TFC 2014 pre-season thread

[Pookie]

Which all may be moot if this is even a little bit of crying wolf injuries strategy. We'll see when they announce next Sats lineup.

Agreed.

But there are a number of research papers out there that challenge the assumption that field turf is more likely to cause injury. Always amazed me that we complained about turf causing injuries like to Danny K but the Patriots had no concern about Million Dollar Man Tom Brady playing on the same surface.

This was a good summary by Jay Williams, a PhD at Virginia Tech.

He did a meta-analysis of published studies and while some found increased risk, others found that turf was actually "safer." His conclusion:

"Based on current research, players, coaches and parents should feel comfortable about soccer played on artificial turf. The likelihood of suffering an acute injury because of artificial turf is no greater than when playing on grass."

http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com...s-natural.html

[LFC8]

As a pats fan i can tell you....quarterbacks are very well protected. After Brady's acl injury, they made a rule that you can't hit a qb below the knees lol

[Fort York Redcoat]

Also it's the expectation of the sport, Pook. Not the players but the history or tradition forms a lot of the bias one will see.


NFL fans don't expect natural grass ever since the invention that helps share stadiums. The sport we're talking about here is one stuck in the luxury of grass because most of the world couldn't give... a care about other sports that would need to share their football shrines.

[ag futbol]

I'm more concerned about the interests of my club, and not the league. If Defoe is 100% and ready to play, yeah sure, play him. But given we only play on turf, what, maybe 3 times this season, is it really worth risking another Koevermans situation? Because there'd really be hell to pay if that happened.

I don't really have an opinion on that one way or another. I'm just saying the league will probably not look favorably on it.

To add to the previous situation I described: Spurs were coming off something like 4 games in 6 days and this would have been their 5th in seven. Part of their rationale was resting their older core and preventing injuries, similar to this case. NBA was packing the schedule because there was a mini-strike leading into it (if memory serves).

[mowe]

Injuries can happen anywhere. We've had Frei, Cann, and Dike have major injuries on grass. Turf might be a little more tough on the body but unless a player is coming back from injury there's no need to hold them out on turf. If a player is 100%, they should play.

[tfcleeds]

I don't really have an opinion on that one way or another. I'm just saying the league will probably not look favorably on it.

To add to the previous situation I described: Spurs were coming off something like 4 games in 6 days and this would have been their 5th in seven. Part of their rationale was resting their older core and preventing injuries, similar to this case. NBA was packing the schedule because there was a mini-strike leading into it (if memory serves).

I agree there can sometimes be a real conflict between maintaining the integrity of a particular game, and acting in your own club's interests. At the end of the day though, if I'm a coach, I have to do what's best for my club. If the league is going to fine me, then well go ahead. I think from TFC's perspective, the Koevs thing really hurt us, so it's once bitten, twice shy. Losing Defoe for whatever reason, would be a disaster. But yeah, if he's good to go, he'll probably play.

[Joe Kool]

This is a curious statement.

Dempsey plays on turf over half the time.

Did we sign them to sit out games because of fear they might get injured? If so, wow, that's a helluva plan.

I don't give a shit about Dempsey, he is not on the team I support. He can play on turf all the time for all I care. His decision. If I ran a team and I had a choice to not put my assets at risk for a couple games and minimize the risk of losing them for the season then I would and I do think it would be a helluva plan in my opinion. I don't run the team though and I am sure ratings and other pressures to play are more important to the management so I am sure the DP's that can play will play. We have just had bad luck with turf and I would rather not see a repeat of our history with it and DP injuries.

[notthesun]

Here's the Defoe interview. His hamstring is clearly not a concern for him.

http://www.tsn.ca/videohub/?collection=72&show=303252

[Pookie]

I don't give a shit about Dempsey, he is not on the team I support. He can play on turf all the time for all I care. His decision. If I ran a team and I had a choice to not put my assets at risk for a couple games and minimize the risk of losing them for the season then I would and I do think it would be a helluva plan in my opinion. I don't run the team though and I am sure ratings and other pressures to play are more important to the management so I am sure the DP's that can play will play. We have just had bad luck with turf and I would rather not see a repeat of our history with it and DP injuries.

If you don't want to see a repeat, don't sign old guys

As for the choice not to put your assets at risk, that's fine. If you missed the playoffs by a few points while sitting them out of games that involved 12 possible ones, all because of a fear of injury that isn't backed up by research, then yeah… that'd be a curious one alright and quite a few of your fans would in fact give a shit.

[Pookie]

Also it's the expectation of the sport, Pook. Not the players but the history or tradition forms a lot of the bias one will see.


NFL fans don't expect natural grass ever since the invention that helps share stadiums. The sport we're talking about here is one stuck in the luxury of grass because most of the world couldn't give... a care about other sports that would need to share their football shrines.

Bias is one thing.

There is no definitive evidence from those who study injuries to say that playing on turf is more dangerous. Some say yes. Some say no difference and some even say that there is less risk playing on turf. All I know is that NFL teams invest millions in their players and trot them out on turf every week. They would laugh in your face if you suggested holding out a star player because of an unproven increased risk of injury in a big game.

[RealG-TFC]

​wrong thread

[ag futbol]

I agree there can sometimes be a real conflict between maintaining the integrity of a particular game, and acting in your own club's interests. At the end of the day though, if I'm a coach, I have to do what's best for my club. If the league is going to fine me, then well go ahead. I think from TFC's perspective, the Koevs thing really hurt us, so it's once bitten, twice shy. Losing Defoe for whatever reason, would be a disaster. But yeah, if he's good to go, he'll probably play.

Oh for sure. I don't blame the coach at all, just think the coaches ability to do what he wants will have consequences, potentially ones that negate any point of trying to sit players out.

[LFC8]

Here's the Defoe interview. His hamstring is clearly not a concern for him.

http://www.tsn.ca/videohub/?collection=72&show=303252

Now wait for Nelsen to start him on the bench.....

[TFC07]

Have any of you guys played on field turf before? It ain't exactly comfortable than playing on grass. Comparing NFL players who don't move as much as soccer players and wear a lot of equipment to protect themselves isn't fair comparison.

[Pookie]

Have any of you guys played on field turf before? It ain't exactly comfortable than playing on grass. Comparing NFL players who don't move as much as soccer players and wear a lot of equipment to protect themselves isn't fair comparison.

A number of the studies referenced compared soccer players on turf to other soccer players on grass.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Bias is one thing.

There is no definitive evidence from those who study injuries to say that playing on turf is more dangerous. Some say yes. Some say no difference and some even say that there is less risk playing on turf. All I know is that NFL teams invest millions in their players and trot them out on turf every week. They would laugh in your face if you suggested holding out a star player because of an unproven increased risk of injury in a big game.

Well lucky for me I'd never be in a situation to be laughed in the face by a big bad NFL exec. Thanks for warning me.

[brad]

NFL and football are not comparable when referencing turf in respects to injuries. Football is way more cutting and direction changes than NFL. It's those sorts of movements where the cleats get stuck in and the turf has no give like grass.

[lanarkist]

Having played on both (while certainly not elite) I can't say I've ever felt more likely to hurt myself on one or the other. Some turf is certainly better than others, but the only thing that ever bothered me with turf is the inevitable rug burn from a bad slide. That said, the same can happen on grass, just not to the same extent. But for ankles/knees/hammys, I don't think it's that big of a difference.

Again just my amateur two cents - would prefer grass, but never thought turf was the end of the world.

[Pookie]

NFL and football are not comparable when referencing turf in respects to injuries. Football is way more cutting and direction changes than NFL. It's those sorts of movements where the cleats get stuck in and the turf has no give like grass.

Again though brad, the studies referenced compare soccer on both surfaces. Some actually conclude that turf is better.

Certainly not the crap we had in year 1 but then again, I had the chance to play at BMO with grass within a year of it being laid and the number of bumps and divots made one think that a golf team had used it before us.

There is no evidence that suggests that the turf used in these hundreds of million dollar stadiums is of poor quality and contributes to injury.

[sashavukelich]

The Risk with Turf...and this is how uncertain the grip is. too much 'stick' and a rotation or pivot movement can lead to an injury, if it's to 'slick' you can get hyper extension injuries....hence the trouble. not to mention the wicked thigh and calf burns from good tackles..

[Joe Kool]

If you don't want to see a repeat, don't sign old guys

As for the choice not to put your assets at risk, that's fine. If you missed the playoffs by a few points while sitting them out of games that involved 12 possible ones, all because of a fear of injury that isn't backed up by research, then yeah… that'd be a curious one alright and quite a few of your fans would in fact give a shit.

My initial point was that I would be okay with it if they sat. It is fine if you are note. Of course no decision of management would be the right one in everyone's eyes as this one wouldn't be with you. Of course nobody would come out and say that is the reason anyway. Better to tell the fans in that case they have a little muscle strain and are sitting it out as a precaution or something to keep people from being as pissed. Gotta be political for all the critics. But that's fine you are entitled to your opinion as am I. As far as research goes I don't care enough to look into it. All I know is we lost two DP's to major injuries on turf that they never recovered from and a ton of player interviews I have heard over the years have players constantly complaining about playing on it and how hard it is on them. Good enough for me in terms of research to say it is not great to play on.

[tfcocd]

Again though brad, the studies referenced compare soccer on both surfaces. Some actually conclude that turf is better.

Certainly not the crap we had in year 1 but then again, I had the chance to play at BMO with grass within a year of it being laid and the number of bumps and divots made one think that a golf team had used it before us.

There is no evidence that suggests that the turf used in these hundreds of million dollar stadiums is of poor quality and contributes to injury.

I don't think there is one club in the 92 professional clubs in England that play on an artificial surface. The adherence to this standard after 100 years of competition is strong evidence that natural surface is important to the sport of soccer.

[Leedsoronto]

A few clubs in England tries turf in the 80-90s, Preston NE for one. But it did not last, and the turf was removed. Most clubs go for under soil heat now for them frosty days. Remember UK footy is a winter sport, on grass, with only a few PP games a year.

Turf is less harmfull to above knee injuries, but the cause of most ankle and foot issues, this is due to the grip as stated above.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Again though brad, the studies referenced compare soccer on both surfaces. Some actually conclude that turf is better.

Certainly not the crap we had in year 1 but then again, I had the chance to play at BMO with grass within a year of it being laid and the number of bumps and divots made one think that a golf team had used it before us.

There is no evidence that suggests that the turf used in these hundreds of million dollar stadiums is of poor quality and contributes to injury.

I'm sure the bolded above is critisism on a grass facility overusing the surface for anyone's use and does little toward devaluing a properly used dedicated grass surface that is the case in the majority of facilities that use grass.

Again it's a question of priorities.

NA has little priority to dedicate a facility to one particular type of event.

[burlington Red]

Bias is one thing.

There is no definitive evidence from those who study injuries to say that playing on turf is more dangerous. Some say yes. Some say no difference and some even say that there is less risk playing on turf. All I know is that NFL teams invest millions in their players and trot them out on turf every week. They would laugh in your face if you suggested holding out a star player because of an unproven increased risk of injury in a big game.

Thierry Henry won't play on it.

[jloome]

I don't think there is one club in the 92 professional clubs in England that play on an artificial surface. The adherence to this standard after 100 years of competition is strong evidence that natural surface is important to the sport of soccer.

No, it's not. Lots of people wouldn't sail to the horizon at one point because it frightened them; it wasn't 'evidence' that the world is flat. How people react to something is often not evidence of anything, given that people make 85% of their choices via preexisting bias and not rationalized investigation.

It's all moot. Football? Moot? Past injuries? Bit moot too. Why? Because actual science shows soccer players aren't injured more often on turf than grass. This has been the case since this debate started, seven years ago.

Ignore the outlier arguments. The science has spoken.

And Russia's a major league with major money now, and clubs there do play on artificial turf.

Also, Chelsea's youth teams practice on an artificial pitch (3G blend, like we're allegedly considering); if there were any proof it was dangerous, does anyone think one of the world's biggest clubs would risk valuable assets on it?

[ensco]

^Who cares if it's rational? We know that players don't want to play on it. That's really all I care about.

I also don't like the aesthetics, the crazy bounces and bizarre skipping of through balls. If new surfaces solve that, that is helpful. But that sure wasn't true here in 2007-08.

[jloome]

We had field turf in 2008. 3G bounces like normal grass and uses sand underlay so that it isn't hard to fall on, as well as silicone coating on the grass to avoid skin burns.

I don't disagree it dissuades players. THat's a diff't point from whether it's safe or not. There are something like 7,000 3G pitches in Europe now, including numerous pro teams using them for practice. So it's not a safety issue, it's a perception issue.

(Although even the science is, of course, somewhat contradictory.)

EDIT: And I care if it's not rational, goddamit. Most of what's wrong with this planet is due to bias, insecurity, and the average person's inability to be rational.

[CBTFC]

Stubhub Center looking pretty damn empty for Chivas at home to Chicago.

[Detroit_TFC]

CUSA is going to surprise this season. Despite the non-attendance (the well is poisoned), on the playing and coaching side they have made some improvements.