Comments on: The Fake Field Farce

By: jfroslid

jfroslid — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:36:06 +0000

Richard, I’ve worked for FieldTurf for the past 8 years as Director of Soccer Development, and this is one of the most logical, informed and refreshing arguments on the topic that I’ve read. I commend you, not just because my employer is FieldTurf, but because synthetic is the future in many situations. While there is certainly some truth to donjuego’s point above I’m finding the number of complaints from pro players is decreasing. I attribute this to the fact that the new, younger players coming into the league have played most of their carees on artificial turf. The other point not considered here is FIFA. The international governing body is immensely supportive of artificial turf. It is no coincidence that portions of the U20 men’s and women’s world cups have been played on artificial turf over the past 5+ years, including the championship matches. I also believe clubs like Seattle and Portland will play a large role in how soon US Soccer makes this adjustment. I believe it’s not a matter of “if” but rather “when” our national team will play on artificial, especially as the product, particularly FieldTurd’s fibers, gets better for soccer each year.

By: d12e

d12e — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:01:06 +0000

Anyone who plays on field turf daily will tell you they prefer grass. It takes a toll on the body and will ware you down. Do you think Messi could have played 60 games in a calender year if he was playing on a field like seattle or New England? If he didnt get hurt he would have needed more rest. I just dont get it, if you loose one player from a turf injury the team will loose a significant amount of money from that loss, especially in football where it could be a high priced franchise player.

By: scottp11

scottp11 — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:28:44 +0000

I just think if fake turf were actually, truly fine then many more would be playing on it Simple. It’s not about conspiracies or whiny, Luddite players.

The fake stuff getting better, but is still so varied. Sand-based, rubber-based. Pacific NW moles can cry all they want, but I prefer to play on real grass (decent) over the Turf any day.

I also think turf-toe is a real problem.

By: arbeck

arbeck — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:00:27 +0000

Depends on the conditions at the time. I’m pretty sure Field Turf would have been better than grass during the Honduras game the USMNT played in the downpour in Miami last year.

A high quality grass field under ideal conditions will always be preferable to turf. However, there are times when conditions are less than ideal.

By: creek0512

creek0512 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:26:40 +0000

Sure, Field Turf is better than a crappy, hard grass field like I played on in high school. But there is no comparison between Field Turf and a high quality field like any grass field USSF chose would be.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:37:10 +0000

There are a lot of things I don’t know, but one of the few things I do know is your first sentence is wrong. You actually don’t have to look hard or long to find players for whom playing in some of the aforementioned venues is not an issue.

By: donjuego

donjuego — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:25:16 +0000

Every pro player, (lets say this again, EVERY PRO PLAYER), that speaks on the subject says field turf makes their bodies hurt more, requires longer recovery, and produces unpredictable bounces and plays different than a good grass field. They all prefer grass. Some veterans take games off when their teams goes to a turf venue. Thierry Henry for example.

But what would these professional soccer players know? I’m sure Richard Farley is right and all these players are wrong.

Turf is better than a bad grass field. No argument there.

By: charliej11

charliej11 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:30:46 +0000

Hmm, I should be on the side of turf and I am…..but to say the quality is as good ? I can only assume you mean quality of the field ( kids today would rather play on the turf, they complain when they don’t get a turf game in Seattle ).

The quality of play definitely suffers. I don’t think that is the worse thing in the world. Play Mexico in Seattle.

By: corgster

corgster — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:37:00 +0000

Installing temp turf is regressive, ill suited for major competitions, and clearly not on par with the current quality of the pitches being installed.

Secondly, this conversation is not a problem in many countries today. Russia has consciously used artificial turfs for Euro qualifiers and their opponents have not made a stink about it. Why does the USSF work to thwart the optimal turf for the stadium? Their reasoning is not persuasive.

By: mennodaddy

mennodaddy — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:26:10 +0000

Seriously. Estadio Ricardo Saprissa’s pitch is a freakin’ pool table.

By: mmancini99

mmancini99 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:12:29 +0000

Given the s@%! that the majority of CONCACAF nations play on, FieldTurf’s negatives are only relative.