I'm curious what those of you who have kids who play or have played (particularly at age 13 or so and above when this stuff seems to start mattering more) have heard over the years about their preferences for playing on turf or grass and whether that changes as they get older, their game develops, ... I ask after hearing my 19-year-old (DIII college) talk a lot in the past week or two about missing artificial turf as the dominant surface he plays on because of the comfort playing the ball across that surface. We're in a part of the world where turf is used a lot (fairly serious winters and chilly, wet springs) so kids play a lot on turf, get used to it, ... With our weather, indoor is big in this part of the world, too. His school plays on grass and keeps it fairly short but doesn't seem to water it pregame to make it slick, so balls have to be played with a little extra force to not stick in the grass. Lots of promising balls go to die well short of their targets in dry weather. I get his appreciation for turf and how it plays, but I guess I expected players to lean more toward grass as they get older and have at least some access to better natural surfaces, especially those like my son who have a decent number of accumulated knocks they carry around.
I think generally speaking, my sons always preferred turf. Turf fields are reliable and you know the ball is going to roll and bounce true. A proper grass soccer pitch is the ideal surface - it's easier on joints and should play better than a turf field. Problem is, there is so few grass fields that are of a high quality out there, aside from pro fields.
My son (u15) is the same, prefers turf to grass, for the same true bounce and overall smoothness of the play. Of course where we are in New England means there aren’t really any quality grass fields available. Some of the private schools have amazing grass fields but a majority of his games are on multi purpose turf fields. I’m an old man shouting at clouds, so I am team grass.
I'll ask my son (U14) his opinion, but I know that I prefer grass. Watching the trajectory of the kids, though, has been fascinating. DS's first club practiced on bad turf but played its home matches on grass, often LONG grass. That club always had trouble winning home games. When it played at an indoor facility through the Winter season it won the league both years they were in it as they were practicing on turf and playing on turf. The next two clubs that my DS has been with have practiced exclusively on turf. This always poses a problem for when we go play teams on grass because the players take a good 15 minutes to reset to the slower pace of the ball. I believe that the club should practice on both grass and turf so that this isn't an issue. Then from a physical standpoint, as has already been mentioned, grass is far better on the body. Not only that, rumor from more than one source says that a) all of these torn up tires and other petrochemicals that are used for turf actually results in negative health effects down the line, especially for goalkeepers, and b) as a result, Norway has banned turf fields and pulled up all of their turf fields. I haven't researched (b), but I have seen some reports regarding (a), though it's been a couple of years since I saw them.
My kids prefer natural grass, mainly because that's what they practice on. It's just the fields we have in our county, only HS varsity gets turf that they share with other sports. Clubs in the area are not rich enough to build their own turf field. One of my players is a GK, so not getting burns on artificial turf is an added bonus. Of course, most of the clubs in other counties in the state have turf fields. So, Just like for Fuegofan's kids, it takes mine a couple of minutes to adjust, but for them it's higher speed. Having said that, this seems to have been most pronounced at younger ages and lower level of play. As my kids got older, field size became larger, and skill level improved, the difference in speed became less important. It's still there, but the difference is no longer jarring.
Both mine started out on turf (Chicago Magic North and Sockers FC) It was always a riot at the younger ages too see them play on grass - the ball just went no where. Also funny is that ELA would always play us at their shittiest field and neglect to mow the grass for weeks! And they did that because they know we trained on turf.
My boys were spoiled, they prefer Bermuda grass, then turf, then fescue grass. Their high school pitch was a soccer specific field with beautiful Bermuda grass, that was well maintained by a dedicated coaching staff (soccer and baseball coaches shared the duty, baseball field was also Bermuda). Most club practices and games were played on Bermuda except in January and February, to much rain in NC. Every time they traveled north of the Mason-Dixon line to play, and had to play on a fescue pitch they complained about the slowness of the pitch. Ironically, my youngest played is college ball in PA on a fescue pitch.
Bermuda? Wow, you're living like kings down there. ;-) I'm no expert on this stuff, but after a little Googling I assume most of the "better" grass fields in the upper Midwest are some kind of fescue. The worst honestly seem to be some mix of weeds -- the high school field my son played most of his home games on was like that, and usually full of holes that some parent (like me) periodically filled in since soccer was a low, low priority in the local school district.
There’s more and more capabilities of Bermuda in the “north.” Different strands can withstand colder climates more. A lot of times, if there’s Bermuda in colder climates then they’ll overseed with rye when the field gets dormant. Very common.
Interesting. There's a private HS with a powerhouse soccer program in our area w/a field that has to be some version of that, now that I think about it. It's like playing on a golf green. I wonder whether most small colleges have the capacity to maintain fields at that level. At my son's school, the mowing, at least, is done by a couple of the players (has to be the world's best on-campus student job) and I've heard the coach talk about problem spots on the game field and dealing with them like it's his lawn.
Yes, it does happen at colleges. It’s also a big thing for baseball too. Tend to the field to ensure it’s the prettiest and most pristine it can be. For a few years, turf was the biggest push due to hosting rules/restrictions/mandates. At one time, some HS associations wouldn’t choose facilities if they didn’t have turf. So, this pushed several venues to install turf to try to garner tournaments and events. It’ll be interesting to see over the next few years if there’s more and more push for grass. Doubtful, as the need for facility rentals will always be there and the way places treat turf as low-maintenance will keep it in high demand. Many DI women’s programs won’t play on turf if they can choose — like their non-conference schedule. It’s part of the reason why high profile programs have so many home games regularly, it’s much better to go there on their surface than many other surfaces that also may share with other sports.
The DI women's program near me plays on a grass field that's pretty immaculate, as is the adjacent practice field. I'd love to knock a ball around on either (though for some reason I haven't been invited ;-) ).
I prefer to play on turf. The grass fields I play/coach on are not pristine fields, they have divots and aren't even so the ball can play weird. I've also rolled my ankle on a divot which was super unpleasant
The other side of that are turf-related injuries. I've played on indoor turf that was prone to some nasty stuff where your foot just seemed to stick (for lack of a better word) when you took off or shifted. I screwed up one of my ankles for months thanks to that version of the turf monster. But all things considered (even with the wear and tear on knees that always seemed worse to me on turf,) I'd rather play on the fake stuff than most of the not-great grass I've had available to play on.
It goes a little of both ways. I remember in college we had 6 girls tear their ACLs on grass one season. It was awful. In my years of coaching, we only had 1 ACL tear, to my recollection, and it was non-contact on grass.
Six is just plain awful. Their teammates (and coaches and parents) had to gulping pretty hard and wondering what was going on. One of my son's teammates tore one of his (and did some other damage) on grass a few weeks ago during preseason, but I think the culprit was a really, really poor surface (no contact, according to my son). I feel for kids in that spot given how short a college playing "career" is, and the possibility you don't come back.
Yes, after that season, we fundraised and got a new surface the next season. It was great. I have seen most of the injuries, no matter what it may be, be non-contact (outside of head injuries). They are fluke, and really not necessarily blamed on the turf OR grass. More blame should be placed on recovery, strength training, nutrition, and rest.
Injuries generally, including ACL/MCL/PCL injuries? I've wondered about susceptibility -- are some people more susceptible and, if so, why? -- to the latter after one of my nieces tore both ACLs within a couple of years of each other in her early teens (both non-contact, playing basketball). Also whether there is any kind of training athletes can do to cut down their odds.
A little tangential to my original question here, but seeing a few minutes of the Futsal World Cup and looking up a few of the US players to see what their backgrounds are reminded me of the degree to which some players seem to just be made for turf (or a futsal court) based on technical ability that doesn't always translate to grass and/or a larger field. Most of the US national team seem to be indoor players and guys with some small-college background. Players who develop in the opposite direction seem rare -- FC Dallas has one on its roster now, I believe, Tomas Pondeca, who was primarily a futsal guy first.
Yes! Definitely knee injuries can be tied to the rest/recovery/strength programming. PEP Program is one that had tons of buy-in. FIFA 11+ is another one with tons of science behind it for injury prevention. Many refuse to do strength training because of made-up reasons tied to “not sport specific” or “don’t want to get too big” or “don’t want to lose speed/flexibility” or “can’t miss skills training.”