Comments on Artificial Turf

[Richard]

Man oh man, wonder what the pitch maintenance costs run to there!
And they've only had 18 major sports and music events since the stadium opened in March, four months ago (roughly one event per week).

[dbailey62]

quote:Originally posted by sj

So far the two best most players and team technical displayin this tournament has been on AT.
Argentina V/S Panama and Chile V/S Canada.
My only question about AT equipped U -20 stadium for this tournament
is why did we did not go with the 2 for all three to keep it Consistent, the BMO field one being the best and the Ottawa being the worse one of the three.
Fieldturf a made in Canada product and 2 out the 3 Canadian cities originally went for foreign products in one case almost double the price.
Really what is wrong with this country that we cant even make a simple common sense decision between a Canadian made product with proven results and an unknown foreign product that is clearly inferior
What was the economic advantage of going import in the case of Ottawa ?
for sure the more Fieldturf we buy the more money they will have to betetr their product which by AT standard is the best already plus it is job security for Canadians.

All good points. I understand the Big O was only leasing a field, from an Australian company, but it didn't pass FIFA muster so they had to purchase a FieldTurf surface rather late in the game ... which is probably what they should have done in the first place ... and as for Ottawa, that is a total mystery to me. They used to have FieldTurf, an earlier version, so why not go with Two Star Field Turf for the tournament?

A darned good question!!!

B

[sj]

from what I understood Quebec soccer is the one that bought the Turf from the Australian company to the tune of $800k because they wanted one that is transportable from one venue to another across Quebec then had no choice but to install field turf at the cost of $500k so that is 1.3 m spent on turf to get the game going at the big O close to the price of 3 two star field turf.

[Rujulus]

At the Austria - USA game in Toronto yesterday, it was raining. Although the surface had taken on a fair bit of water, it seem to remain entirely playable and it was still like stroking a ball around on a (wet) pool table.

A perfectly maintained and seldom-used grass pitch is the ideal in everyone's heads but in the real world a muddy cow pasture is not always best.

[Richard]

Ah, key words: "in the real world"!

We don't live and especially don't play soccer here in Canada, in an ideal world where every game can be played on an immaculate natural grass pitch which is used only once a week, or as in the BC Lower Mainland, even less during the rainy winter playing season.

[trueviking]

i'm all for plastic on the neighbourhood pitch that gets used all the time, but our professional stadia that only do get used once or twice a week should be grass....there is really no excuse for it other than there is no soccer culture in canada and we are content with half assed....the decisions are not made by soccer people, they are made by beaurocrats who only care about maintenance cost.

jeffymac, your claim that plastic will proliferate all over the world is bogus...most soccer stadia will not change over...maybe in backwards soccer countries like canada, but in most countries in the worrld, grass will be the overwhelming choice for a long time to come.

and just because it is here to stay, doesnt mean it is right.

[The Ref]

The expression that 'soccer is a kick on the grass' will need to be changed.

[CoachRich]

TrueViking the FIFA reports in this thread state otherwise. Also, if taxpayers are paying for the stadia or local pitch AT max's their ROI. That's why BMO is AT'ed.....TFC, multi-sport & community use.

AT's still have a way to go but it's great start for the future of the sports. I still don't think intallation standards are tight enough. The Arg & Mex game showed that as IMO, the AT had way too much silica in it.

One of the problems w/ RFP'ing the installation vs having the same installer doing it all the time its the silica & sand base depth. City of Richmond does it theirself whereas Vancouver consults out at extra cost & varying quality from 1 build to the other. Terry Fox at SFU is one of the worse installs for soccer w/ too much silica but it's great for the football teams. Walks a 1/4 mile West at SFU & the Caps training AT is a proper install.

Like natural grass AT's have their issues but the big benefit of AT's is the flat surface vs high maintainence stadia grass or commmunity grass.

[Timberwolf]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Let us hear from the goalkeeper guys if any is around. How does it feel to dive for balls on fieldturf and do you need to adjust differently to contend with the different bounce of the ball right in your area.

I've played tons of times on AT and have mostly good things to say about the playing surface from a keeper's perspective.

Positives are that the bounce is true, the six yard box doesn't get torn up (so you're always sure of your footing) and it's fairly soft to land on(better than the hard summer fields in BC anyway).

Negatives include the wear on your knees and difficulty one has sliding (e.g. when you need to rush-out for the ball or cut-down the angle on a shooter).

Overall AT is the way of the future for most youth and adult recreational programs on the wet coast.

[trueviking]

quote:Originally posted by CoachRich

TrueViking the FIFA reports in this thread state otherwise. Also, if taxpayers are paying for the stadia or local pitch AT max's their ROI. That's why BMO is AT'ed.....TFC, multi-sport & community use.

Like natural grass AT's have their issues but the big benefit of AT's is the flat surface vs high maintainence stadia grass or commmunity grass.

man that was hard to read with all of the abbreviations.

what does it state otherwise?

what you say is exactly my point...the decision to use plastic is not because it is better for the sport...it is because of ROI's and to satisfy taxpayers and so the stadium can be labelled multi use....it has nothing to do with the game itself....which is why in countries where the game is important they use grass.

as i said, i have no problem with the local pitch being plastic, but do local kids need to play in a 20 000 seat stadium?....fields like BMO are built to house professional games once or twice a week...it is not supposed to be multi use or community use or multi sport...only in canada would a building labelled as a 'national soccer stadium' need to be called multi use.

maintenance should not be an issue for a professional stadium...as an example the baseball stadium here in winnipeg is natural grass and is used 40 times a summer with a few low paid part time greenskeepers...if our little ball team can afford the upkeep on a grass field, why cant a national soccer stadium with a major tennant like TFC?...maintenance cost is a bogus issue for this kind of field...of course this is different for a community pitch.

why compromise the quality of a 70 million dollar facility for its primary users when the needs of the other user groups (community) can be satisfied with a separate plastic pitch that would cost $100 000?

we had grass fields in every stadium across the country for decades...all of a sudden one of the richest countries in the world cant afford a lawn mower and a part time greenskeeper for its national stadium in a city of 5 million people?

its the typical canadian vinyl siding culture....no maintenance trumps quality everytime.