Real Salt Lake got their moment, Major League Soccer got its glitzy showpiece, and almost everyone, save maybe Galaxy fans, could agree that the MLS Cup Final was a encouraging success. Seattle's Qwest Field, site of so many regular season sellouts throughout 2009, was a solid choice to host the game, and the Sounders community did the league and its fans proud with a production worthy of "Final" status.
But not everything from last night's game is sweetness and light, and despite a dramatic end to the the 2009 season, I have a bone to pick with the league today.
The MLS standard of play is often chaotic, disorganized, overly-physical, and entirely too reliant on athleticism over skill. In a league where cost control is paramount, that's just the way it is; we can grouse and grumble all we want, but until more money is pouring into the professional American and Canadian game via TV contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise, the club game here will continue to be of middling quality. For the powers that be in MLS, it's a sacrifice they're willing to live with in order to maintain a stranglehold on finances, the better to ensure the league's long range existence. On a very basic level, it's commendable that they've been able to achieve relative success in this part of the world while doing so; but when they exacerbate that dearth of skill by playing their biggest game of the year, the one that determines the champion of the league, on an artificial surface, it's time to heap a little scorn.
Soccer players are conditioned to play on grass. The majority of their time playing, never mind all of those years of devlopment that allowed them to become professionals, is on grass. Passes made on artificial turf that would be good, or good enough, on grass, turn into mistakes, turnovers, and fifty/fifty balls. Good first touches turn into mediocre ones, and mediocre touches into poor ones. For the average MLS player, control is not always easy; they need all the help they can get, and when strange bounces or funny spin affects the way the ball moves, they're unable to cope. What results is exactly what we saw last night, during Major League Soccer's culminating game; players unaccustomed and unable to deal with a surface on which the game was not meant to be played.
Soccer should never happen, if it's at all avoidable, in the absence of photosynthesis, and absolutely not when a championship is at stake in a league where the players need all the help they can get.
None of this is to say that the game should not have taken place where it did; Seattle made sense as the neutral MLS Cup Final host for a plethora of reasons, and the totality of those certainly outweigh concerns over the playing surface. As ardent a proponent as I am of the purity of the sport, I can't deny that the business side of the Cup Final is almost as important (for now) as the game itself. MLS made the right call for the location of the final, yet failed when it game to the product on the field.
Would it have been impossible to bring in a temporary grass field for the biggest game of the league calendar? Why is the expense justifiable when Barcelona deigns to visit the States and play the Sounders, or when Real Madrid graces BMO Field with their presence in a money-making exhibition, but not when the league is putting on what is supposed to be its most important match?
Maybe it's impossible because of the season. Maybe the Sounders' partners, the NFL's Seahawks wouldn't allow it. Maybe the the cost is just too high. Maybe none of those should matter when it comes down to it.
The goal, each and every time MLS puts its product in front of eyes that aren't already committed to their league through an evernt like the All-Star Game or Cup Final, should be to make the game look the best it possibly can. Critics of MLS will always exist, and many of them will decry the "terrible" play until the end of time; but there are millions of other soccer fans, both those who allow themselves to be led around by the tail by the critics and those hesitant but ultimately willing to give MLS a chance at some point, who might tune into the Final out of simple curiosity. If those potential fans are not presented MLS at its potential quality apex, with the players given every possible advantage to exhibit the league the best that they can, then Garber and the MLS muckity-mucks aren't doing their jobs. Cost-benefit analysis: spend some money (substantial to you and me, but ultimately a drop in the bucket for the deep-pocketed owners that populate MLS) on grass for a one off game, give your product the best look and feel you can, and give yourself a chance to draw interest from an otherwise dismissive consumer.
It seems simple to me. The MLS Cup Final had too many injuries, both those directly caused by the turf and those that might not have happened had it not been for a turf-affected bounce, too many loose balls, too many errant passes, and too many moments of poor control. The average skill level of MLS isn't great, not by any stretch; but it's better than what we saw last night, and would have been if the grass was just a little naturally greener, not so chemically-created, and a lot more alive.
MLS, you did a lot right last night. I was impressed by most of what took place in Seattle, and I commend you on a major league production. It felt like a final, if that makes sense, and I can find little to complain about save this one tiny little thing. Grass is good, especially for your biggest match of the year. Please remember this. We don't need another artificial final.
