No word on whether this will have any permanent NFL lines. For some reason I kind of doubt they would do that, given the NJSEA's interest in hosting international matches there. I wonder if this decision changes that dynamic in any way. This really jumped out at me as a factor that may lead to many more venues switching to the modern artificial surfaces:
Well, how enthused will Manchester United and Juventus be at playing their millions of dollar rated players on that crap? Bad news.
Many of Europe's top clubs train on it several days a week. Nothing I've read suggests that players are at any greater risk on FieldTurf relative to an over-used and poorly-kept grass pitch.
Two years ago - watching Barbados v US (I think it was Barbados) that grass field looked like a city park - tall grass, patches of dirt. But it was real. I understand the economics and some stadium and team owners are more concerned with dollars saved. I am not. I would rather soccer teams play on a poor grass field than a pristine fake field.
I have a feeling this might be FieldTurf propaganda. I get the impression that a few clubs have ONE training field of fake stuff that gets used only when the real fields are unusable or use would cause to much damage.
I'd say your impression is wrong. I can't wait to see all you anti-Fieldturf types eating crow. -Kevin
It's not about eating crow, and I don't consider myself "anti-FieldTurf". I have played on a couple of the new generation surfaces (not sure what brand) and I agree that they are a huge improvement over Astro Turf. At the same time, you will have a hard time convincing me that they will ever develop a fake surface that is better than grass. I have no doubt that the game as we view it will be very similar to a game on grass, so if that is what you are referring to by "eating crow" then congratulations, you win. But I am guessing that if we ask the players whether they would prefer a good condition grass field, most if not all would say yes.
Then you haven't seen the condition of GS' grass field. It has bordered on criminal. I am suprised scores of players have not broken ankles on it by now. I can remember Serna's only goal for the Metro where he hit a week toe poke (forgot who it was against) from 10 yards out the ball was rolling slowly to the keeper only to hit a huge divot in front of him and pop over his head for a goal. If thats the type of field you want, then you can stick your soccer purisim up your arse. Reason # 355689 why Metro need to get out of Giants Stadium.
Hey, I'm a "purist" too. It's just that I've seen actual comments from athletes across many sports, who've all raved about FieldTurf. Seahawks Stadium was voted the 3rd best field in the NFL according to the NFLPA. The very same association that did everything they could to get rid of astro-turf. They also noted that not every player has even played on it yet, but the ones that have are simply ecstatic with it's performance and comfort. Soccer clubs worldwide are installing it as thier practice fields, and some such as in Moscow, and now NJ thier stadium surface. Because of the absolutely horrid field conditions we've seen in MLS, WCQ and more at times, I'm convinced that FieldTurf is a better surface than many, if not most multi-use grass fields. -Kevin
My only problem is with the football lines. I hate watching a game with those ugly lines. Other than that I am not opposed to soccer teams using this new turf. I also wonder if the ball will bounce really high when it hits the ground, like old turf.
The thing with FieldTurf is that FIFA only approves it on a case by case basis. Only Nickerson Stadium in Boston has been FIFA approved for club play. If they are going to put it into Giants Stadium, they should tray and get approval as soon as the turf is in place.
Here's an interesting read. ManU and Juevantas might actually welcome playing on FieldTurf in game conditions. I'm sure other clubs around Europe will be watching the Giants Stadium game as well to see the effects to the players and ball. Increased MLS use of artificial turf will be studied worldwide
The Wagman article is a good read. Is it true that Giants Stadium is going with Safeplay instead of FieldTurf? If you have to go artificial, I thought the latter is the better choice.
According to Jeff Bradley's First XI (http://mlsnet.com/content/03/firstXI0204.html): Also "Delta Blues" might note that he's being called out:
Let's see what transpires shall we? I don't see a list of players, or any legitimate complaints listed. Seems as much a personal statement than any factual information to me. I believe FieldTurf will be very well recieved by MLS players. -Kevin
It's surprising to hear negative comments about it. It's not grass, but it plays more like grass than any other synthetic surface. It a little firmer and the ball bounces higher, but the uniformity of the surface will be of benefit to teams that play a ground passing game. You can also use turf shoes and I have also used indoor soccer shoes while refereeing on it with very good traction and comfort.
I'm a Giants' fan and from everything that I've read, it's going to be FieldTurf. I'm not sure where Wagman got his info. The official announcement is supposed to be this week. FieldTurf won the battle when it was voted as the 3rd best field (Seattle) and also got high praise for Ford Field (Detroit).
I'm not a Field Turf fan, but it has to be an improvement over the disgrace that was the Giants Stadium field for the previous year. (It sucked just as bad for NFL football as it did for soccer.)
Re: Re: Unofficial: NJSEA To Replace Giants Stadium Grass With FieldTurf Agreed, there was an article in the Newark Star Ledger by one of the dad's on my sons soccer team and he confirmed in the article the announcement would be forthcoming from the NJSEA and the choice was for Field Turf.
You're missing the point. Jeff Bradley has been approached by several players (he's in Florida for a baseball story but went to the US training game), players who have played on FieldTurf/SafePlay pitches (hell, I'm far from a professional soccer player, but I've played on both surfaces at various public parks and indoor facilities in New York City and New Jersey), and they simply do not like them. No "list of players": the players were off the record. The concensus opinion was reported. "Personal statement": why, are you saying that Jeff Bradley is an unprofessional journalist, working his bias into his reporting and parading it as fact? Is he making up sources? Or are you saying that it's a personal statement by the players, which is just the point? No "legitimate complaint": their opinions are likely based on an aggregate of their experience, right? They have played on it and don't like it, for an assortment of reasons. The blurb isn't a pro and con on artificial surfaces, but a note that several players have gone out of their way to say the do not like the fake grass. "FieldTurf will be well received by MLS players": where's your testimonials? Where is your list of names, since you're demanding that as proof that players don't like it?
Giant Stadium people should have a plan B to cover those football marks. If they are planing to bring Manchester United and Real Madrid, they must do something.
Re: Re: Unofficial: NJSEA To Replace Giants Stadium Grass With FieldTurf You may be right that a decision has already been made and this is just for appearances . . . http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/story/57544p-53923c.html . . . but it does appear that they have not settled on FieldTurf yet. At least there is no SafePlay, but I don't know anything about the other three brands
Re: Re: Re: Unofficial: NJSEA To Replace Giants Stadium Grass With FieldTurf Great article. That makes more sense.