The artificial turf field worked fine in Portland last night, eh?

8 Comments

I just cannot help but to pick this scab. I will probably regret this, but here goes …

Can we talk just for a minute about the surface last night in Portland for the U.S. match? Because in all honestly, the silence was deafening.

Remember how topical the surface was a couple of weeks ago in Seattle when the United States played on the temporary grass field at CenturyLink? It was topical because, frankly, it was bad. And because with just a little bad luck, it could have been colossally bad, a real fiasco.

I said at the time that Seattle would be a wonderful place for a U.S. match, and the soccer supporters of Seattle represented themselves beautifully. The bigger point was this: if U.S. Soccer wants to stage a game in the deserving Pacific Northwest, fine – just play the doggone games on artificial turf already! The faux fields may be imperfect, but they generally do the job so much better than the pricey and dicey temporary surfaces.

Seriously, why spend around $200,000 to install a surface that creates more issues than it solves?

No one was talking about the turf last night at Jeld-Wen Field. Why not? Because there was nothing to say. The surface there is fine – not perfect, because it’s not grass, but perfectly adequate and unarguably predictable.

ProSoccerTalk’s Richard Farley was there last night, talking to players and coaches after the final whistle, and said it only seemed to affect matters in the protective stances on Herculez Gomez and Stuart Holden, both of whom could surely and would surely have played had the opponent resembled anything greater than a bunch of local amateurs gathered for an 11 on 11 morning practice.

The artificial surfaces have improved greatly, as most of us know. Still, old attitudes die hard, don’t they?