Do teams that play on turf have an advantage?

Something Defoe said made me think about this, he said 'we all have to do it' (or something like that) referring to turf.

This is interesting because my son used to play only on turf summer and winter, and when tournaments were held at his home field the home teams would nearly never lose, I know that this is likely because the ball bounces and rolls differently on turf.

Half your games are home games and most other teams don't have turf so this would lead me to think that teams like Seattle would have a greater advantage when playing at home.

I'm trying to remember how good we were before grass was put in.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abou Sky

Something Defoe said made me think about this, he said 'we all have to do it' (or something like that) referring to turf.

This is interesting because my son used to play only on turf summer and winter, and when tournaments were held at his home field the home teams would nearly never lose, I know that this is likely because the ball bounces and rolls differently on turf.

Half your games are home games and most other teams don't have turf so this would lead me to think that teams like Seattle would have a greater advantage when playing at home.

---

I really believe they do. Its a completely different game when playing on turf.

It never provided TFC with any advantage. I believe we still had turf when we set that horrendous goalless streak... that said, we could have been playing on concrete with a square ball and wouldn't have gained an advantage... sometimes your team is so bad that only a no show by the other team gives you an advantage.

Statistically turf teams do better when playing grass teams on turf.

That advantage did not help TFC enough because TFC was so badly put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OgtheDim

I'm trying to remember how good we were before grass was put in.......

---

404 memory not found.

What about the reverse scenario?

I would expect plastic turf teams to do better at home, in a league where plastic isn't very common. However, I expect they would also have more injuries on average.

I just had a quick look at the stats to compare TFC's MLS record at BMO for the first 3 years on turf and the last 4 years on grass.

2007-2009 on Turf 42% Wins, 31% Ties, 27% Losses

2010-2013 on Grass 28% Wins, 41% Ties, 31% Losses

I don't know whether this is meaningful or just shows what a bad team we have been over the last 4 years particularly, but it's food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abou Sky

Something Defoe said made me think about this, he said 'we all have to do it' (or something like that) referring to turf.

This is interesting because my son used to play only on turf summer and winter, and when tournaments were held at his home field the home teams would nearly never lose, I know that this is likely because the ball bounces and rolls differently on turf.

Half your games are home games and most other teams don't have turf so this would lead me to think that teams like Seattle would have a greater advantage when playing at home.

---

heres another angle and it is ridiculous , because when the star players are held back because of the poor turf a la Henry last week , yet they salivate at playing on an impeccable grass field like ours and of course suit up so we are at even another disadvantage . These bullshit owners mostly millionaires , are happy to get rewards for the use of their stadium , otherwise empty except for football should fork out $$ to get a better more equal , league wise playing surface . Lovin the action but some of the BS inequities need to be really looked at in the coming years and then we could have a great league .

I suspect it may provide a marginal advantage, similar to how teams like the Buffalo Bills think terrible winter weather in Buffalo gives them an advantage, since they are used to it.

I suspect if you were to look at the actual stats, that advantage is probably either mostly insignificant, or completely illusory.

- Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazzy

heres another angle and it is ridiculous , because when the star players are held back because of the poor turf a la Henry last week , yet they salivate at playing on an impeccable grass field like ours and of course suit up so we are at even another disadvantage . These bullshit owners mostly millionaires , are happy to get rewards for the use of their stadium , otherwise empty except for football should fork out $$ to get a better more equal , league wise playing surface . Lovin the action but some of the BS inequities need to be really looked at in the coming years and then we could have a great league .

---

Exactly! Fake turf does play advantage simply because some of best players in the league wouldn't play on it or possibly wouldn't play as hard as they will on natural turf.

About Seattle and turf and psychology while playing, an interesting thing happened today.

Watch the video of Nelsen with the press today and he said when asked about Seattle's surface, "Well, its not only turf, its not very good turf. Its not like this stuff." (looking at the practice turf at BMO)

To which Sigi Schmid, having likely only been told about the first bit, suggested that Nelsen was probably right about turf but all the other turfs in the league are about the same.

A slight psychological advantage to TFC on this one I think. A few defensive Sounder fans will be ticked. But, Nelsen is beginning to set us up as underdogs. All while pointing out that the players practice on turf right now so there really shouldn't be an advantage.

Mind games.....