barely broken in, we may see a change in strategy when more games are played on artificial turf. There should be a greater level of play defensively and offensively on fieldturf, in my opinion. Is the technology perfect? No, nor will it ever be. But at least make a conscious effort to perceive fieldturf as an opportunity and not a burden. The rest of the world may even learn a thing or two.
FieldTurf won't improve MLS. It won't hurt it either. The only thing I wish is that any artificial surface MLS uses be FIFA approved. There isn't a FIFA approved artificial surface in MLS yet. The Naperville CrapPlay, or whatever it is will never be approved IMO, and the Southlake and Meadowlands FieldTurf installations aren't approved either. I expect to see the Meadowlands surface gain FIFA approval soon, but the one in Southlake doesn't stand a chance. The fill in the turf there, plus it's ghastly paint job will never allow it IMO. If the FieldTurf installations were like Seattle's, the Meadowlands, Luzhniki and the Boston Breakers pitches there wouldn't be much complaint. The horrendous fields in Naperville and Southlake are detrimental though IMO. Kevin
Viking64 Thanks for your article. I think you made a good point on how it could change some aspects of the game. I personally think that playing on fieldturf makes the game more physical. It forces players to confront each other more and more because diving is extremely reduced. I hate it, but we need to stick to it until New York, Chicago and Dallas solve their problems.
As a general rule you want to practice how you play. If you view MLS as practice for international play, you want to simulate international conditions as closely as possible. I think that what you want is to play on grass similar to Euro conditions. Therefore I don't believe in field turf. Get good grass when possible.
No, not really. If you view MLS as practice for international play, you want your players to be subjected to as wide a variety of conditions and circumstances as possible. Someday the international play is going to come back to Giants Stadium. Maybe they ought to learn our game for a while. The mistake here is to judge soccer in America as an example of exceptionalism that must yield to conformity, not as an another piece of the picture of international play.
Re: Re: Could Fieldturf Improve MLS? So the WC will be played at Giant's Stadium every four years? I forgot how successful the game has been here and how many World Cups we've won...
Minus the paint job in Southlake, you seem to imply that the installion of the product there is faulty or lesser than other places? Can you elaborate? You mention "the fill" and I am wondering what you meant by that. thanks
From what I've read and from secondhand reports there can be a difference in how much fill is used in any particular installation. The individual "blades" also can vary in height. Also, the base under the installations can vary. Basically, not all FieldTurf installations are equal. Kevin
Re: Re: Re: Could Fieldturf Improve MLS? Contributing to the game doesn't require winning a World Cup, so... WRONG!!! We'll make our own successes, ever consider that?
I think that an artificial surface can and will be engineered that is better than a natural turf surface and will improve the game, not just in MLS. A surface that is true and soft that will prevent injury and prolong a players career. I also think that a lot can be done with ball technology that will mate the surfaces to control bounce and roll.