Revolution on grass vs. artificial turf; does the playing surface make a difference?
It’s undeniable that the Revs have been better on the road this year than at home, but is it because of the playing surface? With 14 games played this season, the Revs have played 7 times on grass and 7 times on artificial surfaces. On grass, they’ve been a very impressive 6-1-0 with a +4 goal differential, while on turf the team has only been 2-2-3 with a +1 goal differential.
Another item of interest is that the Revs generally practice on grass. I’m not sure which teams practice regularly on artificial surfaces, but it was mentioned during the broadcast last night that New York does. Playing in Salt Lake City on FieldTurf on Saturday should be another interesting test.
Looks to me like a fairly big difference in the records, though there are certainly other variables involved that should be looked at, such as strength of opposition, time between games, unavailable players, etc. Keep in mind the relatively small sample size and that this has not been the case in past seasons, but here’s the breakdown (please let me know if you notice any errors):
Turf (2-2-3, 9 GF, 8 GA):
vs. Houston Dynamo (3/29) – 3-0 win
vs. Colorado (4/12) – 0-1 loss
at New York (4/19) – 1-1 draw
vs. Chicago (5/3) – 0-3 loss
vs. San Jose (5/17) – 2-0 win
vs. D.C. United (5/29) – 2-2 draw
vs. New York (6/18) – 1-1 draw
Grass (6-1-0, 11 GF, 7 GA):
at Chicago (4/3) – 0-4 loss
at Kansas City (4/9) – 3-1 win
at FC Dallas (4/24) – 1-0 win
at Chivas(5/11) – 2-1 win
at Columbus (5/24) – 1-0 win
vs. FC Dallas (6/6) – 2-1 win
at Houston (6/12) – 2-0 win
Another item of interest is that the Revs generally practice on grass. I’m not sure which teams practice regularly on artificial surfaces, but it was mentioned during the broadcast last night that New York does. Playing in Salt Lake City on FieldTurf on Saturday should be another interesting test.
Looks to me like a fairly big difference in the records, though there are certainly other variables involved that should be looked at, such as strength of opposition, time between games, unavailable players, etc. Keep in mind the relatively small sample size and that this has not been the case in past seasons, but here’s the breakdown (please let me know if you notice any errors):
Turf (2-2-3, 9 GF, 8 GA):
vs. Houston Dynamo (3/29) – 3-0 win
vs. Colorado (4/12) – 0-1 loss
at New York (4/19) – 1-1 draw
vs. Chicago (5/3) – 0-3 loss
vs. San Jose (5/17) – 2-0 win
vs. D.C. United (5/29) – 2-2 draw
vs. New York (6/18) – 1-1 draw
Grass (6-1-0, 11 GF, 7 GA):
at Chicago (4/3) – 0-4 loss
at Kansas City (4/9) – 3-1 win
at FC Dallas (4/24) – 1-0 win
at Chivas(5/11) – 2-1 win
at Columbus (5/24) – 1-0 win
vs. FC Dallas (6/6) – 2-1 win
at Houston (6/12) – 2-0 win
Labels: fieldturf, new england revolution
posted by Sean Donahue at
2:29 PM
2 Comments:
All the more reason why the Krafts should either put in grass during the NFL offseason, or build a SSS already.
Interestingly enough, I believe there was a stretch last year where the Revs had an impressive record on turf (something like 5-1-2 during the first 8 games on turf, IIRC), so it's hard to say if the surface bears that much of an impact. But like you said, Sean, the sample size is still very small.
I think, however, the makeup of this team, with speed guys like Mansally, Nyassi, Dube (even Castro) would seem to benefit them on turf. But looking at the opponents they've had to play away on turf (NYRB and RSL) who've always given the Revs problems on the road, I think that skews the any true forecast of any advantages/disadvantages of the club playing on turf vs. grass.
So to answer the question "does the playing surface make a difference?" - I would say...I don't know! lol
That's a good point about the speed, but at times this season when players have been missing it seems the Revs have been resorting to long balls. Certainly speed helps with that tactic, but turf does not. I've heard complaints after the game about the ball rolling too far on the turf, particularly when it's been wet (which obviously affects grass too, but to a lesser extent?) and that can really hurt a team that's bypassing the midfield. This may partially explain why they've been better at grinding out results on the road when missing so many starters.
When everyone is healthy, if the Revs rely more on their speed on the wings and crossing the ball into the box, maybe this will be less of a factor. As you mentioned, the Revs have been very good on turf in the past and there is still no reason to believe they won't be again, but it is something worth keeping an eye on this season.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home