I have seen a couple of comments about the field last night in other threads, and thought it desreved its own thread. Man was that thing a piece of ************ or what? They said that it was 1" of clay?, 6" of dirt on top of the concrete with sod laid over. And they didn't water it at all. What's up with that. Filling in the seems with GREEN sand ??? I would expect much more from the Relaint people and hope the Fed reamed their ass for it. It made for some really bad hops out there and very high bounces. The close ups of the field wer hideous. My club field her in Ft.Wayne is like 70 years old and we have one guy who volunteers to maintain them and it looked better than that.
I agree, it looked awful on tv, adn especially when they would show close-ups of goal kicks and you could see all the sand being kicked up. However, Landon said in the article on MLSnet this.... On the playing conditions: “It looked bad, but it didn’t play very bad. It played O.K. and I don’t think that it was an issue at all.” http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/us0508mexico.html So I don't know, but it looked like strips of velcro.
In Seattle they were able to lay down a temporary grass field over the field turf that was outstanding. There is no excuse for those conditions. Houston should be embarrasses.
No way in Hell Houston gets an expansion team if they can't put down somewhat respectable turf for games.
You know the field looked much better in person than on TV. From my seat just a few rows up the grass looked great, but the TV screens at the stadium made the grass look very patchy. The sand flying up looked horrible though 8(
Agreeded, you could tell the field wasn't the best ever, but I didn't think it looked too bad from the stands. You could see a few bad hops, but didn't think it made that much of a difference. This was Reliant's 1st attempt hosting a soccer match, they'll learn from this expirence. Even though the Texans play on a grass field, the grass is not permanant, that's why they had to bring grass in.
Seattle's Seahawk Stadium is field turf for crying out loud! Not permanent grass is no excuse. The Seattle grass cost $100,000, and was perfect. With the exception of a Sounder game on field turf last July, this was also the first soccer game in the stadium. It looked great, and judging from player comments played great as well.
Last time you saw something that bad? The last time I saw a field that bad was when we played at Barbados in WCQ.
Re: Last time you saw something that bad? Yea, the field wasn't the best....but: 1. It didn't have football lines. 2. It didn't have negative effects on the play of the game.
perfect is not players losing their footing b/c they lay real stuff over fake stuff therefore the grass is slippery as hell and people are constantly falling like what happened during that game in seattle...
We have these in California. They're called faultlines. http://www.ibiblio.org/footy/2003/0508_usa_mex_ajm.php
As I recall (correct me if I get this wrong), Reliant uses a tray system, but for some reason they weren't able to use it for last night's match. It may have had something to do with the tray-grass not being mature enough yet (it's being grown as we speak). So one can assume that an MLS team in Reliant would not play on that clay/sand/grass concoction, but on the tray system. The tray system didn't work well in Giants' Stadium. As I recall, the surface was very uneven (i.e., when new trays were brought in to replace worn out trays, they were much thicker/higher than the grass trays that surrounded them).
Re: Re: Last time you saw something that bad? Sure it did. There were bad bounces and players clearly had trouble settling the ball over and over due to the hardness and inconsistent nature of the pitch. Unfortunately, I think it effected the U.S. team more than Mexico as they're better technically and can adjust easier whereby that's not the best part of our game and the field conditions made it noticeably worse. At least that was my perception of things.
Whatever. You know, I think there are a lot more things that you should take into consideration than just the turf. 1. The press was all over this match, promoting it...ton's of articles in the paper and on the news. This is something you can't change. 2. The crowd showed up and acted respectible. Very hospitable fans from both sides. Many of the Mexican fans talked about MLS and how they'd like to see matches in the US. Also, a big suprise to most BigSoccerites, there was a significant number of American supporters who weren't afraid to show up in a potentially volitile atmosphere. This is something you can't change. 3. There is a guy with a lot of money who is interested in the game. This is something that is very, very hard to get. 4. The turf wasn't so great. This is something that CAN be changed. So, with all of this, I really don't see how someone can say that after 1 match, that wasn't even using the real tray system but a substitute that barely had any time to settle, that Houston shouldn't get a side.
Does anyone have an idea what 70,000 fans of an international translates to for an MLS team? I'm guessing more than half that attendance goes away with the Mexican contingent. Take away travelling fans, big game fans, exclusively national team fans, casual fans and Houston maybe pulls 15,000 to 20,000? If I'm anywhere near correct, that's a reasonable figure at this stage.
Honestly, it can't really be translated. Too many variables to consider. The one good thing though is the unprecidented press coverage of a friendly. The Houston media has demonstrated that they are willing to give airtime and space in the paper to write/talk about soccer. This is a HUGE factor in promoting matches and getting people to the gates.
NO MORE US GAMES ON SOD, PLEASE! This has happened many times before where the US SOccer Federation thinks it can plop down a field anywhere they want without any sort of prior testing: Portland comes to mind. I can't believe that thye take this aspect of the game (THE FRIGGIN' PLAYING SURFACE) so lightly.