Here is the link todays globe and mail http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/se...rtsSoccer/home
Grass for Some TFC games this summer !
Here is the link todays globe and mail http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/se...rtsSoccer/home
That would be a thing of beauty
well, it's a good start, if it's true. better than nothing. but coming from MLSE/TFC who is notorious for breaking promises, i'll believe it when i see it.
If it's just for the friendlies, I'll be pissed off.
Innnteresting. It's definately a good start. I'll say one thing though, when Seattle did this for a game played at Quest (might have been Canada v Brazil), the reviews were bad from the players. Hopefully it doesn't come out worst then the turf.
yep definitely a good start, lets hope its just that, a start
In the summer when we have like 2 regular season games ? Yup...so lets not get too excited...although I hope these discussions open the door to broader discussions...I do find it to be a bit of a waste of money to do it once for a meaningless friendly...so there is hoping.
This would be awesome .. I cannot wait to smell that smell of frsh air from the grass
I know why you say this, I think, but I'd take it. TFC have only one home game between June 24 and August 9.Originally Posted by ExiledRed
Got to start somewhere.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
They did the same thing for the United - Chelsea final at Luzhniki Stadium, and the surface did not hold up at all.
I thought most considered those "dead" temporary grass surfaces as worse to play on than field turf. The temporary surface for the Boston game in the 2007 Gold Cup looked horrid.
I remember that the Revs couldn't wait to get back to turf after playing on that mess.
If its anything like that champs league game its not even worth it in my opinion. It held up like shit, players were sliding everywhere and there were holes all over the place. You risk injury when you play on a pitch of poor quality like that. as much as id love to finally see grass in bmo this could prove to be more of a risk then a step forward. If its anything like luzhniki, itll be a serious damper on future grass-turf debates
How demoralising is that for the players? What does that say to potential players?
We admit that the fieldturf is not good enough for top flight professionals, so when they come, we'll give them a grass surface, so they dont have to play ONE game on it.
Our players can go to hell though. They can do 18 games on the shit, and it's not a problem.
Temporary grass is the kind of pitch that seems to be used for show more than anything. The reviews are not great for this kind of playing surface, and some players even prefer playing on field turf - I'm thinking of the NE Revolution players at Foxboro.
Apart from the surface being dead and prone to wear and tear, temp grass pitches tend to be much slower than permanent grass or field turf installations. Canada is not a fast team, and it plays less give-and-go possession football than Latin American teams. Thus, it should not be surprising that Canada played two very good games on the temporary stuff - the ball's lack of speed on the ground effectively neutralised Guatemala and Brazil, allowing Canada to succeed with less pace.
Similar to Canada, I think TFC would play well on temp grass. A slow pitch will not favour possession teams, and TFC has always played a more European game than the rest of MLS.
the cost seems really high.
But i guess if i had 44 ankles and 44 knees to insure, i'd charge that much too.
Why tease us? If they want to bring in some top flight teams, then use that as a catalyst to get the practice facility negotiations done and make it permanent....especially if the temporary grass gets poor reviews.
I was talking with bmofield and he said that the grass was being look in to & that it would only be good for 3 to 4 months so from say july to maybe oct. before it would be riped out
Grass? Article written on 4/20? Hmmm.
just another waste of money, let's install temporary grass, and pay x amount of $.
What they should do: Permanently install grass
meh, at least they will be keeping the grounds crew on their toes
How many non-grass MLS teams have won the MLS Cup?
Last edited by Whoop; 04-21-2009 at 11:26 AM.
MLS is filled with demoralizing elements for the players, present and future. What harm could come from adding one more to the list?
You could argue this could lead to grass on a permanent basis, which is helpful to the players.
My crusade is to get the minimum salary up, say to $60-70K. A professional anything (pharmacist, dental assistant, footballer) should make at least that much.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
"Hunter said MLSE has been consulting grass experts"
http://www.onesecondleft.com/ Please visit the one second left blog that I contribute to.
My MLS now includes Montreal... we needed someone to hate.
what about that grass system that comes in on square pallets? I don't think that's what they installed temp at certain stadiums in the past, right? that was just rolls laid down with no root structure. But there is a grass system that comes in pallets -- you bring each pallet in on a forklift, then lock it into place.. there's no rim to worry about, and the grass has roots. If the grass on a pallet is bad, you just replace the pallet. They'd just need an outdoor location to keep and grow the grass on the pallets, and they'd need to do a setup and teardown for each game, the way they set up the b-ball court at the ACC and tear it down after.
until the city signs off on replacing grass permanently, maybe they could do this. then 5 days a week it's fieldturf for the community use requirement.
I remember suggesting this course of action at least a year ago, but more than one individual stated that the cost would be too high, at least for small-scale clubs such as those found in MLS. Reliant Stadium in Houston employs a pallet system for its natural grass surface, but the revenue accumulated by NFL teams make this type of surface more feasible.
MLS Cup Champions (home stadium, surface)
1996 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
1997 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
1998 - Chicago Fire - Soldier Field, grass
1999 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
2000 - Kansas City Wizards - Arrowhead Stadium, grass
2001 - San Jose Earthquakes - Spartan Stadium, grass
2002 - Los Angeles Galaxy - Rose Bowl, grass
2003 - San Jose Earthquakes - Spartan Stadium, grass
2004 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
2005 - Los Angeles Galaxy - Home Depot Center, grass
2006 - Houston Dynamo - Robertson Stadium, grass
2007 - Houston Dynamo - Robertson Stadium, grass
2008 - Columbus Crew - Columbus Crew Stadium, grass
Supports Shield (home stadium, surface)
1996 - Tampa Bay Mutiny - Tampa Stadium, grass
1997 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
1998 - Los Angeles Galaxy - Rose Bowl, grass
1999 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
2000 - Kansas City Wizards - Arrowhead Stadium, grass
2001 - Miami Fusion - Lockhart Stadium, grass
2002 - Los Angeles Galaxy - Rose Bowl, grass
2003 - Chicago Fire - Cardinal Stadium, artificial turf
2004 - Columbus Crew - Columbus Crew Stadium, grass
2005 - San Jose Earthquakes - Spartan Stadium, grass
2006 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
2007 - DC United - RFK Stadium, grass
2008 - Columbus Crew - Columbus Crew Stadium, grass
So in all these years only one team, Chicago Fire, has won anything having played on artificial turf. The only reason they were there was because Soldier Field was undergoing renovations.
I expect the New York Red Bulls overall performance to improve once they move into their new stadium, which will have a grass surface.
With the trouble TFC has been having in attracting a quality team for a friendly, I am guess this is an attempt to overcome one more obstacle in luring a side over? This is usually a biggie...
I was once in the "it's not that bad" camp, but for the long term success of this team, grass is imperative.
What pisses me off most is the way players and coaches arent allowed to talk about it.
I for one would like to hear the honest, and uncensored opinions of the coach and the players as to how much they think the turf is impacting the performance and fitness of the players. I'd also like to hear from Mo how it has affected the signings of various players in the past.
The fact that they aren't allowed to talk about it might be telling enough, but getting 'the mushroom' treatment may well be leading us to blame various players, the coaches and the GM for things that are beyond their control.
Anyone find it ironic that this news came out on 4/20?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote