Will having to play a grand final at the MCG potentially cost Fremantle a flag?

[Furn2]

Yeah but aren't Hawthorn the top seed having beaten 1st ?

 

[telsor]

It does seem a little cruel. WC finish above Hawks. Beat them in the qualifying final, win their next prelim and now just for lols have the honour of being the home side at the Hawks home ground. For all this they get the right to wear their blue shorts. Yay!

Well, you can't move the game on a weeks notice, so picking the venue for the teams that actually make it doesn't work.

Given that, the closest you come to a 'neutral' venue is one where all teams play more often, and the MCG would have ~30 genuine 'away' teams playing matches each year play there (after taking out the games between teams that both have it as a home ground) as opposed to the likes of Subi & AO that would have 20, and the NSW & QLD grounds 10.

30> 20 >10, so the MCG is more neutral and thus fairer than the other options. (Docklands might beat it, but I don't think anyone would consider that a realistic option).

 

[madmug]

Well, you can't move the game on a weeks notice, so picking the venue for the teams that actually make it doesn't work.

Given that, the closest you come to a 'neutral' venue is one where all teams play more often, and the MCG would have ~30 genuine 'away' teams playing matches each year play there (after taking out the games between teams that both have it as a home ground) as opposed to the likes of Subi & AO that would have 20, and the NSW & QLD grounds 10.

30> 20 >10, so the MCG is more neutral and thus fairer than the other options. (Docklands might beat it, but I don't think anyone would consider that a realistic option).[/QUOTE

Yes its all fair & neutral, as long as you live in Melbourne & the G is your home ground. We all know nothing will change so enjoy an hours less sleep. Its daylight saving day!

 

[telsor]

Yes its all fair & neutral, as long as you live in Melbourne & the G is your home ground. We all know nothing will change so enjoy an hours less sleep. Its daylight saving day! (this quote was edited to put it inside the quotes...)

I'm not suggesting it's perfectly fair and even, I'm saying visiting teams are more likely to be familiar with it than any other ground is, so it's relatively neutral, and thus the best option.

If (when?) Tasmania ever finishes on top, do they host the game at Hobart, against an opponent who, on average, would play there once every 3 years? (ignoring for a moment the capacity and transport issues associated with such a hosting). Playing any final under such circumstances would be pretty nasty, but the GF?

 

[madmug]

I'm not suggesting it's perfectly fair and even, I'm saying visiting teams are more likely to be familiar with it than any other ground is, so it's relatively neutral, and thus the best option.

If (when?) Tasmania ever finishes on top, do they host the game at Hobart, against an opponent who, on average, would play there once every 3 years? (ignoring for a moment the capacity and transport issues associated with such a hosting). Playing any final under such circumstances would be pretty nasty, but the GF?

Rather than discuss a proposition that doesnt exist, maybe we should try & discuss the situation with some common sense, well as much as possible knowing the MCG is where it will stay for a number of reasons.

Perhaps what should happen is that the AFL look to try to standardise grounds as much as possible over time.

The MCG could be narrowed a bit, which would help. Aurora would be easy to downsize a bit, Boot Park is not quite the same shape but is much the same size. The Gabba is similar, Unfortunately an opportunity to widen the Adelaide Oval has been missed. & we are stuck with the SCG. The new Perth stadium will be a better shape than Subiaco.

So Looking to more closely standardise grounds as much as possible would make sense, but it is the AFL after all. Or is that too logical?

 

[Rob]

Rather than discuss a proposition that doesnt exist, maybe we should try & discuss the situation with some common sense, well as much as possible knowing the MCG is where it will stay for a number of reasons.

Perhaps what should happen is that the AFL look to try to standardise grounds as much as possible over time.

The MCG could be narrowed a bit, which would help. Aurora would be easy to downsize a bit, Boot Park is not quite the same shape but is much the same size. The Gabba is similar, Unfortunately an opportunity to widen the Adelaide Oval has been missed. & we are stuck with the SCG. The new Perth stadium will be a better shape than Subiaco.

So Looking to more closely standardise grounds as much as possible would make sense, but it is the AFL after all. Or is that too logical?

It doesn't make sense, because the AFL aren't lucky enough to have billions of dollars available to rebuild or remodel grounds to the shape they want. They have recommended ground sizes, but they should only ever be a range as opposed to a set design.

 

[telsor]

Rather than discuss a proposition that doesnt exist, maybe we should try & discuss the situation with some common sense, well as much as possible knowing the MCG is where it will stay for a number of reasons.

Perhaps what should happen is that the AFL look to try to standardise grounds as much as possible over time.

The MCG could be narrowed a bit, which would help. Aurora would be easy to downsize a bit, Boot Park is not quite the same shape but is much the same size. The Gabba is similar, Unfortunately an opportunity to widen the Adelaide Oval has been missed. & we are stuck with the SCG. The new Perth stadium will be a better shape than Subiaco.

So Looking to more closely standardise grounds as much as possible would make sense, but it is the AFL after all. Or is that too logical?

The difference in ground sizes isn't that really all that much, but the effort needed to standardise would be massive. It's a huge solution to a minor problem.

But in the spirit of 'common sense discussion', here's 2 'practical' solutions...

Short term...Find the lowest dimensions in use, and mark the lines so all playing areas have the smallest length and width available, shrinking the ground for a game that already has issues with congestion, as well leaving a fairly large gap between the fence and the boundary line (you could install a pool behind the goals at AO). I suppose if you ever got the smallest ground to expand their worst dimensions, you could reset the lines at all grounds (changing the entire comp because one ground changes...), but as the SCG is likely to be both the limiting factor, and the least likely to change that's unlikely to be an issue.

LONG term. Set a 'standard' size and decree that all grounds, when rebuilt must do what they can to match this size. I suppose it'd work in 50 odd years, but in the meantime, you'd have some very oddly shaped grounds as new stands are built 10M back (or worse, in) from the play/other stands. It'd also be a massive problem for locations that just don't have room to expand due to neighbors/roads/government restrictions, etc.


edited to add...For the 'short term solution', I did a quick check and found we would have a ground 149M long (SCG) and 115M wide (Geelong). For comparison, the MCG is 160x141

 

[madmug]

It doesn't make sense, because the AFL aren't lucky enough to have billions of dollars available to rebuild or remodel grounds to the shape they want. They have recommended ground sizes, but they should only ever be a range as opposed to a set design.

Changing the ground markings to try to configure the grounds would cost nothing. Some grounds we cant change, that doesnt mean we have to do nothing.

The difference in ground sizes isn't that really all that much, but the effort needed to standardise would be massive. It's a huge solution to a minor problem.

But in the spirit of 'common sense discussion', here's 2 'practical' solutions...

Short term...Find the lowest dimensions in use, and mark the lines so all playing areas have the smallest length and width available, shrinking the ground for a game that already has issues with congestion, as well leaving a fairly large gap between the fence and the boundary line (you could install a pool behind the goals at AO). I suppose if you ever got the smallest ground to expand their worst dimensions, you could reset the lines at all grounds (changing the entire comp because one ground changes...), but as the SCG is likely to be both the limiting factor, and the least likely to change that's unlikely to be an issue.

LONG term. Set a 'standard' size and decree that all grounds, when rebuilt must do what they can to match this size. I suppose it'd work in 50 odd years, but in the meantime, you'd have some very oddly shaped grounds as new stands are built 10M back (or worse, in) from the play/other stands. It'd also be a massive problem for locations that just don't have room to expand due to neighbors/roads/government restrictions, etc.


edited to add...For the 'short term solution', I did a quick check and found we would have a ground 149M long (SCG) and 115M wide (Geelong). For comparison, the MCG is 160x141

Changing ground markings, is not that hard ie slightly narrower MCG & Gabba, maybe goal posts a metre longer at each end would make them closer to the new Perth Stadium. Shorten the AO a little. Yes we are stuck with the SCG. These are most likely to have finals played on them. The secondary grounds in Tassie, ACT, NT, NQ etc can be adapted for games, but its probably more important that maybe it get done on grounds where finals will be played.

Anyway I dont even think the AFL care about the situation. As long as the games are where they are thats all they care about. Ground sizes nor the fixture are ever likely to be fair. Although consideration of both would be more professional IMO.

 

[Maveric]

40,000 for a grand final at Patersons; yeah nah. It might not be fair, but it is the way it has been for the national competition since 1987 and can't change until at least after 2035. Plus it won't change, right or wrong the grand final will always be at the home of footy.

 

[telsor]

Changing the ground markings to try to configure the grounds would cost nothing. Some grounds we cant change, that doesnt mean we have to do nothing.



Changing ground markings, is not that hard ie slightly narrower MCG & Gabba, maybe goal posts a metre longer at each end would make them closer to the new Perth Stadium. Shorten the AO a little. Yes we are stuck with the SCG. These are most likely to have finals played on them. The secondary grounds in Tassie, ACT, NT, NQ etc can be adapted for games, but its probably more important that maybe it get done on grounds where finals will be played.

Anyway I dont even think the AFL care about the situation. As long as the games are where they are thats all they care about. Ground sizes nor the fixture are ever likely to be fair. Although consideration of both would be more professional IMO.

So we go for the short term solution I mentioned and all grounds are 146x115? Heaps more congestion and huge gaps between the fence and the boundary? Which grounds are excluded from this by your reckoning? Remember, we're not talking a meter or two, we're talking 25 meters! Do you really want to turn up at Boot park (nominally 175 v 133.5m), and find an extra 10 meter gap between the boundary and the fence compared to last year, just so it matches up?

The AFL has rules about such things...Grounds are between certain distances long and wide, and realistically, that isn't going to change. Personally, I like grounds having their own characters, and if one result of the variation in size/shape is effects the way the game is played, then it's just as well they always play the GF at the same ground, so all clubs can plan for such a setup (and get to play on that ground far more often than they would on other grounds).

 

[madmug]

40,000 for a grand final at Patersons; yeah nah. It might not be fair, but it is the way it has been for the national competition since 1987 and can't change until at least after 2035. Plus it won't change, right or wrong the grand final will always be at the home of footy.

I'm talking about a way to make ground sizes more similar where possible, NOT about playing the GF somewhere else. Did you read the post properly? I think not.

So we go for the short term solution I mentioned and all grounds are 146x115? Heaps more congestion and huge gaps between the fence and the boundary? Which grounds are excluded from this by your reckoning? Remember, we're not talking a meter or two, we're talking 25 meters! Do you really want to turn up at Boot park (nominally 175 v 133.5m), and find an extra 10 meter gap between the boundary and the fence compared to last year, just so it matches up?

The AFL has rules about such things...Grounds are between certain distances long and wide, and realistically, that isn't going to change. Personally, I like grounds having their own characters, and if one result of the variation in size/shape is effects the way the game is played, then it's just as well they always play the GF at the same ground, so all clubs can plan for such a setup (and get to play on that ground far more often than they would on other grounds).

Did I say make them all exactly the same? No, I didnt.

I did say some grounds cant be changed much so we are stuck with them, didnt I? I did talk about what could be done with a simple line change & really minimal changes, didnt I.

Once again someone makes a fairly simple point, & the usual keyboard experts go off on a tangent without taking into account what was actually said.

Childish & pathetic really. Enjoy yourselves.

 

[telsor]

Did I say make them all exactly the same? No, I didnt.

True, you didn't say exact, but I think it's not an unreasonable assumption when someone says they want to standardise things that they'd be 'the same'. So how much variation is acceptable in the madmug rules of the game?


How do you get the 149x136 SCG 'near enough' to the 167.05x123.93 Adelaide oval? ( as an aside, I do love that AO is down to the centimeter).

 

[madmug]

True, you didn't say exact, but I think it's not an unreasonable assumption when someone says they want to standardise things that they'd be 'the same'. So how much variation is acceptable in the madmug rules of the game?


How do you get the 149x136 SCG 'near enough' to the 167.05x123.93 Adelaide oval? ( as an aside, I do love that AO is down to the centimeter).

Again, as I said, You cant. That doesnt mean you can do nothing. Reducing the MCG width by 5 metres & increase the length by 2. Reduce AO length by 4 metres, which gets them all more similar together with the new Perth Stadium. Its not hard. It just needs some paint & maybe some padding at each end of the G

 

[telsor]

Again, as I said, You cant. That doesnt mean you can do nothing. Reducing the MCG width by 5 metres & increase the length by 2. Reduce AO length by 4 metres, which gets them all more similar together with the new Perth Stadium. Its not hard. It just needs some paint & maybe some padding at each end of the G

Why do that and still leave the grounds significantly different?

Looks like you're making a change just for the sake of making a change.

Also not sure how you'd increase the length of the MCG by 2M...


Fact of the matter is that both AO & the new Perth stadium were done in the full knowledge that the grand final would be at the MCG...If the differences in size was considered a major issue, surely they would have built them accordingly.

Of course, if the size really does matter that much, maybe they figured that the advantage of having a different ground that their opponents would rarely play on would gain them more over the H&A season and (potentially) the first 3 weeks of finals than the 'cost' of playing the grand final on a ground they'd likely visit several times each year.

 

[madmug]

Why do that and still leave the grounds significantly different?

Looks like you're making a change just for the sake of making a change.

Also not sure how you'd increase the length of the MCG by 2M...


Fact of the matter is that both AO & the new Perth stadium were done in the full knowledge that the grand final would be at the MCG...If the differences in size was considered a major issue, surely they would have built them accordingly.

Of course, if the size really does matter that much, maybe they figured that the advantage of having a different ground that their opponents would rarely play on would gain them more over the H&A season and (potentially) the first 3 weeks of finals than the 'cost' of playing the grand final on a ground they'd likely visit several times each year.

You really are in an argumentative mood.

Dont worry about it.

I was making a simple suggestion to reduce the difference between grounds for the obvious point that their is a massive home ground advantage to the current tenants as compared to interstate finalists.

So forget it.

 

[telsor]

You really are in an argumentative mood.

Dont worry about it.

I was making a simple suggestion to reduce the difference between grounds for the obvious point that their is a massive home ground advantage to the current tenants as compared to interstate finalists.

So forget it.

I'm trying to understand what you're hoping to achieve with your suggestion.

You want to change ground sizes, but don't seem to care if they become the same.

What's the point?

 

[madmug]

I'm trying to understand what you're hoping to achieve with your suggestion.

You want to change ground sizes, but don't seem to care if they become the same.

What's the point?

(Clears throat) Whats the point of the thread? What is it saying?

Isn't it saying some clubs have a real advantage playing on it in finals? WCE only played once on it all season. The MCG is clearly different to Subi.

Is it such a problem adjusting boundaries to make the playing areas a little more similar.?