Adelaide Oval - Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

I believe the only time the hill be in question is if a FIFA world cup was to come to Australia. Adelaide oval doesn't fully comply with FIFA with its restrictions on standing. Also the design of the Western stand does not cater for enough people within 90m of the center of the pitch so the oval would need another upgrade if a world cup was ever to eventuate.
 
BringBackTorps said:
Disagree. Its capacity of c.54,000 for AF is far too low.

The 1965 SANFL GF at AO had a crowd of 62,543. The 1976 GF at Football Park had 66,897 (both stadia had far more standing room then). Adelaide's population has increased by c. 60% since the mid 60's -but it has reduced AO capacity!
In the 70's Football Park was originally intended to have a capacity of c. 80,000!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_Park

A big crowd of c.70,000 (for Adelaide, probably c.70,000 minimum would be ideal now) provides better atmosphere than a crowd of c.52,000.
Adelaide needs a culture of people deciding, at very short notice, to go to the football (as exists in Melb.) -this will easily increase average AFL crowds in Adelaide.
With a bigger capacity, ticket prices can be kept low for GA ,as they are in Melb. (IMO, AF is primarily a working class game -we must keep GA attendance costs as low as possible).

I would prefer the increase to 70,000 to be mainly standing room. It is cheaper to build, easier to fit many more people into a smaller space, & considerably adds to the atmosphere at AFL games (Fans become more noisy/animated when packed in, cf. "sterile" seated areas).

It is a very easy drive (with friends sharing the drive) to AO from Melb. to watch a game; stop-offs along the coast, a very enjoyable 4 day holiday (inc. Barossa). For tourists, Adelaide's AFL "Point Of Difference" could/would be a much bigger "standing room ol'time footy" experience than currently offered by the AO hill. Adelaide is not capitalising as well as it should on Melb. football tourism.

IMO, the scoreboard & looking at the trees at AO has little appeal for interstate tourists -but I appreciate it might have sentimental importance for locals.
The range of contrasting Stands at AO also add greatly to its visual & aesthetic appeal -cf. the boring, "cookie-cutter" sameness of most new stadia in Aust. (& around the world).
Click to expand...
For me 60-62k is perfect. One thing you have to keep in mind when upgrading the capacity of the stadium is congestion, you need to be able to have enough space around the ground for people to get in and out easily and have the suitable transport that can move people in and out of the area.
 
Rabman said:
I believe the only time the hill be in question is if a FIFA world cup was to come to Australia. Adelaide oval doesn't fully comply with FIFA with its restrictions on standing. Also the design of the Western stand does not cater for enough people within 90m of the center of the pitch so the oval would need another upgrade if a world cup was ever to eventuate.
Click to expand...
It's the same for WC Qualifiers - nobody on the hill. It could have temporary stands put on it.
How do venues with athletics tracks make the "90m quota"? They're usually slightly longer and not much narrower than AO.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

hitthepost said:
It's the same for WC Qualifiers - nobody on the hill. It could have temporary stands put on it.
How do venues with athletics tracks make the "90m quota"? They're usually slightly longer and not much narrower than AO.
Click to expand...
Its the capacity that gets them over the line, stadio olimpico in rome has an athletic track around it but its capacity of over 72,000. also its the cover and leveling. Oval stadiums having bowl shape that hurts it.
 
BringBackTorps said:
Disagree. Its capacity of c.54,000 for AF is far too low.

The 1965 SANFL GF at AO had a crowd of 62,543. The 1976 GF at Football Park had 66,897 (both stadia had far more standing room then). Adelaide's population has increased by c. 60% since the mid 60's -but it has reduced AO capacity!
In the 70's Football Park was originally intended to have a capacity of c. 80,000!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_Park

A big crowd of c.70,000 (for Adelaide, probably c.70,000 minimum would be ideal now) provides better atmosphere than a crowd of c.52,000.
Adelaide needs a culture of people deciding, at very short notice, to go to the football (as exists in Melb.) -this will easily increase average AFL crowds in Adelaide.
With a bigger capacity, ticket prices can be kept low for GA ,as they are in Melb. (IMO, AF is primarily a working class game -we must keep GA attendance costs as low as possible).

I would prefer the increase to 70,000 to be mainly standing room. It is cheaper to build, easier to fit many more people into a smaller space, & considerably adds to the atmosphere at AFL games (Fans become more noisy/animated when packed in, cf. "sterile" seated areas).

It is a very easy drive (with friends sharing the drive) to AO from Melb. to watch a game; stop-offs along the coast, a very enjoyable 4 day holiday (inc. Barossa). For tourists, Adelaide's AFL "Point Of Difference" could/would be a much bigger "standing room ol'time footy" experience than currently offered by the AO hill. Adelaide is not capitalising as well as it should on Melb. football tourism.

IMO, the scoreboard & looking at the trees at AO has little appeal for interstate tourists -but I appreciate it might have sentimental importance for locals.
The range of contrasting Stands at AO also add greatly to its visual & aesthetic appeal -cf. the boring, "cookie-cutter" sameness of most new stadia in Aust. (& around the world).
Click to expand...
I disagree that a higher capacity will automatically increase crowds.
You increase the supply, the demand drops off. People cut back from 11 game members to 3 game members, pick and choose which games to attend as it's cheaper. You can attend 7 rather than 11 and miss out on the s**t games.

Yes. The highs will be bigger, but the lows will be more common.

Just look at Port.
 
hitthepost said:
It's the same for WC Qualifiers - nobody on the hill. It could have temporary stands put on it.
How do venues with athletics tracks make the "90m quota"? They're usually slightly longer and not much narrower than AO.
Click to expand...
Besides Suncorp in Brisbane, what stadiums comply with FIFA in their current layout

Mcg is too big and too far away in the nosebleeds.
And I think anz is just borderline at the back of the stands too.
 
Dirty Bird said:
I disagree that a higher capacity will automatically increase crowds.
You increase the supply, the demand drops off. People cut back from 11 game members to 3 game members, pick and choose which games to attend as it's cheaper. You can attend 7 rather than 11 and miss out on the s**t games.

Yes. The highs will be bigger, but the lows will be more common.

Just look at Port.
Click to expand...
Adelaide will, we have a big wait list. Our crowds have been fantastic since moving, besides Adelaide have the most 11 game members out of every club in the AFL, that will only increase.
 
Dirty Bird said:
Besides Suncorp in Brisbane, what stadiums comply with FIFA in their current layout
Mcg is too big and too far away in the nosebleeds.
And I think anz is just borderline at the back of the stands too.
Click to expand...

The MCG would be an integral cog in any WC bid. Hence the problem with the AFL.
The MCG is often used for rectangular games with no problems.
The ANZ is problematical because the single bank arrangement puts most fans too far away.
The MCG has way more better viewing seats for rectangular games than ANZ at full capacity.
 
RedV3x said:
The MCG would be an integral cog in any WC bid. Hence the problem with the AFL.
The MCG is often used for rectangular games with no problems.
The ANZ is problematical because the single bank arrangement puts most fans too far away.
The MCG has way more better viewing seats for rectangular games than ANZ at full capacity.
Click to expand...
That is false.
With the significant distance from the pitch and the relatively low rake of the lower bowl, behind advertising hoardings in, the first ten rows of level one you can't see the ball at all.
Similarly the entire top level is so far up and away that it makes watching rectangular sports near impossible.
I have been to numerous soccer games at both the MCG and anz, and anz wins hands down in every respect.
 
RedV3x said:
That's what I'd say about ANZ but if ANZ is so marvellous why don't people go ?
Click to expand...
Please tell me that you of all people are smart enough to realise that there is a lot more to why people go to a stadium than the seating bowl!
I'll let you work out what those other influencing factors are.

I will say however, that the highest seats at ANZ are closer to the sideline at the MCG due to the fact that the former is a much narrower ground.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

aCunningPlan said:
Similarly the entire top level is so far up and away that it makes watching rectangular sports near impossible.
Click to expand...
The irony of this is that people will happily sit in those seats for cricket, which has a smaller ball (also harder to see when it's red) and where the play is essentially located nearly fully within the soccer centre circle area.
But it's too far from the sidelines of a soccer pitch :p
 
RedV3x said:
That's what I'd say about ANZ but if ANZ is so marvellous why don't people go ?
Click to expand...
ANZ isn't marvellous, hence why they are rebuilding it so it is a world class rectangular stadium rather than being jack of all trades and master of nothing.

But even so, a half arsed rectangular stadium is better than a vast, soulless MCG for soccer and rugby.
 
hitthepost said:
The irony of this is that people will happily sit in those seats for cricket, which has a smaller ball (also harder to see when it's red) and where the play is essentially located nearly fully within the soccer centre circle area.
But it's too far from the sidelines of a soccer pitch :p
Click to expand...
That's why I sat in the Chappell stands growing up, you couldn't get much closer in world cricket!
 
hitthepost said:
Please tell me that you of all people are smart enough to realise that there is a lot more to why people go to a stadium than the seating bowl!
Click to expand...

So you're saying nobody goes to ANZ because there isn't any decent attractions ?
P.S. I see you've descended into condescending language. Oh how the mighty have fallen!
 
hitthepost said:
I will say however, that the highest seats at ANZ are closer to the sideline at the MCG due to the fact that the former is a much narrower ground.
Click to expand...

That doesn't overcome the fact that the MCG is a tiered ground reducing the distance to the action.
But I hope you're right because then they'd be no need to demolish ANZ would there.
If you are right then demolishing ANZ would be a complete waste of time, money and inconvenience.
Long live ANZ.
 
aCunningPlan said:
In relation to watching soccer and rugby, yes.
Click to expand...

Been at wcq at the g with massive crowds, and while the full stadium atmosphere is awesome, you are miles from the action at two ends of the ground

In any wc bid its a monty due to capacity, but that it
 
aCunningPlan said:
ANZ isn't marvellous, hence why they are rebuilding it so it is a world class rectangular stadium rather than being jack of all trades and master of nothing.

But even so, a half arsed rectangular stadium is better than a vast, soulless MCG for soccer and rugby.
Click to expand...

When the cultural cringe has annihilated any sense of what "soul" is....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Thebarton oval development
Replies
2
Views
480
Millsie69
Millsie69
The Victorian
Thebarton Oval
Replies
5
Views
2K
Angus Young
Angus Young

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top