I always just read it as GBH Stadium.
-
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Rumour Optus Stadium surface issues
- Thread starter WillieNillie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I always just read it as GBH Stadium.
WillieNillie
All Australian
- Mar 31, 2018
- 866
- 2,052
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- #128
In the actual real world, this is a major major issue amongst all AFL teams yet no one in the media is discussing it. I find it incredibly weird the issue is being so protected so to speak.
Its not like the Gabba at all. Its a million times worse. It will have massive ramifications around the league and the future of it as their is more talks going on then just "hey lets fix it". So many different angles are attacking the situation. I think its likely to change how the game is run in terms of player welfare/player health insurance/player travel if it isnt fixed by this time next year.
Its not like the Gabba at all. Its a million times worse. It will have massive ramifications around the league and the future of it as their is more talks going on then just "hey lets fix it". So many different angles are attacking the situation. I think its likely to change how the game is run in terms of player welfare/player health insurance/player travel if it isnt fixed by this time next year.
The ground level/playing surface is 1.2m or so below the front row. They could easily lay down some soil (not sand) and underground pipes to keep it moist all year round and relay new turf on top. They could do 30-50cm of this and still have the surface below front row.
- Banned
- #130
https://thewest.com.au/sport/perth-...itch-dropped-into-optus-stadium-ng-b88974489z
Let me see, a 40-tonne wicket transporter slowly carrying 25 tonne sections of turf across the ground no doubt compacting it just a tad as it goes.
- Banned
- #131
In my post about the Gabba and Brown's comments I did use the word 'had'. They eventually got on top of the issue but it was very hard in the beginning. Surely the curators at Optus have been in touch with them about how they did so?
Big difference between brisbane and perth is humidity. Perth air is dry and that must have an impact
WillieNillie
All Australian
- Mar 31, 2018
- 866
- 2,052
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- #133
The fix to the issue is known. What the issue now is the Optus Stadium has bookings for the next 18 months which do not allow the time frame for the work needed to take place.
Essentially someone has to pay out the Perth Scorchers to relocate to WACA so the ground can then be fixed. The issue is who should pay it. Its quite obvious it should be the AFL HQ, but Gil wouldnt give us a cent. If it was GWS he would pay it without batting a eyelid
- Banned
- #134
Although if there is anywhere in Perth that is less likely to suffer from a poor relative humidity it's the location Optus was placed in. Set in the middle of a peninsula with the Swan river snaking by on both sides of it.
True but would be say 30% rather than 20% in burbs. Gabba would be 50-70%
If you look at the picture they lay down matting to help protect the turf and no doubt spread that weight out on the machine and trucks. It only really impacts a small area either side of the wicket and then the path on and off the ground. The only time that could be an issue might be the early rounds of the season if a player gets injured on those very spots.
I don't think that's nearly the problem compared with the overall hardness of the entire ground.
- Banned
- #138
Yeah I'd seen the matting when I posted. That matting has a limit to how much it compress, once it reaches that limit those 65 tonne sections passing over it are going to cause compaction in the turf, you can't avoid it. Do we know what player positions have been most affected early in the season? Wing? Midfield? CHF?
MCG has a very similar system which doesn't seem to cause any problems.
- Banned
- #140
Differences in soil profile, plus rolling heavy weight over turf that's already on the firm side was bound to lead to problems.
The mats that the wheels go on probably cover maybe a couple of % of the playing surface, I don't think it's really a part of the problem.
- Banned
- #142
Possibly, but consider this. You're sprinting flat out across the turf and most of it's not compacted and you happen to be one of the players in that match who is unlucky enough to have one foot solidly strike the heavily compacted part. Would be a similar sensation to having one foot suddenly hit a brick. Would explain why we haven't seen hordes of players with issues, just the odd one here and there. Would also explain why every penetrometer test they did at the ground passed with flying colours. Had they pushed it into these areas - bingo. Just a theory.
When you consider how many k's these players run out during a game it's not quite the 'winning lotto' sort of odds you'd initially envisage.
Possibly, but I think the problem is too widespread for it to be just that.
The Hawks game the other night players were slipping over everywhere, which I believe was due to the hard surface being wet. It didn't seem to be confined to any particular section of the ground. The ground was playing as if it had rained all afternoon, but my understanding is that it had been 24 hours since all the rain.
I think the problem is it is built on top of a tip which was on top of a swamp which meant they did a huge amount of compression work on the ground because the buried layers of rubbish were unstable. I remember reading there were car bodies buried in there. They also installed thousands of giant wicks deep into the ground to dry it out. Messing with soil layers like this is fraught with danger. Perhaps they compressed it all a bit too much?
