Internationals on Field Turf? Not Happening!

[Ian Kennett]

THe new stadium in Toronto will have field turf. Now, if I am wrong and the final of the 2007 U-20 WC is GOING to be played on field turf, then I know nothing! As for the future, if teams have a choice to play internationals on natural grass or in Toronto on field turf, then they will choose the grass. A field turf stadium will not attract a wealth of internationl friendlies in Toronto. Does or will any other national stadium in the world have field turf? I don't think so. Would any soccer power send a team to play on field turf? I doubt it.

For a soccer specific stadium, installing field turf is short sighted from a soccer point of view. That stadium will have MLS and nothing else post 2007!

Cheers!

[loyola]

Saprissa in Costa Rica is a field turf stadium. Canada played there in 2004 WCQ.

[Grizzly]

The Russian national team stadium Luzhniki has field turf although they usually play in other natural grass stadiums at the moment. Torpedo Moscow currently plays their Russian premier league matches at this stadium. Moscow is also bidding for the 2008 or 2009 Champions League final to be held in Luzhniki which would probably be the first major tournament final played on field turf. As field turf continues to improve and be used and accepted more, I think we will see more tournaments and official matches held on it.

Moscow bids to host Champions League final

MOSCOW, March 17 (Reuters) - Moscow has submitted a bid to host the Champions League final in 2008 or 2009, Russia's soccer chief Vitaly Mutko said on Friday.

'Yesterday, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov signed all the required documents and we have already submitted them to UEFA,' the president of the Russian Football Union told Reuters.

Mutko said the 84,000-seat Luzhniki Olympic Stadium would host the final of Europe's premier club competition if it was awarded to the Russian capital.

The Stade de France in Paris will stage this year's final and the Olympic Stadium in Athens will host the 2007 showpiece.

'It's about time that Moscow should host the final of UEFA's premier club championship. It's been long overdue,' Mutko said.

'We have all the necessary tools for it, we have the stadium, the will of Moscow's leadership and the people to do the job.'

[Loud Mouth Soup]

"In other words, all qualification matches for either the FIFA World Cup or Olympic Football Tournaments may take place on FIFA Recommended Artficial Turf."

Read page 42, genius.

http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/development/FIFA-guideM.pdf

[Ian Kennett]

HEY, LOUD MOUTH!

Pretend that you are Sven Goran Erickson, or Jurgen Klinsmen, or the coach of any number of soccer faring countries, and, all other things being equal, you want to play a friendly, and you have the choice of playing, say in one of a dozen natural grass field stadiums in the US, or on a Field Turf stadium in Toronto. What would you choose?

What I am saying is that given a CHOICE, most, if not all, countries which may or may not visit Canada, will NOT play an international friendly on Field Turf. Why would they? It matters not what FIFA syas a country CAN do - they won't, and Canada will not get any extra friendlies in the new Toronto stadium. Managers will not risk players to extra injury potential, and the game is simply not as good on turf. I've played on it many times.

That doesn't take genius, genius!

[Daniel]

quote:Originally posted by Ian Kennett

HEY, LOUD MOUTH!

Pretend that you are Sven Goran Erickson, or Jurgen Klinsmen, or the coach of any number of soccer faring countries, and, all other things being equal, you want to play a friendly, and you have the choice of playing, say in one of a dozen natural grass field stadiums in the US, or on a Field Turf stadium in Toronto. What would you choose?

What I am saying is that given a CHOICE, most, if not all, countries which may or may not visit Canada, will NOT play an international friendly on Field Turf. Why would they? It matters not what FIFA syas a country CAN do - they won't, and Canada will not get any extra friendlies in the new Toronto stadium. Managers will not risk players to extra injury potential, and the game is simply not as good on turf. I've played on it many times.

That doesn't take genius, genius!

Which is why Montreal is going with natural grass for its SS.

[Grizzly]

As much as I like all you natural grass principled guys and the Saputa $12 cow field stadium with natural grass, if the money is there Brazil and every other team will play on field turf. Our biggest problem is not the turf on our stadiums, it is the lack of soccer stadiums in general and the lack of money to attract big teams to play us in Canada.

[Cheeta]

Pretty much echo what Ian said. Can't say as I agree with his opinion of FieldTurf (and it is getting pretty hard to get a real feel for the latest stuff because it keeps getting better each and every year). Only ever played on the stuff at Seven Oaks, and that's indoor, but I'd swap that surface for 95% of the Winnipeg pitchs I've played on in a heartbeat. And that fairly new surface is already 3-4 versions out-of-date.

Many players (not all) are really fighting it so it's going to take time, but you know the day is coming.

[Start fan in exile]

quote:Many players (not all) are really fighting it so it's going to take time, but you know the day is coming.

It's a big issue in any country with a northern climate. There are a number of new stadiums being built in Norway, and the majority of them are chosing to stick with natural grass for one overriding reason: the players don't want artificial turf. My team - Start in the town of Kristiansand (near the southern tip of Norway) - began construction on a new stadium a couple of months ago. They were contemplating the latest, UEFA/FIFA-approved artificial turf - which was being DONATED by a local company. They decided instead to spend the money on natural grass with heating cables below ground mainly because the players revolted. A couple of key players went as far as to say they would not renew their contracts if the team was playing on artificial turf.

You really think top players won't make an issue of it when their country is invited to play a friendly in Toronto? Even if the FA accepts, I imagine there would be a rash of "injuries" before the match.

Maybe in 5 years field turf will be an acceptable alternative, but not yet.

[youllneverwalkalone]

I support players who reject the field turf because it's a stupid idea period, not to mention it could be hazardous to their careers. How much does undersoil heating cost anyway? Either you can afford to build a football stadium or you can't. Why don't we make the pitch half the size to save some cash? And, for the record, Norway is way lovely colder than Toronto. If Sparta, Ferencvaros, Rapid, Wisla, Legia, etc. can all fund natural surfaces, why can't MLSE?

[BrennanFan]

nobody likes field turf, but its the coming thing. cant fight it. it wont be so bad. people will get used to it, and even if the Euro teams reject us and we're only able to get CONCACAF opponents to play us in toronto... thats not neccessarily a bad thing. anyways, commonwealth isnt going anywhere

[trueviking]

a proof is a proof....

there has been no national team games played in ottawa, montreal or hamilton...all approved field turf pitches...all big cities in the eastern time zone, easy for players to get to.

i see no reason why all of a sudden it will be acceptable a few kilometers down the road in toronto.

the only time the nats have played in the east since varsity was torn down, they played belize on what looked like a high school pitch....if field turf was even remotely acceptable to anyone those games would surely have been played at one of those three proper venues.

i am surprised that MLS is allowing field turf...i thought they were opposed to it.

i agree that it will probably be more acceptable at some point in the future, but that day has not yet arrived....if canada vs. belize will go so far out of their way not to play on it...then who will?

imagine trying to sell this to any other country.....instead of staying on your continent and playing a highly ranked team in a first class stadium infront of 50 000 fans.... during your three day break from league play, you can fly all the way across the ocean to play a team ranked 85th, infront of a few thousand fans in a bargain basement stadium that has a plastic field.....good luck with that one CSA.

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by trueviking

a proof is a proof....

there has been no national team games played in ottawa, montreal or hamilton...all approved field turf pitches...all big cities in the eastern time zone, easy for players to get to.

Someone might want to tell that to France, Bulgaria, Egypt, Brazil and England who have all played in Ottawa (since 2001) on Fieldturf - of course these were Francophone Games (Canada's U23s) and Women's Internationals.

Games will be played on Fieldturf - World Cup Qualifiers already have been - and more will follow. Do I prefer perfect grass fields, of course, but the reality is Fieldturf style fields are here to stay and internationals will be played on them if the price is right for friendlies and if that is the surface we decide to play on in qualifying...

This is another one of those topics that recycles every few months and every few months a few more games at the international level have been played on fake grass....

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

This is another one of those topics that recycles every few months and every few months a few more games at the international level have been played on fake grass....

Fake grass... that is exactly what it is. I guess we'll need to amend the saying that --soccer is a kick in the grass-- to soccer is a kick on artificial turf. Ouch! Personally I prefer grass with its bold spots, dips full of water, soggy and muddy spots, etc. that is soccer, unpredictable as a ball bounce.

[trueviking]

soccer is a kick in the plastic.

yeah sure low level events like women's and francophone games have played there, but never a senior men's game against even the lowliest opponent like belize....you cant dispute it...they went out of their way to play on a high school pitch in kingston instead of a proper stadium in one of our largest cities.

every time you guys try and defend it, you say...you personally think it is good....well, until i hear the players on major national teams say it, it doesnt matter what you think personally...we are building this stadium to host international events...not 13 year old community club matches...it makes no sense to construct a stadium for a specific purpose and then install a pitch that although acceptable by the book, is not acceptable in practice....this stadium will be no different than molson or frank claire, so why bother?...if nobody played in those venues, why would this one be any better?

do you really think that the CSA can make the 'price right' as you suggest, to attract anyone to play here despite their opposition to plastic?....where will this money come from?....the 10 000 people in the stands?

most of our friendlies come from teams that want a tune up for a bigger event...like the world cup...if we cant even provide that team with the same surface that they will be playing on in the tournament, why would you come here?...what kind of tune up is that?...they will just go play the americans again...ranked 80 spots above us with a dozen appropriate stadia to host them.

it is a tough sell to get countries to come and play canada at home...the evidence is the number of games we have seen....this is yet one more strike against us as we try and sell ourselves as worthwhile opponents....we cant do anything about the travel or our ranking, but we can at least provide other countries a proper playing surface.

would canada's olympic hockey team practice on plastic ice somewhere in europe as a tune up for the olympics...even if the iihf swore it was acceptable....or would they go somewhere that they could practice on the same surface the tournament will be held on?

[DoyleG]

No one paid attention to the complaints during the Francaphone Games since the event is such a low-key sporting event. There were complaints from visiting teams during the Women's Internationals about playing on the surface.

The only game outside of Costa Rica that was played on FieldTurf was the USA-CR WCQ in Salt Lake. If the CSA was serious about having major games on the newer artifical surfaces, they would've done so already.

As for MLS....

RBNY- Orginally was playing on natural grass at Giants Stadium but switched to field turf after problem with the grass began to occur. Their new SSS will have grass.

RSL- Playing on FieldTurf at Rice Eccles until it's SSS is built.

Chicago- Played at Napierville while Soldier Field was redeveloped.

Dallas- Spent a year at Southlake before going back to the Cotton Bowl.

Houston- Likely to have FieldTurf at Robertson.

[DoyleG]

No one paid attention to the complaints during the Francaphone Games since the event is such a low-key sporting event. There were complaints from visiting teams during the Women's Internationals about playing on the surface.

The only game outside of Costa Rica that was played on FieldTurf was the USA-CR WCQ in Salt Lake. If the CSA was serious about having major games on the newer artifical surfaces, they would've done so already.

As for MLS....

RBNY- Orginally was playing on natural grass at Giants Stadium but switched to field turf after problem with the grass began to occur. Their new SSS will have grass.

RSL- Playing on FieldTurf at Rice Eccles until it's SSS is built.

Chicago- Played at Napierville while Soldier Field was redeveloped.

Dallas- Spent a year at Southlake before going back to the Cotton Bowl.

Houston- Likely to have FieldTurf at Robertson.

[RS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FieldTurf in Ottawa and Montreal are both horrible for soccer because they are football surfaces first.

Also, the Ottawa turf is rather old, and may even be the first generation stuff (it's been around since the 90's IIRC).

Hamilton is not FieldTurf but a competitor (that went under).

[RS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FieldTurf in Ottawa and Montreal are both horrible for soccer because they are football surfaces first.

Also, the Ottawa turf is rather old, and may even be the first generation stuff (it's been around since the 90's IIRC).

Hamilton is not FieldTurf but a competitor (that went under).

[Grizzly]

First off I would prefer that the Toronto stadium be natural grass although I understand the reasoning why it is not. On the other hand while I think a good natural grass surface is superior to Field Turf I have seen an awful lot of international matches played on natural grass pitches far worse than Field Turf. Frank Clair could probably use a new Field Turf surface as it is old and poorly maintained. However, I think the reason the Belize match was played in Kingston had less to do with the turf (a grass surface worse than the admittedly not top shape Field Turf field in Ottawa) than with the fact that Belize was not a very attractive opponent and the CSA probably thought they could sell the game better in a small city and that the rental fee of Richardson is probably far below that of Frank Clair. In a world of perfect natural grass pitches, Field Turf would not be needed but it is far superior to many pitches we play regularly on in Central America and the Caribean and I have seen many similarly poor grass pitches in Europe.

[G-Man]

But Fieldturf™ does maximize profit. The bubble in Ottawa during the winter has killed the filature there- not the CFL. If a similar bubble is put up during the winter months in Toronto's Pogey park- expect the same wear and tear and FIFA coming in a taking away any seal of approval.

There is no reason why a true SSS isn't real grass.

[fetajr]

I agree that (the CSA, city of Toronto, the province, the country, and MLSE) have all dropped the ball on this one in that the stadium should be natural grass, period.

How is it that they go and design a stadium with no roofs (over the bleachers) similar to what is seen all over europe, in particular in England, and that they couldn't find a way to make the costs of fielding natural grass work out, just like they do in many hot and cold climate cities in europe similar to Toronto?

Lack of money was most likely the issue in creating this disaster waiting to happen, hopefully they plan and set up a the infrastructure for fielding grass as a plan B, once they figure out that the artificial stuff is a bust.

Canada seems like a true 3rd world country with the short cuts it takes in making a good soccer stadium.

although i hate the details of the new stadium, i will gladly support the WC U-20 and the MLS team (even though it's run by the idiots at MLSE).

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

In a world of perfect natural grass pitches, Field Turf would not be needed but it is far superior to many pitches we play regularly on in Central America and the Caribean and I have seen many similarly poor grass pitches in Europe.

Not to mention Chelsea V Barcelona - the pitch was a travesty and you'd have a hard time convincing me after training and playing on the fake stuff almost exclusively for the past four years that it was less hazardous to the millions of dollars of talent than a top end fake field.

JMO - Bill

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

Not to mention Chelsea V Barcelona - the pitch was a travesty...

Oh please... I grew up playing in dirt fields, no grass. Nobody was complaining then and the game flow was just as good. Soccer is not better when the pitch is better, is better when the players are better.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Oh please... I grew up playing in dirt fields, no grass. Nobody was complaining then and the game flow was just as good. Soccer is not better when the pitch is better, is better when the players are better.

Let me understand your point of view here:

Crap fields are o.k. as long as they are natural. Artificial turf is unacceptable even if it is better than said natural crap field. The Ref played on crap natural dirt fields so if it is good enough for him then it should be good enough for anyone else, I mean who are Barca and Chelsea to complain about a crap pitch when the Ref grew up playing on crap pitches and survived. The pitch does not have an impact on the level of the game.

What a convincing argument against Field Turf. In my opinion if crappy fields are acceptable as you say what does it matter what it is made out of.