Standardised playing field size

[TJ Hendricks]

I don't mind fields being different sizes (I grew up a baseball fan) but I would like to see every team get a crack at the MCG since that's where the Grand Final is.

 

[Lockyer24]

I know this would never happen, for obvious reasons, but hypothetically, would you support a standard sized playing field? Like a standard size oval with standardised dimensions, so every ground would be the same size and shape? As we know AFL is unusual among team sports in that there is no standard size, grounds vary in size and shape, sometimes significantly (like it's well known Subiaco/Domain is a lot longer and narrower than the MCG, as is Kardinia park in Geelong), and this is part of the home ground advantage for many teams (and can also backfire when a team plays away). It's sort of part of the game.

Personally, if hypothetically this was an option, I'd actually support it. I used to think the different grounds made things more interesting, still sorta do, but I think it would make it a bit more even.

I do think with the new stadium in WA this could become more the case though, I think Skilled Stadium/Kardinia Park is a similar size to Subi from memory, since someone said it'll be the same size as the MCG. I think Etihad and the Gabba are pretty similar to the MCG? The SCG seems even shorter/smaller.

Fantastic post. I've wanted this for a few years. MCG the obvious perfect dimensions. Adelaide, SCG, most Etihad games are ugly.

 

[Pessimistic]

They brought the boundary lines in at waverley to be more like the mcg

It literally was a joke, 15m in from the fence

 

[VineyIsLORD]

The grounds are standardised.
Both teams play on the same ground don't they?
Or am I missing something?

Yep you are.

In this context standardised means all grounds should be the same dimensions. So the MCG, SCG and whatever Adelaide and WA call their stadiums should all be the same dimensions to standardise them across the league.

 

[J_Moore]

Not sure about rugby but soccer pitches definitely aren't standardised

Yeah, people don't realise this. Only Rugby and American Football have standard goal-to-goal lengths.


Cricket fields aren't standardised. Nor baseball. Are those sports amateurish?

If you use the average size (160m) the SCG is 10m shorter, you would have to remove 5m of stand each side and in the end for no real advantage.

4.5m. SCG is 155.5m, goal-to-goal.

 

[Hamingja]

You wouldn't want cricket wickets standardised so they're all fast like Perth or turn like Sydney.

You haven't watched cricket for 30 years? Drop in pitches have done exactly that, effectively standardising wickets, and the game is worse off for it.

 

[Melksham2Siposs]

Blows my mind that most people think they shouldn't be the same size.

Absolutely baffling that Etihad wasn't built to the exact field size as the MCG a stones throw away.

Can at least understand the cricket grounds to some extent.

As someone said, it is amateur hour. Might as well give a shite team the other team's 4 best players at half time, and focus on what's hot at the canteen. This ground is a bit small, but the dimmies are great.... we should say only at under 13s footy (no diss on under 13s footy, at least the fixtures are even).

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Yeah, people don't realise this. Only Rugby and American Football have standard goal-to-goal lengths.


Cricket fields aren't standardised. Nor baseball. Are those sports amateurish?



4.5m. SCG is 155.5m, goal-to-goal.

And then is it league or rugby that can have different depth on their ingoal areas? iirc, watching English superleague, their ingoal areas are a lot shallower than their Australian counterparts.

For all of those on here calling it amateurish to have different dimensions, are you all happy for all of your stadium's grandstands to be bulldozed so that they can be standardised?

 

[EagleShore]

My main frustration is with the MCG being a much rounder ground than those found interstate. I mean yeah obviously it's a cricket ground so it's going to be round. I may as well complain about the sky being blue. It would be nice if every footy ground in the country had the same dimensions as the ground where the Grand Final is played for the sake of fairness but it will never happen.

I get your point and it is frustrating (West Coast seem to struggle to defend the wider MCG) but the answer is not right now changing grounds like the SCG but for teams to adjust their training according to grounds on which they are to play.

West Coast are doing this at the new facility at Lathlain. I believe the main training oval is to be similar in its dimensions to the MCG. Nope, two ovals as it turns out in the link above; one to be the size of the 'G and the other to be the size of Perth Stadium.

The new Perth Stadium will have an oval with dimensions between those of the MCG and Subiaco (wider and shorter than Subi but still not as wide or short as the MCG).

 

[deflated]

The fact our grounds are different sizes just proves how amateurish AFL is as a sport.

Have you ever looked at how different MLB fields are and how many billions of dollars the TV contracts for baseball are worth? Encourage the differences don't neuter them.

 

[Andrew Mc]

And then is it league or rugby that can have different depth on their ingoal areas? iirc, watching English superleague, their ingoal areas are a lot shallower than their Australian counterparts.

For all of those on here calling it amateurish to have different dimensions, are you all happy for all of your stadium's grandstands to be bulldozed so that they can be standardised?

Yeah, both codes of rugby, the in-goal can certainly be different - you do notice it in the Superleague more I think because they play on grounds that may be designed for soccer, so there isn't much room left. In league, it's 6-11m, union 10-22m (although most are set at 10m). It makes a big difference to game play at times.

 

[Underdog]

How many elite, professional sports actually DO have rigid dimensions?

Even the NBA have different dimensions to the International Baketball Federation (and other leagues). Ice Hockey has various sizes too, Motor Racing circuits are practically never alike.

That's without even discussing the fact that AFL grounds with the same width and length can still have vastly different sizes.

 

[Andrew Mc]

My main frustration is with the MCG being a much rounder ground than those found interstate.

The SCG is quite similar in terms of roundness, as is the GABBA.

 

[Always Ballin]

It's weird. Baseball has a similar thing. But I like it. More strategy the better.

People just have to plan for grounds. Everyone I've seen have been playing the SCG wrong. Both the Eagles and North tried to play their pretty pick em apart style, trying to get short marks 35-50m out from goals. You need to beat them at their own game. They play that ground to perfection, by flooding the back half, and playing rebound paddock footy. It's just too small/narrow a ground to play possession slice and dice football. Meters gained Pagan's paddock flooding style is how you approach the SCG. Not surpising that pretty much every Swans team have historically been defensive juggernauts.

Now the MCG, that's a possession football ground. Just like Subi.

 

[Andrew Mc]

It's weird. Baseball has a similar thing. But I like it. More strategy the better.

People just have to plan for grounds. Everyone I've seen have been playing the SCG wrong. Both the Eagles and North tried to play their pretty pick em apart style, trying to get short marks 35-50m out from goals. You need to beat them at their own game. They play that ground to perfection, by flooding the back half, and playing rebound paddock footy. It's just too small/narrow a ground to play possession slice and dice football. Meters gained Pagan's paddock flooding style is how you approach the SCG. Not surpising that pretty much every Swans team have historically been defensive juggernauts.

Now the MCG, that's a possession football ground. Just like Subi.

The SCG is wider than most grounds (14m wider than Subi). It's pretty much the same area as Subi (16556m2 vs 16768m2). There is actually more space inside the 50's at the SCG than Subi due to Subi being so narrow. The space inside the arcs is pretty much the same as at the MCG, as the width/length ratios are about the same at the two grounds.

 

[Always Ballin]

The SCG is wider than most grounds (14m wider than Subi). It's pretty much the same area as Subi (16556m2 vs 16768m2). There is actually more space inside the 50's at the SCG than Subi due to Subi being so narrow. The space inside the arcs is pretty much the same as at the MCG, as the width/length ratios are about the same at the two grounds.

Hard to tell with how low to the ground they broadcast at the SCG

 

[100action]

It obviously should be.

Current arrangement is a joke.

If there was 100k capacity stadiums for all home grounds and the GF could take place at any of those then there would be no problem with the current differences in dimensions.

 

[gavaniacono]

Never.
I like the Russian Winter principle to be alive and well, making for surprises, a hedge against hegemony. That and GFs not always played at the MCG.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Hard to tell with how low to the ground they broadcast at the SCG

I suspect coaches don't rely on that... I honestly don't have a problem with it - it's higher up than if I'm at a ground nominally.

 

[Andrew Mc]

The fact our grounds are different sizes just proves how amateurish AFL is as a sport.

You must have a serious issue with golf.

 

[gavaniacono]

You must have a serious issue with golf.

And women.

 

[Ron The Bear]

You haven't watched cricket for 30 years? Drop in pitches have done exactly that, effectively standardising wickets, and the game is worse off for it.

Fair point, but I don't think Perth is using them yet, and Sydney's declared they'll never use them.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Doesn't really bother me much though I do think there should be a reasonable minimum size.

I think the SCG is too small, it's one decent kick from from the centre circle to the goal square.

 

[kneecapper]

Doesn't really bother me much though I do think there should be a reasonable minimum size.

I think the SCG is too small, it's one decent kick from from the centre circle to the goal square.

A little tired of debunking this myth. It's JUST FOUR BLOODY METRES shorter than Etihad and 10m wider. That's like putting the posts just two metres forward at either end (i.e. less than a third of the goal square aka nothing). If anything the width of the ground has far more impact on the level of congestion and ability to move the footy forward and the SCG is one of the few grounds that comes close to matching the MCG (the apparent home of AFL). Simmonds Stadium is 26 metres narrower than the MCG and we never hear people constantly whinging about that.

 

[Gibbsy]

Semantics. The terms are used interchangeably.

The AFL would love you