So, what did you think of the Field Turf ?

[Cheeta]

Certainly runs fast. Wouldn't say the ball seemed to skate on it. Just ran quite fast. Anyone else notice how the Ticos were shooting low?

At least it runs true. Very few hops off bumps, so on. Dose improve play in that regard. Can realy push the ball through tight openings so on.

One complaint I can make is how the grip of the surface seems to realy grab the spin of the ball. Bit dramatic sometimes and certainly an exageration of the reaction you'd see off of natural grass. It's a relatively new surface and may yet settle down a little.

How about the player footing? Pretty good I'd say if you like court games. Has to be hard on the ankles but wonderful stuff if you can dribble that ball about a bit and still keep your balance. Can see speed being more important in a team on this type of pitch than a lot of other surfaces.

Will say this, Costa Rica is going to have a home field advantage very quickly as this tourny goes on (if they advance) simply because of that surface. A lot of suttle adjustments playing on that stuff. And they'll certainly learn the tricks of it more as they go on.

[Jarrek]

I thought the Canadian players had trouble playing on the Fieldturf surface. A lot of them seemed to be slipping throughout all stages of the game.

My question is, if CR plays on turf why doesn't the CSA schedule something on fieldturf for our home matches?

[sstackho]

Would anyone say there were fewer slide tackles? I'm not sure if there were or not, but I recall one time where I was expecting the Canadian defender to slide and kick the ball away, but he didn't. I'm wondering if the turf was a factor.

I've never played on the stuff, so I have no idea what it's like.

[G-Man]

Feildturf is great.

You can slide on it without fear and you never have a bad bounce. The New Zealand national Rugby team trains on the stuff. Our women's team has played on it a bunch of times and have looked good on it.

We would have looked bad playing at Old Trafford against Costa Rica last night.

[massimo]

Sliding on FieldTurf is like sliding on grass, no burns nothing.

I can say one thing for sure, that at least we didn't see players slipping continuously like we did in Edmonton. That must have been frustrating for the players that game (in Edm)

[Chet]

We had a chance to sample fieldturf during the kickabout before the Edmonton game. I was quite pleased with the texture. The base is actually softer than real grass. Because of the give, it takes a bit more effort to run on it. A bit like running on sand. But the difference is slight. Aside from the the annoying black rubber fragments that kept getting into my shoes, i could have easily forgotten that I wasn't playing on real grass.

I did notice that the ball runs faster than I'm used to. Or maybe it was that Voyageurs run slower.

[Chet]

We had a chance to sample fieldturf during the kickabout before the Edmonton game. I was quite pleased with the texture. The base is actually softer than real grass. Because of the give, it takes a bit more effort to run on it. A bit like running on sand. But the difference is slight. Aside from the the annoying black rubber fragments that kept getting into my shoes, i could have easily forgotten that I wasn't playing on real grass.

I did notice that the ball runs faster than I'm used to. Or maybe it was that Voyageurs run slower.

[Free kick]

I stepped on field turf for the first time when I was in Edmonton the weekend of the World Cup qualifier, when a group of Voyageurs held a scrimmage. I didn't know it was field turf until someone reminded me. Then I reached down a dug out the little rubber peebles to be sure.

It looks like a well manicured pitch whereby I didn't even notice the difference. Yet, I left my soccer boots at home and played in sneakers. Saw nothing at all wrong with except for the fact that the rubbler peables tend to get in your shoes. I don't think that anyone else noticed any difference.

Looks pretty much the same for the WCQ match on TV. We are told by Frank Yallop that players don't like it. Got to think that professional players are nothing more than subborn creatures of habit when it comes to these things. I don't know why International sides won't give it a chance. Or, perhaps the CSA is not trying to sell it to them when it comes to drawing friendlies in venues in Eastern Canada and using it as an excuse to not play in Ottawa or Montreal. More and more, I suspect that the latter rather than the former is the case.

[Free kick]

Chet... sorry to repeat . Didn't see your post when I replied. Still interesting to see that we both drew the same conclusions.

[Canadienfan]

Just like a lot of things I think field turf just needs getting used to. I think there are slight differences than grass like the ball running a little faster etc. And if you always play on grass little things can make a difference to a real pro. But if pro players get used to playing on field turf I don't think it would make any difference at all, they would adjust accordingly.

[The Ref]

I've heard goalkeepers complaining about the rubber pebbles. I guess it is because they spend more time near it on the ground. It tends to get into all your stuff. But it is nice to have a totally flat surface.

[Marc]

Do the balls have to be replaced or re-sprinkled from time to time?

[Andrew W]

I believe there's a machine that can be purchased which effectively stirs up the pebbles while raising the blades if they've been flattened. One problem I have heard with artificial grass is the blades break after time, taking away some of the "lushness" of the field. Of course the blades can't regrow so over time, that may be a concern.

[Canadienfan]

quote:Originally posted by Andrew W One problem I have heard with artificial grass is the blades break after time, taking away some of the "lushness" of the field.

Maybe the turf needs to replaced after a set amount of years. Did you see the turf in the last Costa Rica Canada game? It looked pretty shabby at some places.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Canadienfan

Maybe the turf needs to replaced after a set amount of years. Did you see the turf in the last Costa Rica Canada game? It looked pretty shabby at some places.

HOw is that possible? The turf at Saprissa is only a few months old.

[Former Champ]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

HOw is that possible? The turf at Saprissa is only a few months old.

To me, it seems that field turf just doesn't look all that good on TV unless maybe it is lit well.

I got to play in the pick-up game in Edmonton, too and I hope it is the future for Canadian Soccer.

[matthew]

I was impressed with the Field Turf in Edmonton, but I wouldn't want to play on it without studs. I was sliding around (it was wet admittedly) in my sneakers after I took my shoes off. I thought it played pretty well and I didn't notice the ball running much.

While the surface was soft (the ball didn't bounce like it would on Astroturf), it was actually pretty hard overall (if that makes any sense). I played a few years on something called OmniTurf at Taylor Field. It was a sand-based system and the surface was abrassive, but it was spongey and cushiony, sort of like new carpet. FieldTurf felt harder, like if you trained on it all day you'd feel it in your legs more than you would on grass or either spongier kinds of turf.

I agree it generally looks kind of crap on TV. Even the new stuff at Saprissa didn't look very good on TV. But the field at the U of A was so much better than Commonwealth I can't see why we wouldn't go with it if we had to. I'd love a nice lush soccer-only grass field, but realistically we're not going to get it. FieldTurf seems like the best option for multi-use.

cheers,

matthew