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