General MLS Discussion

Really makes me start to question the efficacy of the doctors MLS uses. We have seen so many examples of surgeries not working/players needing additional procedures/etc. George John and Malachi Jones for us, Puig for the Galaxy and I'm sure there are more. Feels like those stories are much fewer and far between in the other big American sports.

In a major city like Los Angeles or New York, teams have access to the best doctors money can buy. They should be using the same doctors as other sports.
 
Really makes me start to question the efficacy of the doctors MLS uses. We have seen so many examples of surgeries not working/players needing additional procedures/etc. George John and Malachi Jones for us, Puig for the Galaxy and I'm sure there are more. Feels like those stories are much fewer and far between in the other big American sports.

In a major city like Los Angeles or New York, teams have access to the best doctors money can buy. They should be using the same doctors as other sports.
I find it hard to believe they are going to second class doctors.

Complications happen.
 
I also assume it's sort of dependent on the sport and the injury. Baseball pitchers have had multiple surgeries on their throwing shoulder for example.
The reality is that our bodies are not designed to have major reconstructive surgery and to then put major stress on that surgery by playing the same sport at a super high level.
I guess it would make more sense to compare to the EPL, but I don't follow closely enough to track injury history there. Even then, it may not be a perfect comparison because those are higher level players with higher level coaches and probably next level physical regimens.
 
I find it hard to believe they are going to second class doctors.

Complications happen.

I find it hard to believe too, but while some pitchers don't return from Tommy John surgeries, I can't remember seeing ACL injuries need do-overs in other American sports. Complications happen but they seem far more frequent in MLS than in the other sports I follow.
 


 


Literally just came back from a week in Boston and this was all over the local TV news the other day. Looks like it's in the same spot that was proposed a few years ago.
 
I spent 4 days in Boston in September for two Britpop concerts in back to back nights. We stayed at an air B and B in Everett pretty sure I know exactly where this site is. It's about time if really happens. I do think it will see a bit of a shift in their fan base , where they draw from and likely atmosphere and type of fans. Should make for a better match day experience and rivalry between us when combined with our new stadium.
 
I spent 4 days in Boston in September for two Britpop concerts in back to back nights. We stayed at an air B and B in Everett pretty sure I know exactly where this site is. It's about time if really happens. I do think it will see a bit of a shift in their fan base , where they draw from and likely atmosphere and type of fans. Should make for a better match day experience and rivalry between us when combined with our new stadium.

It’s a travesty how long this took. The Krafts dithered for years during their peak political clout. I left Boston in 2000 and if you had told me at the time that the Grren Line extension into my old neighborhood in Medford would beat the Revs stadium to completion by more than half a decade I would have said you were nuts.
Of course if I had stayed I would have been able to ride my bike to the matches in 15 minutes.
All of this conditional on the team not having driven me away through sheer mismanagement. Which they did in the early teens. The most 1.0 of MLS 1.0 orgs.
 


With the Revs, Caps, and Fire stadium news added to ours, I guess the worst MLS stadium situations are all on the way out. Charlotte, the Sounders and Atlanta United share NFL stadiums, and San Diego shares a CFB stadium, but all have great attendance and I think locals at least are happy. Am I missing anything?
 
It’s a travesty how long this took. The Krafts dithered for years during their peak political clout. I left Boston in 2000 and if you had told me at the time that the Grren Line extension into my old neighborhood in Medford would beat the Revs stadium to completion by more than half a decade I would have said you were nuts.
Of course if I had stayed I would have been able to ride my bike to the matches in 15 minutes.
All of this conditional on the team not having driven me away through sheer mismanagement. Which they did in the early teens. The most 1.0 of MLS 1.0 orgs.
I went to an away match of ours at Gillette a few years ago and it was fine. But being in a giant football stadium felt odd. Like there were 15 to 20,000 people there but it still felt totally empty because the place holds almost 70,000.

But my main reason I'm happy they're moving out of Gillette is that it's south shore and you can't get a good north shore roast beef around there LOL
 


With the Revs, Caps, and Fire stadium news added to ours, I guess the worst MLS stadium situations are all on the way out. Charlotte, the Sounders and Atlanta United share NFL stadiums, and San Diego shares a CFB stadium, but all have great attendance and I think locals at least are happy. Am I missing anything?
Once the Revolution and Fire open their new stadiums, the oldest MLS stadium will be...LA Galaxy as Dignity Health Sports Park opened in 2023. They've renovated for improvements over the years.

Then it's FC Dallas which opened in 2005 but that's undergoing a renovation.

Then its Toronto and Colorado which both opened in 2007.
 
For me, while I hate seeing the football lines, I don't care about that nearly as much as I care about real grass.

After the current stadiums are completed, there will only be four teams still hosting on artificial turf: Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Charlotte.

Gotta think that is a priority in the future.
 
For me, while I hate seeing the football lines, I don't care about that nearly as much as I care about real grass.

After the current stadiums are completed, there will only be four teams still hosting on artificial turf: Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Charlotte.

Gotta think that is a priority in the future.
Montreal plays in Olympic Stadium in the winter. It’s indoor with fake grass.
 
For me, while I hate seeing the football lines, I don't care about that nearly as much as I care about real grass.

After the current stadiums are completed, there will only be four teams still hosting on artificial turf: Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Charlotte.

Gotta think that is a priority in the future.

For me, the idea that artificial turf is inherently bad feels outdated. Advances in turf technology have created a much more nuanced reality than many soccer fans acknowledge. There is a wide range of turf quality, and places like Seattle, Portland, and Atlanta have some of the best artificial fields in the league. I remember reading that Seattle specifically prioritized soccer considerations when selecting its current surface.

This is anecdotal and now decades old, but I played college lacrosse on a lot of artificial fields. The old 1990s carpet-style turf over concrete absolutely earned its awful reputation, but modern turf felt just as comfortable to play on as grass and I can only imagine how good modern NFL fields are at this point. There is no real evidence that MLS teams with artificial home fields suffer higher injury rates than teams playing on grass, and the fan narrative seems heavily driven by confirmation bias.

I do agree that the ball behaves differently on turf. That said, the ball also plays differently on grass depending on length, moisture, and maintenance. To me, these are nuances players should be studying and adjusting to, no different than adapting to a small pitch like Yankee Stadium.
 
For me, the idea that artificial turf is inherently bad feels outdated. Advances in turf technology have created a much more nuanced reality than many soccer fans acknowledge. There is a wide range of turf quality, and places like Seattle, Portland, and Atlanta have some of the best artificial fields in the league. I remember reading that Seattle specifically prioritized soccer considerations when selecting its current surface.

This is anecdotal and now decades old, but I played college lacrosse on a lot of artificial fields. The old 1990s carpet-style turf over concrete absolutely earned its awful reputation, but modern turf felt just as comfortable to play on as grass and I can only imagine how good modern NFL fields are at this point. There is no real evidence that MLS teams with artificial home fields suffer higher injury rates than teams playing on grass, and the fan narrative seems heavily driven by confirmation bias.

I do agree that the ball behaves differently on turf. That said, the ball also plays differently on grass depending on length, moisture, and maintenance. To me, these are nuances players should be studying and adjusting to, no different than adapting to a small pitch like Yankee Stadium.
We had an injury in Atlanta in 2022 when Tayvon caught a turf monster.
 
For me, the idea that artificial turf is inherently bad feels outdated. Advances in turf technology have created a much more nuanced reality than many soccer fans acknowledge. There is a wide range of turf quality, and places like Seattle, Portland, and Atlanta have some of the best artificial fields in the league. I remember reading that Seattle specifically prioritized soccer considerations when selecting its current surface.

This is anecdotal and now decades old, but I played college lacrosse on a lot of artificial fields. The old 1990s carpet-style turf over concrete absolutely earned its awful reputation, but modern turf felt just as comfortable to play on as grass and I can only imagine how good modern NFL fields are at this point. There is no real evidence that MLS teams with artificial home fields suffer higher injury rates than teams playing on grass, and the fan narrative seems heavily driven by confirmation bias.

I do agree that the ball behaves differently on turf. That said, the ball also plays differently on grass depending on length, moisture, and maintenance. To me, these are nuances players should be studying and adjusting to, no different than adapting to a small pitch like Yankee Stadium.
I definitely might be subject to confirmation bias here. Or more to the point, I am part of the flock of sheep. I've heard artificial is bad. So I parrot that it is bad. Given how much of the soccer consuming world seems to do the same, I'm not sure how much advances in artificial matter. If MLS wants to be considered as one of the top leagues, it needs the image of a top league.

Maybe the 4-5 remaining artificial fields won't damage that. But now that they have switched the schedule, I wonder if this becomes the next big emphasis for the league over the next decade.
 
Back
Top