I just watched the Pats vs. the Boys (Go Pats! Damn the Tuna). In the fourth quarter one of the sportscasters made the remark "Well you have to remember this is also used by... err... Mr. Kraft's soccer team, that is one of the reason the field looks so worn, and that does not help the kicking team...". I did not expect a professional broadcaster to sound so ignorant (not even knowing the name of the 'other' NE team in Gillette) and then blaming soccer players of ruining the field. I was here all season when it was just the Revs and the field never look that rough. Its just a sad statement any way you look at it.
haha.... saw the same thing, guess the idiot broadcaster doesnt realized that every play of the game in football starts and ends just about in the middle of the field in a crowd of bodies....but we mess up the field...HAHA Some people are just too stupid.....
It was Joe Theismann, who's a Notre Dame grad, so I guess he can be excused for his ignorance. Seriously, the idea that 11 170-pound guys running around in shorts could cause that kind of wear and tear to a playing surface is laughable. If that was the case, wouldn't all the damage be right in front of the goalmouth? From my seat, it certainly looked like the vast majority of damage went in a strip from one goal line to the other in between the hashmarks.
I was listening to the game on the radio, and one of the announcers mentioned the field condition and said something like, "...The Revolution play here, but I don't think they play down the middle of the field." Then the other announcer said, "Well, something's been going on down there." It sounds like the grounds crew just didn't do their job.
Jeez, I'm surprised that the NFL radio guys knew that the Revs like to move the ball down the wings with Ralston and Kamler... And the grounds crew, um, didn't the head guy quit at the start of the Pats season? Tom
Yeah, some ignoramous said the same thing during the Bears broadcast yesterday. So it MUST be the Revs that ruin the football fields
The Pats slugged it out a couple of weeks ago (Cleveland?) in wet, muddy weather and that totally destroyed the turf between the hashes. It's pretty hard to regenerate grass in NE in November, and I think, laying down new turf would've been a pretty risky adventure for both tenants.
I remember the field as starting to look worn well before the Patriots started up, let alone after. It does seem that the grass isn't cared for well enough.
Theisman did not say it in an ignorant or even arrogant manner and the fact that he even knew that The Revolution played at Gillete Stadium speaks volumes. He was wrong, it couldn't have been soccer that ruined the field in between the hash marks, but at least he was keen to speak about Bob Kraft's soccer team existing. Please keep this petty "victory" to yourself.
This morning a fellow at work mentioned the field condition at the Razor. "They said some soccer team plays there, and that's why the field was torn up." I explained that the last Revs match was in Chicago, they hadn't played in Foxboro in about a week. Also, soccer players don't weigh-in like NFL types, and they tend to use all of the field, especially the wings. "Yeah, but they wear cleats," he said. "and the announcers said the Krafts had another team playing there, a soccer team, and that's why the field was torn up" Basically, he read the announcers as blaming the conditions on the soccer team. Might as well try reasoning with a sack of bricks. Or a Red Socks fan.
FWIW, the previous Gillette Stadium groundskeeper did quit before the season. I heard a rumor earlier this year that Belichick refused to let the groundskeeping staff use the state-of-the-art field heating system last winter because he thought a muddy, beat up field was an advantage for the Patriots against faster, quicker teams like Miami. Therefore, the field was in pretty miserable shape all winter long, and THAT'S why the field was in barely playable shape for the season opener against Columbus. Basically, the field is in that kind of shape because the Patriots want it to be in that kind of shape.
I've heard this argument before here....the Bears have complained about the Fire using the field in the past. Idiotic. Though one smart pundit on Friday said on the radio here that it could work to the Bears advantage yesterday that if the Fire tears up the field enough, Marshall Faulk wouldn't get any footing.
well that wasn't as bad as last year when a Pats announcer said that he couldn't believe that Kraft would "risk" his football team by having a rinky-dink soccer team play on the same field... what a tool... rand
Mike Marshall wrote: "FWIW, the previous Gillette Stadium groundskeeper did quit before the season. I heard a rumor earlier this year that Belichick refused to let the groundskeeping staff use the state-of-the-art field heating system last winter because he thought a muddy, beat up field was an advantage for the Patriots against faster, quicker teams like Miami. Therefore, the field was in pretty miserable shape all winter long, and THAT'S why the field was in barely playable shape for the season opener against Columbus. Basically, the field is in that kind of shape because the Patriots want it to be in that kind of shape." Well, the scuttlebutt in the papers a few months back suggested that the head groundskeeper quit over a disagreement with Belichick over use of the field, a key point of contention also being the desire of Belichick to use the main stadium pitch for practices from time to time. Funny thing is, Gillette Stadium has the most state-of-the-art turf management system in the league (I wrote an op-ed earlier this year in Soccer New England speaking in part to this), and had one of the best groundskeepers as well. While the weather hasn't been great, it really looked like nobody had touched the field since the Revs played there last week. I mean, even the cosmetic job of painting lines and logos looked like right crap. Who knows what the situation is in terms of field up-keep, but it's an ignorant statement to blame soccer players for tearing up the pitch when it's really 300-400lb. corn-fed rhinos with 3/4 inch cleats ripping things apart.
I use to coach high school soccer. The boys' teams used the stadiums in the spring, yet were still accused of 'tearing up the field'. But then again, I guess when you're losing you gotta have something to blame, because it's sure not the coaches or players fault. Incidently, has anyone heard any complaining from Kansas City?
I agree. Somehow, if you talk to ANY football guy, it is ALWAYS the soccer teams fault if the field has one divot in it. It has just creeped into their psyche and the myth has grown to legendary proportions. I just wanna know how it all got started.
The pitch was a mess on the 9th with guys tripping all over the place. Didn't see the tape, but I wonder if the commentators mentioned the field being chopped up by the Pats? I did get a kick out of seeing the soccer lines on the field on TV last night. Amy
Huh, And here I thought that our high school administrators and pointy football fans were the only ones stupid enough to believe that soccer tears a field up more than football. Just goes to show you what we're dealing with here.
A little OT but just as stupid. I remember Warren Sapp saying a few weeks ago how American football was "the most popular game in the world". How the hell can anyone be that stupid? Back to the topic at hand. I'm sure dudes weighing 160-180 lbs would wear a field much more than some dude weighing 300+.
I would even go further to say that it's not football players in general that do such damage to the turf as much as it is football "linemen". The skilled guys who are more interested in moving around the field aren't too bad. It's the linemen and their "trench" warfare, trying not to "give up" ground that really tear it up.
Well when you consider the West Coast another country and the US is the world.... there's your answer....