Is it time to finally address the turf problem and go to grass permanently at Qwest? I say yes. I have faith the Qwest crew and ownership group would make it the best field in MLS for 3/4 of the year, and very much more tolerable than turf the final 1/4 and playoffs. I HATE football lines, but again, I trust the ownership group to make it right as much as is humanly possible, not the lip-service we've seen elsewhere. Bring on the grass!
I put no for a couple reasons. I like soccer on grass. In fact, I prefer it to be played on grass. But, when sharing a field with a football team, I think that turf is ultimately better. The pitch at Houston today was a prime example. The other reason is that I don't think the turf at Qwest is as bad as everyone makes it out to be, it is certainly better than the turf at Toronto in my opinion.
I am interested in desso grassmaster. I think they need to install a desso Grassmaster field at Starfire to train on first. That way they can get a better feel for it in our climate. It supposedly drains better than an all natural surface. Seahawks would need to to use a minimalist approach with their football lines if they went to a surface like this. The paint does not come off as easily. I think you would frequently see faded lines like at Houston today. Not sure how it would hold up with both the Sounders and Seahawks playing on it. But playing on the current surface is better than playing on the surface at Houston today.
I have yet to vote but I am in asoc's camp on this one. We should try a synthetic blend/natural blend first and see how that does. Does anyone know how long Invesco in Denver has been Desso? Before or after DSG Park opened? Faded lines I could accept. Obnoxious endzone paint not so much. But a muddy boggy pit definitely not, so I would vote no on a pure grass field
I should have included a part synthetic/mostly grass surface like Lambeau or Mile High. Still, after a season on turf I think this poll is worthy for at least promoting further discussion.
If we didn't have to share the pitch yes. But since we do, no. The turf we have at Qwest is fine. Much harder to remove American football lines from grass.
Nothing is more convincing to me that our turf is fine than watching the Sounders play the popsicles. "COUGARS"??... Yellow soccer lines? No thanks.
Because aesthetics of the viewer should be the highest consideration... The reason the Gynamo pitch sucked was because the college that maintains it did a horrific job maintaining the quality of the actual surface, not because of some faded paint. Id rather have a pitch that allows the play to be as close to natural as possible, regardless if bloated fans sitting in their reclining chairs want to see a perfectly spotless green surface, even if it sucks balls compared to a mediocre grass pitch with some football markings. YMMV.
How narcissistic of you God of all things Sounders. At least pick a side, or are you too fearful to be pigeon-holed with an actual opinion?
It's mattered for other issues. It's yes or no, not your opinion on whether or not an opinion matters. Voting "present" isn't an option. Did you, or do you still embrace that level of commitment? At least be human enough to have an opinion other than "present." Gutless non-opinions are worth dick in the real world. It sickens me to know there are people claiming to be human who have no opinion. Cowardice personified imo. Now, I'm sure you can muster an opinion of me! Now, just take that frightening stimulation and form a thoughtful, heartfelt opinion on the issue at hand. There is no wrong answer. Go ahead and embrace your human side, reject the vulcan/pelosi force! It's OK! Have a personal opinion!
You need grass - period. And apparently Toronto (probably because of DeRo is going the same way) The difference between Houston and Seattle is that we play on the University of Houston pitch. The UH doesn't have the money or the inclination to keep the pitch in an acceptable state for the game. You guys have the luxury of having the same management for both the throwball and football with all of the money and grounds folks to make it right. Get grass.
Honestly this discussion is rather ridiculous as it is not how we the fans feel it should be. The decision should rest with the folks that actually have to deal with playing on it. p.s. - I voted, but only because you guys hijacked our 1st round 1st game playoff poll
There should be a third option on voting...natural grass/sod March-August and FieldTurf Sep-Nov. As our home schedule is already front-loaded so the conflict with the Seahawks is minimized, we'd be able to play maybe 2/3 of our home games on grass. Not the crappy clumpy sod that is just brought in for a weekend friendly, but good "seamless" grass (if that makes sense). But since that's not an option for the vote, I'll stick with the turf.
Wow, Artesian, you're very full of yourself. I think your question is idiotic, unnecessary, and has been beaten to death. But please, keep "pushing the envelope". It's visionaries like you that keep leading the way.
How about a Moss field? I can't stop the stuff from growing on my lawn and what would be more more representative of the Northwest? Seriously, I'm OK with field turf for the time being. Even lesser used NFL fields like Lambeau Field seem to be mostly painted dirt later on in their season. I wonder what the Wembley grounds keeper's think of the NFL games there?
Dear god... Are we asking this question again? Seriously, how many times does this zombie horse have to be beaten before people stop asking those of us on BS what our opinion of turf vs grass and start asking.. I dunno... The people that can actually get Qwest to be a grass field.. You know, the owners of the team/stadium. Just drop it already.
the seahawks have NO intention of ever letting the field become natural grass. end of story. it may be a dual use stadium, but the seachickens still think they're the God's of the northwest. for the record, i voted yes, simply because during the summer (which is the majority of the mls season) it would look fantastic. but once the weather turned.... field turf > mud.
So again I have to ask how long has Invesco had Desso? Did the Rapids and Broncos ever share it with Desso in place? I was under the impression that part of Robertson's issue was the drainage or am thinking of some other ancient ubiquitous college stadium? Yes we are having this discussion again. I seem to recall Toronto having it every year as well, and guess what they went au naturale. Perhaps MLS just needs to mandate grass only then First and Goal will not have a choice but to search for an alternative. So I did a quick search and found that Invesco's surface was voted field of the year for something or another in 2006, and it was a Desso system at that point. So that means that the Broncos, Rapids, and I believe the Outlaws were all sharing the field at the time. I was at the Colorado v Houston match on 7/26 of that year and the field looked fine, of course this would have have been a week or two before the NFL preseason started on it. Can anyone say how it held up into the later MLS months?