Canadian Soccer History (and Where Are They Now) Thread

[Joe MacCarthy]

I posted this back in the day.  Would make a difference if Mosaic in Regina and Richardson in Kingston had this.  Of course the idea is still to be realized but a lot of tech has been realized in those 15 years between then and now.

Field of Screens
Monte Burke forbes.com November 10, 2006

In a few years NFL gridirons will become their own Jumbotrons. "Turf TV" might put the plasma in the den to shame.
Imagine this: you pull in your driveway after a long day at the office, step out of your car, and suddenly your lawn, yes, your lawn, lights up with a "Welcome Home, Honey!" Or how about this: The military has a runway deep in enemy territory that it wants to keep from getting blown up, so it changes the color of the landing turf to brown to blend in with the surrounding desert. When a plane comes in for a landing, two strips of lights appear. After the plane has landed, with a push of a button the strip reverts to camouflage mode.

Sounds cool, right? This technology will be available soon, making its grand entrance as a National Football League field. Mark Nicholls, the founder and chief executive of Sportexe, the number two maker of artificial turf in the NFL, has patented the process of "tufting" fiber optics with blades of plastic grass. "We will be able to turn the football field into a giant Jumbotron," says Nicholls.

A field can display a huge American flag during the national anthem. At halftime a sponsor such as Budweiser could cover the field with its logo. During the game, that virtual first-down marker you see on your TV could now be on the field itself before the ball is snapped. And because sensors beneath the fibers can sense when any given blade's light is obscured, referees can track the footsteps of a player to determine if he was in-bounds or not. Stadium owners would welcome the technology as well, as it would help them get more use out of the field: A few mouse clicks is all it takes to change the field from a gridiron to a soccer pitch. Compare that to the 2.5-hour, $650 process of cleaning and repainting lines on today's artificial fields.

Sportexe's interactive field is merely the latest salvo in the escalating artificial turf wars. AstroTurf, that pale green, postmodern creation of the 1960s, loathed by players and TV-viewers alike, is gone from NFL stadiums. It's been replaced by what's known as "in-fill" turf systems, which cover a football field with 50 million to 70 million 2.5-inch-tall blades of "grass" made from polyethylene, cushioned by a mixture of rubber pellets and silica that acts as the dirt. The in-fill fields look and feel more like natural grass; one company even supplies a spray that smells like freshly mowed grass.

The new fields claim to be softer and more forgiving than AstroTurf, which was a nylon rug laid over a shock-absorbing pad and concrete. The players like them better, too. But James Bradley, the Pittsburgh Steelers' chief physician, says not enough research has been done on the new fields to validate a safety advantage. "I'd still prefer to see every game played on grass," he says.

The in-fill system was patented in 1981 by a former professional golfer named Frederick Haas to make truer hitting surfaces in tee boxes. Its potential for sports fields was realized early on, but AstroTurf so dominated the artificial turf market that it wasn't until 2002 that the first in-fill field was installed in the NFL, at Seattle's Seahawks Stadium (now called Qwest Field). All 12 of the 31 NFL stadiums with artificial turf now use in-fill systems. In-fill systems are also found at baseball stadiums and town parks, and were recently approved by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association for World Cup soccer qualifying matches.

FieldTurf in Montreal (revenue: $235 million), run by a former Canadian Football League quarterback, is the market leader with eight stadiums, including Ford Field in Detroit, host of last year's Super Bowl, the first ever played on an in-fill surface. FieldTurf says it has built 1,900 sports fields and 150 fields in town parks. The town of Redding, Calif. recently built four in-fill fields. Sportexe, in Fonthill, Ont. (revenue: $50 million), is the distant number two, with 300 fields, 2 of them for the NFL.

But Sportexe, 40% owned by former Baltimore Ravens owner Art Modell, believes the future of turf is interactive. Here's how its "turf TV" works: A computer sends an image to the field, where it is distributed among 1,750 interconnected square trays, 7.5 feet on a side, that host their own light processing circuitry. Thousands of blades of polyethylene grass, blended with optical fibers, reflect light upward from the trays. It's like a computer monitor that you can walk on. A football field would have 128 million pixels, which works out to 1,280 per square foot. In pixels per square foot it can't hold a candle to your television set; in total pixels it's well ahead.

Unlike your flat screen at home, this display is equipped to withstand the impact of a 380-pound lineman. The blades are conducting light, not electricity, so athletes can't be electrocuted on rainy days, even if they're losing badly.

At $1.5 million, the purchase price of an interactive field will be three times that of an unilluminated in-fill field and eight times that of a natural grass field. But Sportexe's Nicholls points out that the ten-year maintenance bill on grass can approach $1 million, 20 times the cost of maintaining an in-fill field. A stadium owner may be able to pay the mortgage on the interactive grass with ad revenue or host more events if the field lines can be changed so easily and rapidly.

Nicholls says the lit-up fields are still two years away from commercialization. The technology, though, is already being employed, most notably on artificial Christmas trees.

"The technology isn't really that amazing," he says. "It's just that no one's done it on a field yet."

[Unnamed Trialist]

32 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I posted this back in the day.  Would make a difference if Mosaic in Regina and Richardson in Kingston had this.  Of course the idea is still to be realized but a lot of tech has been realized in those 15 years between then and now.

Field of Screens
Monte Burke forbes.com November 10, 2006

In a few years NFL gridirons will become their own Jumbotrons. "Turf TV" might put the plasma in the den to shame.
Imagine this: you pull in your driveway after a long day at the office, step out of your car, and suddenly your lawn, yes, your lawn, lights up with a "Welcome Home, Honey!" Or how about this: The military has a runway deep in enemy territory that it wants to keep from getting blown up, so it changes the color of the landing turf to brown to blend in with the surrounding desert. When a plane comes in for a landing, two strips of lights appear. After the plane has landed, with a push of a button the strip reverts to camouflage mode.

Sounds cool, right? This technology will be available soon, making its grand entrance as a National Football League field. Mark Nicholls, the founder and chief executive of Sportexe, the number two maker of artificial turf in the NFL, has patented the process of "tufting" fiber optics with blades of plastic grass. "We will be able to turn the football field into a giant Jumbotron," says Nicholls.

A field can display a huge American flag during the national anthem. At halftime a sponsor such as Budweiser could cover the field with its logo. During the game, that virtual first-down marker you see on your TV could now be on the field itself before the ball is snapped. And because sensors beneath the fibers can sense when any given blade's light is obscured, referees can track the footsteps of a player to determine if he was in-bounds or not. Stadium owners would welcome the technology as well, as it would help them get more use out of the field: A few mouse clicks is all it takes to change the field from a gridiron to a soccer pitch. Compare that to the 2.5-hour, $650 process of cleaning and repainting lines on today's artificial fields.

Sportexe's interactive field is merely the latest salvo in the escalating artificial turf wars. AstroTurf, that pale green, postmodern creation of the 1960s, loathed by players and TV-viewers alike, is gone from NFL stadiums. It's been replaced by what's known as "in-fill" turf systems, which cover a football field with 50 million to 70 million 2.5-inch-tall blades of "grass" made from polyethylene, cushioned by a mixture of rubber pellets and silica that acts as the dirt. The in-fill fields look and feel more like natural grass; one company even supplies a spray that smells like freshly mowed grass.

The new fields claim to be softer and more forgiving than AstroTurf, which was a nylon rug laid over a shock-absorbing pad and concrete. The players like them better, too. But James Bradley, the Pittsburgh Steelers' chief physician, says not enough research has been done on the new fields to validate a safety advantage. "I'd still prefer to see every game played on grass," he says.

The in-fill system was patented in 1981 by a former professional golfer named Frederick Haas to make truer hitting surfaces in tee boxes. Its potential for sports fields was realized early on, but AstroTurf so dominated the artificial turf market that it wasn't until 2002 that the first in-fill field was installed in the NFL, at Seattle's Seahawks Stadium (now called Qwest Field). All 12 of the 31 NFL stadiums with artificial turf now use in-fill systems. In-fill systems are also found at baseball stadiums and town parks, and were recently approved by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association for World Cup soccer qualifying matches.

FieldTurf in Montreal (revenue: $235 million), run by a former Canadian Football League quarterback, is the market leader with eight stadiums, including Ford Field in Detroit, host of last year's Super Bowl, the first ever played on an in-fill surface. FieldTurf says it has built 1,900 sports fields and 150 fields in town parks. The town of Redding, Calif. recently built four in-fill fields. Sportexe, in Fonthill, Ont. (revenue: $50 million), is the distant number two, with 300 fields, 2 of them for the NFL.

But Sportexe, 40% owned by former Baltimore Ravens owner Art Modell, believes the future of turf is interactive. Here's how its "turf TV" works: A computer sends an image to the field, where it is distributed among 1,750 interconnected square trays, 7.5 feet on a side, that host their own light processing circuitry. Thousands of blades of polyethylene grass, blended with optical fibers, reflect light upward from the trays. It's like a computer monitor that you can walk on. A football field would have 128 million pixels, which works out to 1,280 per square foot. In pixels per square foot it can't hold a candle to your television set; in total pixels it's well ahead.

Unlike your flat screen at home, this display is equipped to withstand the impact of a 380-pound lineman. The blades are conducting light, not electricity, so athletes can't be electrocuted on rainy days, even if they're losing badly.

At $1.5 million, the purchase price of an interactive field will be three times that of an unilluminated in-fill field and eight times that of a natural grass field. But Sportexe's Nicholls points out that the ten-year maintenance bill on grass can approach $1 million, 20 times the cost of maintaining an in-fill field. A stadium owner may be able to pay the mortgage on the interactive grass with ad revenue or host more events if the field lines can be changed so easily and rapidly.

Nicholls says the lit-up fields are still two years away from commercialization. The technology, though, is already being employed, most notably on artificial Christmas trees.

"The technology isn't really that amazing," he says. "It's just that no one's done it on a field yet."

I took my kid to a 5 a side tournament back around then, pretty well 2006 I'd say, at a club that had upgraded its turf, called OAR Vic, north of Barcelona. And they explained how they had all the lines for various field settings in fibre optics, so they could be set on the field green or turned on white or light depending what they wanted. Just hitting a switch. 

I have never seen any club make this operative, 100s of fields later. Ever. Though it makes sense.

Maybe they were just repeating the Field Turf marketing line about future upgrades. 

[RS]

1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Remember this?  May give us an insight into some future possibilities

Estonia beats Canada in snowstorm soccer
CBC Sports March 26, 2008

The weather outside was frightful, and so was the final result for Canada.

The Canadian men's soccer team dropped a 2-0 decision to Estonia Wednesday in an exhibition match played out in a brutal snowstorm in Tallinn.

Under normal circumstances, a loss to Estonia, ranked No. 129 in the world by FIFA, would count as a major source of embarrassment for Canada (No. 62), but Wednesday's game was anything but normal. Snow poured down on the field throughout the entire game, leading to very slippery conditions and making it virtually impossible for players to make accurate passes and maintain possession.

The downpour was so bad that groundskeepers tried to clear the field of the dreaded white stuff prior to the kickoff, but to no avail — as mounds were piled up on the sidelines, more snow continued to fall down and covered the field in a white blanket.

After a goalless first half, Estonia broke the deadlock in the 60th minute when it scored an own-goal. Paul Stalteri failed to properly deal with an Estonian cross into the box delivered from the right wing, as the ball went off the Canadian defender's shoulder and into the net past goalkeeper Lars Hirschfeld.

The Canadians tried to press for the equalizer, but Estonia defended its lead and then added a second goal with a minute left in regulation time when Vjatseslav Zahovaiko beat the offside trap and then rounded Hirschfeld before slotting the ball home.

Canada lost 2-1 to Estonia in Tallinn on March 29, 2003, in the only other meeting between these two countries.

Canada's next friendly is against Panama on June 6 in Panama City. That game will act as a tune-up for Canada, who plays Saint Vincent & the Grenadines nine days later in its first qualifying match for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa.

I believe @Varsity Tyler was there, and picked up a shovel to help clear the field. 

[Joe MacCarthy]

3 hours ago, RS said:

I believe @Varsity Tyler was there, and picked up a shovel to help clear the field. 

I wonder was it turf or artificial turf?  I posted this article with an eye to Edmonton but also with a small glimpse towards Toronto.  

Here's my what if scenario: in Edmonton they can use sweepers to clear off the snow but if there is something altogether overwhelming in Toronto they won't be able to do that without severely damaging the turf (in my unqualified opinion).  Odds are likely small, but wondering what if? Postponement?  The game in Estonia went ahead.

[Joe MacCarthy]

3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I have never seen any club make this operative, 100s of fields later. Ever. Though it makes sense.

Maybe they were just repeating the Field Turf marketing line about future upgrades. 

When I started the New Canadian Stadium thread, my intention was always to highlight places where our NTs could play.  Even though they were largely CFL driven it was never my intention to promote the thread on that basis.  Which is why anyone who has seen my posts over the past decades has seen quite a few concerning surfaces, turf and artificial.  I also go to lengths to use the word turf to describe a natural surface. Fake grass is not turf it is artificial, my pet peeve as it were.

Markets outside the big three were economically unlikely to have two high level facilities.  So, the question to me became a matter of surfaces rather than stadiums.  What is the happy medium. 

Then third generation infill surfaces became a reluctant solution if they didn't have inlaid lines like Regina and Kingston.  But we can do even better, that article was 15 years old.  Turf surfaces became better with innovations such as Desso GrassMaster.  When we had our stadium building boom in Canada many installed FieldTurf Revolution which was state of the art at the time. Going to the Tarkett website they have alternatives to that which may even be better.  So it would be interesting to find out if anything was done or improved with the original idea and what is now state of the art regarding surfaces.

[narduch]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I took my kid to a 5 a side tournament back around then, pretty well 2006 I'd say, at a club that had upgraded its turf, called OAR Vic, north of Barcelona. And they explained how they had all the lines for various field settings in fibre optics, so they could be set on the field green or turned on white or light depending what they wanted. Just hitting a switch. 

I have never seen any club make this operative, 100s of fields later. Ever. Though it makes sense.

Maybe they were just repeating the Field Turf marketing line about future upgrades. 

This sounds a lot like Qatar claiming they could Air Condition an outdoor stadium.

Then the World Cup got moved to November 

[Joe MacCarthy]

This little bit of sci-fi promotion does show some of the possibilities for sport with a field of this type

 

[Varsity Tyler]

That match in Tallinn was something else.

It snowed the night before matchday, and in the morning there were messages on local radio saying something along the lines of "full refunds to those who don't want to go, but for those who do want to see the match go ahead then come down to the stadium in the afternoon and grab a shovel. Anybody who volunteers gets a free ticket to the match."

I went down and put in a shift with a bunch of the Estonian supporters. Between the fans and stadium staff there was ~50 people in total, and the pitch (natural turf) got cleared pretty well. However, it kept snowing throughout the afternoon and into the evening of the match. Maybe 6 inches total. It was a bit of a gongshow - orange ball the whole game, and more snow clearing at half time.

I made friends with some Brits who went to the match with me, and there was a Russian fellow near me in the stands who was friendly with his flask. I got to meet up with de Guzman, de Rosario and a couple others before the match. Afterward I was at a bar/club in the old town and ran into Atiba, Lars and some others. Tallinn was a great spot to visit. I can't believe that was 13 years ago now.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Varsity Tyler

[Joe MacCarthy]

I'd be curious to know (if you can remember) approximately how cold it was and how did that affect the players.  Or were the field conditions so bad it superseded everything.

[Varsity Tyler]

It was only a couple degrees below zero.

All told it was a friendly match on a snow covered pitch. It was a novelty match - no takeaways whatsoever. 

[Buchta]

 

[An Observer]

2 hours ago, Buchta said:

 

That’s hilarious.  I completely missed this match.  But looking at the date, that was the month Bear Stearns collapsed, so I was dealing with the fall out of that at that time I guess.

Anyway, sincerely hope that is not Edmonton next month.

[gator]

On the advice of @Joe MacCarthyhere is a CBC article about the game in NFLD in 86:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/canada-world-cup-1986-nl-1.6234124

[Joe MacCarthy]

8 minutes ago, gator said:

On the advice of @Joe MacCarthyhere is a CBC article about the game in NFLD in 86:

This brings up an interesting question, is there one game ball for official historical purposes.  Most sports lionize the ball/puck that is used at the end of the game.  But soccer even puts the ball on a pedestal to start the game so this must be considered "the game ball"?

[SoccMan]

31 minutes ago, gator said:

On the advice of @Joe MacCarthyhere is a CBC article about the game in NFLD in 86:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/canada-world-cup-1986-nl-1.6234124

Maybe if we make it to the game where if we win or tie we make it to the World Cup then they should bring that ball to the game and put it by the bench as a lucky charm or something, something like they have done in hockey with the lucky coin buried in the ice .

[Joe MacCarthy]

Thought some of you (who could use a good laugh (or cry) would be interested in this year 2000, purposely cheap World Cup 2010 feasibility study  The scene has certainly changed in those 20 years  from then until now.

The link goes to archive.org but will open the pdf file (probably minimized at the bottom of your screen.

[Free kick]

On 10/20/2021 at 4:34 PM, El Hombre said:

Yes.  That team was amazing on paper.  As I mentioned, we destroyed Belize.  If the team that played in Kingston (ONTARIO) against Belize was the same team that would've played Guatemala two months later, that campaign would've gone different.  We replaced McKenna and Devos with Pizzolitto and Watson, Radzinski with Occean.  Hume and Atiba and Brennan were all nowhere to be seen.  Still should've done better than we did though.

That's the thing, unless you had a perfect storm of all the right players at the right time (2007 Gold Cup), it was a real crap shoot.

Looking back at that game versus Belize in Kingston, in hindsight,  should have told us what was to come.   My recollection is that we played pretty much the whole game in Belize's half of the pitch.  It was 4-0 in the end, this I recall.  But i also recall that most of our goals came late, or were the results of opponent massive blunders & inexperience,  and they were the results or tactical superiority rather than talent superiority.   Yes, we were more talented but the gap should have been wider and kind of goals we score should have reflected that because we were playing a team of part time amateurs.  This thought crossed my mind after that game, and sure enough it proved true in the semi final round because we had (once again) trouble scoring goals and creating scoring chances.   In those kind of games its not the scoreline that matters,  it how you win.  

Edited December 20, 2021 by Free kick

[Free kick]

On 10/20/2021 at 5:11 PM, SoccMan said:

 I remember even on this board players with questionable talent being praised because they were always answering the call to the national team . In the end it’s about having the majority of your best horses on the roster and Herdman I think understands this . Apart from Arfield he has basically gotten every Canadian player that should be there to play apart from odd injury in some games . I can go on and on about past World Cup qualifying games where certain players who should have been playing and were eligible to play we’re not there , but of course we always had the less talented guys always answering the call . Respect to those players who always answered the call but what did it get us ? No Hex and no World Cups , sometimes as a coach you need to swallow your pride and get the best talent on the field and you do everything possible to make that happen .

Very true.  especially the bolded sentences.   Not to digress but this is bigger problem for our national Team in basketball.  There is one guy on that team who has been as loyal as loyal can be.  But when a big game comes up, the team is better when he is not on the floor.  or looks better when he is not available to play at all.

You cant have a situation where the coach has to kiss ass to get people to commit.  And, decisions for call ups have to be based on what you can bring to the squad not your loyalty.   

Another problem that all of those squads (2000-2018) had is that beyond the list of 20 or so call ups,  there was virtually no depth.   So you can get comfortable and feel that there is no one challenging you for a spot.  Today, look at the way Herdman has been able to shuffle Larin and David (one of the best Fwd's in europe!)  in an out of the starting squad without losing a beat.  Same with the MF players, everybody knows that they gotta stand out or someone else behind them will take their spot.  That's what makes everybody perform.

In those squads (2000-2018), there were some big games where some players that we thought of as untouchables, didn't really standout when we needed someone to standout.  But it would have been  sacrilegious to sub them off or have them miss a game.  And you also couldn't afford to play somebody else because they were no where near that same pedigree.   With the current squad, pedigree doesnt matter,  in any game, an MLS guy can look just as good or better as Munich guy.

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Free kick

[Joe MacCarthy]

On 10/20/2021 at 2:05 PM, Joe MacCarthy said:

I think it's important to remember our history and honour those that helped pave the way.  Here is the lineup from that 1980 game that was attempting to qualify for WC Spain 1982.  Some interesting bios there.

Tino Lettieri
Bob Iarusci
Bob Lenarduzzi
Bob Bolitho
John McGrane
Wes McLeod
Branko Segota
Jeno "Gene" Strenicer
Dale Mitchell
Mike Stojanovic
Bruce Miller
Gerry Gray

Among Wes's Canadian teammates on the 1982 NASL Tampa Bay Rowdies club were: Terry Moore, member of the future 1986 World Cup team, Jack Brand, goalkeeper for Canada in the Montreal Olympics of 1976 and the other keeper, Tom Boric, who found fame elsewhere post soccer (3:20).

 

[Joe MacCarthy]

I was looking at some old posts at Net54 and Ben Knight's name came up.  Anybody know whatever happened to him and what he's up to?

Also, he did some sort of show I can't really recall with a young fella and girl, anybody remember them and what they are up to now.  I think the guy went to CBC online IIRC

[AvroArrow]

24 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I was looking at some old posts at Net54 and Ben Knight's name came up.  Anybody know whatever happened to him and what he's up to?

Also, he did some sort of show I can't really recall with a young fella and girl, anybody remember them and what they are up to now.  I think the guy went to CBC online IIRC

Any time I see someone put "Onwards!" in there post, I assume that is Ben Knight in disguise.

[El Hombre]

12 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I was looking at some old posts at Net54 and Ben Knight's name came up.  Anybody know whatever happened to him and what he's up to?

Also, he did some sort of show I can't really recall with a young fella and girl, anybody remember them and what they are up to now.  I think the guy went to CBC online IIRC

Used to read Ben's column quite a bit.  Then he had one hot take one day that turned me off completely: something about how the emergence of the TFC supporters groups will make the Voyageurs an antiquated idea and a thing of the past.

[RS]

12 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I was looking at some old posts at Net54 and Ben Knight's name came up.  Anybody know whatever happened to him and what he's up to?

Also, he did some sort of show I can't really recall with a young fella and girl, anybody remember them and what they are up to now.  I think the guy went to CBC online IIRC

Ben Knight’s moved on from writing. 

The “young fella” you mention spearheaded an investigation into rampant match fixing in the CSL (not the original one, but the current one). It led to the league being blacklisted by the CSA, although it still operates as a rogue league.

[Ivan]

18 minutes ago, RS said:

Ben Knight’s moved on from writing. 

The “young fella” you mention spearheaded an investigation into rampant match fixing in the CSL (not the original one, but the current one). It led to the league being blacklisted by the CSA, although it still operates as a rogue league.

Who is the "young fella"?

[Joe MacCarthy]

2 hours ago, Ivan said:

Who is the "young fella"?

Yes, that was the point of my post, what was the guy's name and the girl and where is Ben.