No Major Statistical Difference Between Turf/Grass
FIFA partnered study of artificial turf and grass revealed no glaring differences in distance covered, attempted passes, passes completed, average number of touches, number of passes, or number of tackles.
Credit: Merritt Paulson's tweet.
3 months ago
Kejsare
56 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I think those are pretty similar
especially with the new technology but the older turf was harder on the knees.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
Yes, it was bad back in the day. Like in 1992.
http://www.hss.edu/conditions_artificial-turf-sports-injury-prevention.asp
John Powell from the University of Iowa was among the first to quantify the higher incidence of these injuries. He published a paper in 1992 which showed that professional football teams had more major knee injuries on artificial turf when compared to natural grass. Certain other injury patterns, such as turf burns and turf toe, were unique to artificial turf. Furthermore, players complained of greater muscle soreness when compared to playing on a natural grass surface.
2010
http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com/2010/01/artificial-turf-injuries-and-chronic.html
A new study out of Japan finds that neither acute injuries nor complaints of chronic pain are increased in youth players who train predominately artificial turf.
NYC report from 2008
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm
Injury
Overall, studies have found no consistent differences in injury rates between natural and crumb-rubber infilled synthetic turf.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Oh and this
Looking at the issues around player safety, the fact that the average number of tackles per player per game only rises by 0.70 – a very minor change – when playing on artificial surfaces illustrates that players are not at a greatly increased risk of injury from the perceived changes in teams’ defensive approaches that many cite as a negative aspect of artificial surfaces.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
Best part of the article
when the figures are broken down we can see that a greater percentage of passes are played forwards on artificial surfaces than they are on grass, something that arguably makes for a more offensive game and a more entertaining spectacle.
Looking good for the future of PTFC
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
portland's turf is a lot better than seattle's
i don’t think its fair that lump all artificial turf in the same boat, jeld wen is not the same as saprissa, watching games in seattle is a nightmare – the ball bounces obscenely high on goal kicks/boots, through balls keep going, and going, and going – supposedly they’re in the works for new turf though
i hardly noticed our’s last year, would like to see how it wears though
by #1 Leverage Fan on Feb 14, 2012 5:41 AM PST reply actions
New turf is being installed right now at Qwest
But yes, it was definitely due for new stuff. But that’s what happens when you have Seahawks, Huskies, and Sounders in addition to other sporting events that go on. That turf was only 3-4 years old, it was replaced in 2008.
by chrisperry1983 on Feb 14, 2012 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
And yet the debate will continue
I love how old studies are cited from the 90’s that say turf sucks. Yeah, it did suck back then. We played indoor on it and some outdoor depending on the arena, and it was like playing on green carpet. Turf is so far advanced now, it’s a fricken dream to play on.
Would an EPL quality grass surface be preferred? Of course. Would it stand up to PNW weather, and being used year-round by multiple soccer/football/etc teams? No. People need to get over it.
The funny thing is not all the EPL fields are that prestine
The top ones are, but there are some teams in the EPL that play on some questionable fields (for that level anyways), where turf would be far and above preferred
What?
Sorry, but if they wanted to invest the maintenance money they could have an EPL quality field for year round use. Grass fields are maintained in cities with much worse weather than we have here. They choose not to – much to my chagrine. Yes, the turf is better than past versions, but the bounce and speed of the ball are still problems (not to mention the gross spray of black rubber every time it gets kicked)- it just doesn’t play right. Bottom line – it still sucks. It’s the one thing that really bugs me about the Cascadia teams – real grass provides such a much more attractive game to watch. There is a reason the big clubs require their players be on grass and not turf – the quality of play suffers.
by stax o' wax on Feb 14, 2012 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
It would require A LOT of investment
All new plumbing, draining, and investment in lights for the parts of the pitch that sit in the shade like the grounds crew uses at Emirates Stadium. Remember the first NFL game at Wembley? The turf looked chewed up and unplayable by the end of the game. No EPL team has to deal with the wear and tear of an NFL season in addition to 20+ soccer games, same goes for Jeld-Wen hosting PSU football. Per the stats, the differences between play on field turf vs regular grass is negligible.
Go banana!
Where would the Jeld-Wen crew store the lights?
I’ve always wondered how they would get around that physical space conundrum.
And about draining. No amount of drainage is going to change the fact the field sits below or at the water table for the area. Natural drainage will not occur.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Exactly, grass in PNW is a logistical nightmare
It also needs a few months to take and the only time it would be plausible to lay the grass down in PDX would be in November and in SEA it would be January, neither times are a conducive environment.
Like it or not, Cascadia will be a region of artificial turf.
Go banana!
Grass quits growing in deepest parts of winter
So any use then will not be replaced unless left alone for a long time.
Wife has studied landscape management which included turf science and hydroponics. I’ve had these conversations. One professor made it a point that sometimes you will never get grass to grow in water-saturated soil. Jeld-Wen historically fits that to a T.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
The field sits below the water table. It would require drainage and pumping to keep that playing surface, well, playable.
The answer: bulldoze the Memorial Colosseum and build a 30k stadium. Call it “Steel Bridge”.
PSU plays 6 home games -
Over two months time. The field will survive that. And the difference between play on grass v. turf can’t be expressed by the given stats – I’m pretty sur ethey don’t keep stats for how high a ball bounces and at what rate.
by stax o' wax on Feb 14, 2012 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
They do.
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefa/UEFAMedia/74/52/05/745205_DOWNLOAD.pdf
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/fqc_football_turf_folder_342.pdf
Please, I urge you to look at this.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
OK
Interesting read – but what’s missing to me is any comparison to real grass. I see only FIFA’s expectations for outcome, but not any comparison to what those tests look like on grass. And none of them are game condition tests either – the tests are performed via robots. Just like artificial turf – its missing the natural element. It’s great, though, that he have a decent testing scheme in order qualify for the starred ratings – but I’d like to know how the data compares to real grass. Probably closer than I’d like to admit, but I’m still not sold on the fake stuff.
Honest Question
Have you been on JW Field and kicked a soccer ball on it? Plays exactly like real grass, I should know I have played on almost every type of field in the Portland Metro area.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
I have been down on that field.
And it still plays fast. Look, I understand that it is an improvement, but I’m a old-skool die hard when it comes to my football. I like the natural elements in outdoor sports – no indoor stadiums or turf – it just sterilizes the game and adds speed at the cost of the natural game play.
Baseball has the same issue because the ball interacts with the surface just like soccer – baseball on turf is horrible, too, because the ball moves too fast. I’ve played on fields in France that had much more weekly use (reserve teams. youth teams, etc.) than JW will get and they maintained them pretty well. Yeah, in the heart of winter they have some decline in quality, but that’s always been a part of the game – you know what season of the year you are playing in by how the field looks/reacts.
And just the smell of a freshly cut football field – it gives me goosebumps. I’d rather have some mud in my game then a sterilized version. Just my aesthetic preference.
by stax o' wax on Feb 14, 2012 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
It cannot play "fast" and still get FIFA two star ratings.
The last surface was geared to baseball, with the grass matted down. Now the spines of the turf stand up more.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Sure it can.
FIFA isn’t exactly beyond reproach in their assessment of anything.
by stax o' wax on Feb 14, 2012 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
You clearly didn't see the testing they do.
Chapter 5 of “FIFA Quality Concept for Football Turf.”
The soccer ball performs at the same physical levels as grass does today. They’ve measured it.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
The report is littered with references to what happens on "natural turf" [FYI turf in this science = grass]
pg. 13
Natural grass in ideal condition is the benchmark for these FIFA test criteria in order to ensure highest playing comfort and to constantly improve the quality of football turf pitches.
pg. 15
The FIFA test criteria are based on the readings of good natural turf fields.
pg. 31
The higher the percentage the softer the surface i.e. the more shock absorbing the surface is. Natural turf in ideal conditions produces values of between 60 – 70%.
pg. 33
Values for natural turf of between 25–50 N.M., for good turf and between 35– 45 N.M.
I’ll stop, the FIFA document is 103 pages.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
There is no true grass, but ideal conditions.
The purpose of the tests is to enforce the quality of artificial turf so that it as close to natural grass’ tendencies.
The tests on grass are done and established, these tests are required benchmarks for FIFA quality.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
I agree
I love me a grass field. Something about a great grass field that you can go out and play on just makes me salivate. I just think synthetic can be just as good as a grass field and sometimes plays a truer ball than a grass field.
Each Club has to decide what is best and what works. Money wise Grass just will not happen at JW field nor at Qworst. The Timbers just have to go with synthetic.
Neither of us are right or wrong especially with the technology that has come out on synthetic in the last few years and will continue to come out over the next 10+.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
The "bounce is NOT higher." From FIFA's technical test booklet:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/fqc_football_turf_folder_342.pdf
Clearly, if a ball bounces higher than expected the player may fail to control the ball or it may bounce over his head or bounce too low and pass under a raised foot. It is therefore necessary to measure the height to which a ball bounces when dropped onto the surface from a certain specified hight. The Vertical Ball Rebound is measured by dropping a ball from 2 metres and measuring its rebound height. Natural turf will give values of between 50 and 100 cm, but an "ideal" natural turf will give values of between 60 and 85 cm.
Vancouver and Portland meet these specs. It bounces like it would on grass.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
2 Metres?
I’m talking a significant height – like from a defenders boot, a long pass or keeper’s kick. 2 metres is insignificant in comparison.
by stax o' wax on Feb 14, 2012 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Speaking as a scientist
2 meters actually is fine for bounces especially since gravity is a constant.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
But -
wouldn’t angle have something to do with it, too? I’m asking seriously because I don’t know. The FIFA testing is a straight drop down – that’s not what happens most of the time in football.
True
A straight drop is not what happens in football. However Gravity is acting the same on all kicks into the air no matter the angle. Obviously velocity has something to do with it also.
In general if you have the same conditions (force, wind, velocity, etc…) applied to a ball and it hits the surface of grass and you can recreate at the same set of conditions the bounce will be the same no matter what. Same thing applies to synthetic grass.
So to get the same conditions they drop it from 2 meters because kicking the ball high into the air is really tough to duplicate.
The short answer is no, in terms of Physics it doesn’t matter if it is straight down or at an angle if the conditions are the same for either it will have the same height on the bounce.
I hope I didn’t make it worse with my explanation :)
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
I kind of find the whole "would it stand up to PNW weather???" thing really quite a canard
The UK and the PNW have pretty similar weather. England averages about 33" of precipitation a year (including more snow than we get here in Oregon) and we average around 36" or so, about the same, with much less rain occurring during the part of the year we play our league here compared to when EPL does.
That said, good turf is just as good as grass, but bad turf is the worst. I’ve played on both locally here in Portland (good turf being at PSU’s rec field, bad turf at the weekly soccer game where I feel like I come away with some sort of injury every couple weeks)
UK fields don't host MLS and American Football games
Unless the Sounders and Timbers can kick the Seahawks and Portland State out of the stadiums, grass continues to be an issue.
Not disputing that at all
Just the bit about the weather, however this is probably an even worse excuse. Portland State only plays 5 regular season games the entire year at home, and even a couple of those games are after the MLS season is over. They use the PSU rec field for practices as well so Jeld-Wen isn’t really being used for anything non-Timbers related. The Sounders’ situation with the Seahawks is much worse in that regard.
What about it?
HS football isn’t hosted at JWF, aside from maybe a couple major games, none that I remember since the renovation from PGE to JWF.
This season, Central Catholic of southeast Portland will play three home games at Jeld-Wen Field and one at Hillsboro Stadium. The Rams’ first game at Jeld-Wen Field is at 8 p.m. Friday against Canby, the nightcap of a doubleheader that features Lincoln vs. Southridge at 4 p.m.
More to come.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
And if we had grass -
- those teams would play elsewhere.
by stax o' wax on Feb 14, 2012 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
As an aficionado of a good sliding tackle
I was sure this turf was stopping our boys from tackling properly.
Then I saw them away from home on grass and they couldn’t tackle there either!
Chalaba did get a few in though and toward the end of the season jack J even produced a few crunching tackles. (2 I think)
It was nice to get the chance to kick around on our field last season though, as mentioned above 80s/90s turf it ain’t.
They should still have added injuries to the study though instead of reading it indirectly through number of tackles. Any injury I’ve had on turf was down to the foot sticking when trying to turn, not due to tackle
Turf is great when it's raining
But on a hot day, turf is the worst. It gets really hot and can give off some unpleasant fumes. Players hate it. It’s why the grounds grew sprays water on the pitch before play starts and at the half, but water can only do so much to help.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Feb 14, 2012 10:52 AM PST reply actions
Actually
They spray the water because it makes the rubber pellets clump together and thus lessens the friction and making it play more like a grass field.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
Yup.
http://www.portlandtimbers.com/news/2011/05/home-field-how-turf-takes-shape
Said Puckett, "Prior to games, we water down the field to get the rubber infill to lay more level, provide better traction, and help the ball play truer. We also use a grooming machine—kind of like a Zamboni used for hockey rinks—every six weeks that runs over the field to comb the fibers and redistribute the rubber particles."
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Arright, brothers McSmartypants
I’m sure it doesn’t hurt with the heat, though. :)
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Feb 14, 2012 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
When you mess with one
You mess with all the Gates’
lol
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
The heat can be brutal
From the NYC report above
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm
Synthetic turf fields absorb heat, resulting in surface temperatures that are much higher than the temperatures of the surrounding air. In June 2002 at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah, the average surface temperature on a synthetic turf field was reported to be 117°F while the average surface temperatures on natural turf and asphalt were 78°F and 110°F, respectively. A maximum surface temperature of 200°F on the BYU synthetic turf field was reported.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
The water helps slow the speed down
and one of the tour guides mentioned they water the opponent’s half heavier to discourage goal scoring vs. Portland ;)
Blazers win!
The vertical drop test seems mis-leading
I’ve not read the referenced report, but one of the most noticeable things to me is a long ball into a corner for a winger to chase, let say they land at a typical angle of 20-30 degrees, they definitely seem to skip out a lot faster than on a grass field.
Grass length, softness etc. play a part, but I think spin off the surface is the largest difference. ball will grip and spin differently on turf possiblely? People often mock annoucers for saying the ball ‘picked up speed off the ground’ but if there’s spin on the ball that can be true.
mmmm, football and physics two of favourite past-times, now if I could get my hands on a beer….
The technical test covers field and lab tests on
durability, climate resistance, shock absorption, vertical deformation, rotational resistance, slip resistance, skin friction, ball/surface interaction, vertical ball rebound, angled ball behavior, ball roll.
I can see in cases where spin is involved the fact that grass has less friction than artificial turf, spinning balls are affected.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
