Injuries on Turf vs Grass

[ensco]

I think maybe Ensco is touching on a good point though.

We have entered an era of information glut with no gatekeepers to weed out the nonsense and no one willing, or increasingly, capable of doing it for themselves.

Great book here on this subject that my sister shared with me from one of her university courses:http://www.amazon.ca/Technopoly-The-.../dp/0679745408

I thought it was a great read.

Alonso, nice! I am busted. Postman is absolutely the writer who got my thinking about this stuff (I'm talking 20 years ago)

That book is an absolute must read.

[tiberius]

...
There is simply no conclusive evidence to suggest playing soccer on turf is more dangerous than playing on grass.
....
So argue for it but don't take this injury fear too far and hold out players for no reason. That costs points.

Here's the thing Pookie - we both agree there is no conclusive evidence (that is because it is almost impossible to design a proper study without spending tens of millions of dollars), however, if there is a 10% or 20% chance that turf will take out our DPs, why take the chance? We have Hard, hard evidence on our own team, with our own eyes of key players going down with turf related injuries. Why take these risks with our 3 DPs and Dero etc. if we don't have to? Why? FOR the EFFING ARGOs is WHY. Is that a good reason? I think not. Is this making a mountain out of a mole hill? I think not. I THINK IT IS A BLOODY BIG DEAL!!

Tim and TIM are gambling with our players, our team and the club's future. Why? Probably a combination of reasons:
- they may be making the mistake of interpreting "no conclusive evidence" as meaning it is safe to expose your DPs to turf in game situations on a regular basis
- there is pressure to make money across all enterprises and the Argos could help that situation (maybe)
- from a pure soccer perspective you need a filled 30K stadium to pay for a $100 Million in DPs, that produces a winning team
- to fill a 30K stadium, you may need a roof, and a roof makes real grass harder and more expensive to grow and maintain

I really hope TIM and Tim truly understand the risks to the players and have factored this in to their thinking- Our DPs and best players are likely to fall because of the turf. Do they really have to take this risk? I hope they are not working from the position that turf is safe - if they are, their calculations are all wrong - they need to start over by assuming they will loose Bradley or Defoe because of the turf. Does their business case still fly with that factored in? It may - I can't crawl inside TIM's head...

Lastly - Handball Henri is no headcase - he has seen tons of turf injuries first hand, a real student of the game - he refuses to play on turf because it is in his best business interest not too. He knows that turf is more dangerous. I would probably make that same business decision if I was in his shoes - you would too - I bet TIM L. would too. It is funny how people's behaviors sometimes change when they are gambling with their own money.... Unfortunately most soccer players don't have the luxury of avoiding the risks by refusing to play on a more dangerous field type.

[Pookie]

^ assuming there is a 10-20% increased risk (and I don't think there is) you'd have to apply that same logic for a variety of factors.

Eg. Playing in the cold could increase chances of muscle injuries. Playing against a team with a reputation for playing recklessly. Playing in extreme heat. Playing in altitude. Playing in the rain. Etc etc.

The "hard evidence" on our team also suggests that injuries happen more frequently to guys over 30. That may be more of a factor. And continually signing guys over 30 means we are likely to see more injuries.

Think of all the preseason knocks. Did they occur on grass or turf?

[ManUtd4ever]

We only have 5 players over 30 though, and one of them is our keeper...Defoe, DeRo, Caldwell, Orr, and Cesar.

We actually have a fairly young team overall.

[tiberius]

We only have 5 players over 30 though, and one of them is our keeper...Defoe, DeRo, Caldwell, Orr, and Cesar.

We actually have a fairly young team overall.

Agreed - over the course of a couple of seasons tho, I do wonder what the chances are that we miight see one of our dps or a player of deros caliber go down with a serious turf related injury. I do think 10% chance is not that far off...

[james]

For me, turf is the point of no return for the club and stadium. The minute MLSE installs an artificial or hybrid surface is the minute that BMO Field stops becoming the home of Toronto FC. It is the act that seals the deal with the Argos and Maple Leafs and makes us really just one tenant out of three. For the club, it's one big step backward and I'm equally angered and disappointed by that fact. We all know the decisions regarding all this have pretty much been made, but when they start ripping out that grass and laying down the new pitch - I think that's when the realization is gonna hit most of us.

I'm not particularly worried over the pitch itself, I'm worried about the implications of the change.

I agree, and I do believe MLSE made this decision over a year ago. I did mention that I knew someone who was in construction and they mentioned that they already had plans drawn up about the renovations with the Argos, but anyways I had so many people in here message me as if I was a lie and I had no proof and I couldn't show evidence so there for I am making it up and blah blah, anyways not getting into that again. But yes I think once that grass gets ripped up we will start to notice we are just another tenant. But if the turf is as good as Anfield or Emirates I don't think any of us would complain. Question is will the turf be as good as that? will the turf beable to hold up after the Argos play a few games on the turf? its the wear and tear that would make worry, can it really take a beating like that?

[namebutler]

The one issue with the study is the level of play. At the top, top level on a perfect, only game day grass field, grass field would win.

But at the lower level grass field which are being used and abused by all types of users, grass likely loses. There are so many bad spots on multiuse grass fields. If they included these types of fields in the study thats why turf would win.

The turf at the new Monarch Park stadium is awesome on my old knees. But once you hit the turf scraps are almost automatic.

[Alonso]

Alonso, nice! I am busted. Postman is absolutely the writer who got my thinking about this stuff (I'm talking 20 years ago)

That book is an absolute must read.

It totally blew my mind.

One of the few books that I reread every few years.

Not overly technical but opens the doors to many thoughts I hadn't considered.

A book for the layman, if you will.

EDIT: this book (Technopoly) turned me on to Marshall McLuhan's: The Medium is the Message

I couldn't get through this book though, way too abstract. But apparently the guy is a genius so I don't know if it's half gibberish or if I'm half retarded.

Probably a bit of both. I should make one final attempt at it, after ten years maybe some of it will sink in.

[hulkrogan]

Great discussion.

I've never played any sport on artificial turf before, so its interesting reading some first hand accounts. I did step foot on the first generation astroturf they put in McMahon stadium years and years ago, and could tell it was horrible without even taking a jog on it. It was basically indoor/outdoor carpet over asphalt.

Injuries aside, grass has some fairly universally agreed upon advantages.

-players prefer it
-it looks way better (Seattle's turf just looked awful on TV)

The first being the most important. If players are at all more likely to sign somewhere with grass, you need to consider that when installing it in a professional sporting facility.