In terms of the technical quality of games, the data taken from the Russian Premier League again...

In terms of the technical quality of games, the data taken from the Russian Premier League again shows few disparities between performances on the different surfaces. Critics of artificial turf often hold that players are not comfortable in possession on artificial pitches, yet the average number of touches per player remained steady (2.06 on grass, 2.01 on synthetics) to denote that teams are confident to play very similar styles on the two types of turf.

PROZONE ANALYSIS: FIFA TURF STUDY | Leaders in Performance

A study of two pitches(grass & artificial) in the same city using only away team performance. Most siginificant change is in passing accuracy and grass is the better, but there is an oddity that more forward passes are attempted on an artifical surface. Forward passes are less likely to be successful anyway.

3 months ago Dave Clark 4 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A few quick criticisms

Numbers could be skewed since the away teams are playing different home teams in the different stadiums (Spartak in Luzhniki [turf] and CSKA in Khimki [grass]).

No mention of the type of turf used, which is critical with the modern advancements in turf technology. Luzhinki uses FieldTurf, but I don’t know what generation.

Particularities about Russia’s league might skew results (use of turf on other Russian fields, players used to playing on turf growing up, etc.). This could mean players in other leagues would not use turf in the same way.

And of course the other ones the article admits: weather and the officials could not be controlled.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a very interesting and important study. But it is not as comprehensive as I’d like. I hope they do more. I think that MLS is well situated to carry out a similar study using CenturyLink and various other fields around the US.

by agtk on Feb 13, 2012 11:40 AM PST reply actions