The issue of field turf in U.S. soccer came up again twice over the weekend. First, Toronto FC Director of Soccer Mo Johnston admitted that former Norwich City striker Darren Huckerby has signed for the San Jose Quakes ahead of TFC because “Darren had a slight problem with the turf and was concerned about aggravating old injuries.
Then, in the New England Revolution’s first Superliga game, against Santos Laguna Sunday, Santos coach Daniel Guzman cited the field turf at Gillette Stadium as one of the reasons for his side’s 1-0 loss. “The game was very even and we had some chances, but a mistake led to [the Revolution’s goal] and gave them a chance to win,” Guzman said. Despite playing down a man following a red card for midfielder Juan Pablo Rodriguez, Guzman said, “we played well, tactically. But it’s different, playing 11 vs. 10, especially on this [turf] field and with these conditions — we’re not used to playing on a field like this.”
David Beckham famously denounced artificial surfaces when he came to play in MLS last year, adopting the traditionalist’s view that soccer is a game that should always be played on grass. The L.A. midfielder quickly apologized when he realized that his soccer school was a big field turf customer. But when player transfers and the integrity of international competitions are at issue, the question remains open whether professional soccer should be played at all on synthetic fields.