Standardised playing field size

[Underdog]

The point raised was about ground sizes, not surfaces. Why muddy the waters?

I guess to highlight that despite potentially having a uniform size, there are other allowed, man-made, variables that can have equally as much impact.

This may surprise you but all tennis courts are the same size. Line widths? Give me a break.

I provided you a link showing the variations available in tennis court size...

And there are now very few exceptions allowed by UEFA so 98% of all UEFA standard soccer grounds are the same size. ALL UEFA sacntioned tournamnets must use pitches that have the same dimensions (Champions League, Europa League, etc).

Why are you limiting it to UEFA sanctioned tournaments? That's cherrypicking.

 

[Coaster2012]

The NBA have different dimensions to the International standard and other leagues throughout the world.

who cares about other leagues? we are talking about 1 AFL league here and NBA as a 1 solitary league has the same court sizes.

 

[Coaster2012]

Tennis: Different dimensions depending on event. Different line widths which affect live playing area. Vastly different surfaces http://www.tennis.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Court-and-Enclosure-Dimensions-2012.pdf

NFL/American Football: Vastly different playing surfaces

Association Football: Many different sizes as discussed

Netball:

Indoor Cricket: Irrelevant

Basketball: Different dimensions depending on league I.E. NBA does not play to International standards.

Table Tennis: Irrelevant

Handball: Irrelevant

Athetics: There are many variations available. Look for term like "at least" http://track.isport.com/track-guides/track-field-dimensions

Swimming: Different lengths depending on event "long course / short course" Depths, temperatures, visibility, lane width etc are variable http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/d88245f7-325a-464b-84c6-7db3891422fc/Pool Dimensions and Reccomendations.pdf

Darts: Irrelevant


Irrelevant = because they have little relevance to us when discussing professional sports in this manner.

NFL fields are all the same size

 

[Mr_Moogle]

yes they do the entire point of MLB fields is that they have unique outfields, in fact several baseball diamonds were designed specifically to give the home team an advantage by introducing quirky ground shapes and sizes.

in cricket the size of the ground combined with the pace of the outfield is also designed to give an advantage, footy which comes from cricket inherited the unique shapes of grounds and is part and parcel of traveling.

in rugby league during the johns era, Qld and NZ ground staff deliberately moved in the size of in goal area in, in order to restrict the effectiveness of the high ball game as most teams could not handle how well he placed the ball.

in rugby union the entire point of touring was to take on opponents at their grounds, Which is why every world cup there is a shit fight over which grounds can qualify as ground minimums only exist for the tournament with each nations reps demanding grounds meet some arbitrary sizes. Several IRU games take place on grounds with varying sizes each year, in fact the in goal area maximum size was introduced in union, because someone chased down a missed field goal attempt 50 meters from the try line in order to score a try. Ground size in union drastically effects the game, for a variety of reasons far more then it does your average rules game, due to technicalities of the sport. For example most southern hemisphere teams prefer a long wider ground in order to promote the running game. Because its much easier to isolate a man running without support and at the same time much easier to wear down a large slower opponent and allows you to bring your backs into the game more. Whilst the northern hemisphere teams prefer shorter narrower grounds as it makes field goals easier, whilst at the same time making it harder to kick for territory, because it demands a more disciplined kick, which a fullback has an easier time defending. Additionally a lineout taken at larger grounds is statistically more likely to result in a try as it can produce bigger overlaps on a more consistent basis.

I've got mixed feelings about how they do it in MLB. On the one hand I really like how the grounds vary architecturally. A bunch of MLB Baseball pitches we're redeveloped in the 90's to each have their own unique aesthetic and make the grounds more palatable for fans, and some of them look pretty damn awesome. On the otherhand I'm really not a big fan of teams being able to tailor the dimensions of the outfield to suit their whims.

Not going argue with any of that Rugby stuff but god that sounds terrible. Coaches being allowed to move the size of the goal area just seems insane to me. The stuff you mentioned about teams arguing over which grounds they play on in world cup qualifying almost seems like an argument for standardisation too.

 

[newcs]

The other comparisons that haven't been mentioned are Horse, Greyhound & motor racing. The Flemington Straight is longer than most harness racing tracks, the Warrnambool race track goes across the road into a neighboring paddock, and I doubt you would ever see an F1 race at Bathurst.

 

[sataris]

My only explanation is that the lower camera angle might make the ground appear more congested but you can't argue with facts.

You're on bigfooty.

 

[walhawk]

Nope.

Rugby and Soccer teams have home ground advantages and the grounds are the same size everywhere. You would be putting a lot of effort and it wouldn't change anything.

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.

Soccer pitch not standard.
And the ends in rugby league vary.

 

[Valixir]

Does anyone know the dimensions of Blundstone/Bellerive? Has got to the smallest ground I've ever been to to my eye.

 

[Valixir]

Does anyone know the dimensions of Blundstone/Bellerive? Has got to the smallest ground I've ever been to to my eye.

Ok. I think I found it. 175 x 135. Longer than the MCG but narrower? Weird.
Edit- Somewhere else says 160 x 124.

 

[HaroLad]

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

AFL isn't a sport dickhead.

 

[Badesumofu]

Personally I think this is one of those unique things about our great game that is worth preserving.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

At least the ovals are flat. Want to see some quirky fields, have a look around the cricket fields in England! Especially Lords

 

[Damon_3388]

At least the ovals are flat. Want to see some quirky fields, have a look around the cricket fields in England! Especially Lords

You'd think the last thing you'd want in a cricket field would be a noticeable slope, but it seems to almost be a point of pride for those at Lord's.

 

[Pessimistic]

Waverley park, footy park, subiaco, gold coast stadium.

The only stadiums built purely for footy, soon only one will survive.

 

[kranky al]

Coaches need to be standardised - IQ of no greater than 80.

Justin Leppitch likes this

 

[From The Pocket]

Waverley park, footy park, subiaco, gold coast stadium.

The only stadiums built purely for footy, soon only one will survive.

Kardinia Park?

 

[HaroLad]

Waverley park, footy park, subiaco, gold coast stadium.

The only stadiums built purely for footy, soon only one will survive.

Surely Etihad too

 

[newcs]

At least the ovals are flat. Want to see some quirky fields, have a look around the cricket fields in England! Especially Lords

Actually Kardinia Park isn't 100% flat. The outer wing is two metres lower.
Note the fence line in the background of this picture and how the water is all puddling to one side of the ground.

 

[Wallaby]

At least the ovals are flat. Want to see some quirky fields, have a look around the cricket fields in England! Especially Lords

Waverley wasn't flat. It was built with a definite hump in the middle to assist drainage. If you sat on the boundary on either wing, looking across the field, you could only see the top half of players on the other side.

It also meant that when the ball was bouncing around, there was a slight tendency for it to head towards the boundary.*

* Maybe urban myth, but was definitely spoken about. Sorry, no stats to back up or otherwise.

 

[hitthepost]

You'd think the last thing you'd want in a cricket field would be a noticeable slope, but it seems to almost be a point of pride for those at Lord's.

That's because it's unique, and international cricket prides itself on being a game for many different conditions and where players have to adapt to these differences as they travel the world. A slope is far from the last thing you want on a cricket field - in fact, if your field doesn't slope, either like Lords or away from the pitch block in all directions, you better have state-of-the-art drainage or you gonna have a soggy pitch.

 

[Damon_3388]

That's because it's unique, and international cricket prides itself on being a game for many different conditions and where players have to adapt to these differences as they travel the world. A slope is far from the last thing you want on a cricket field - in fact, if your field doesn't slope, either like Lords or away from the pitch block in all directions, you better have state-of-the-art drainage or you gonna have a soggy pitch.

Yeah but for a ground to slope so noticeably just one way is a bit odd I reckon.

I'm sure modern curators have figured out drainage and water management to the point that a slope isn't really necessary, either.

 

[JackFlash]

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

I'll get onto Cricket Australia about that and while i'm at it, i better give the ICC a call....bloody amateurs!

IMO the diversity of the local suburban grounds was part of the attraction, i loved them all.

Victoria Park- Apart from the ferals you had an egg shape ground, the Pies knew how to play the members wing perfectly.
Windy Hill - Bloody obvious...it was open and windy at the school end, the main grandstands had a nice wind tunnel effect happening right behind the goals, opposition teams had no idea.
Glenferrie Oval - Get onto google maps and check out the place and tell me you are not gobsmacked that games were actually played on this Sardine can?
Arden St - Again open to the elements, but it was almost the perfect oval shape.
Lake Oval - Open and windy
Moorabbin - wet, muddy, open and windy
Junction Oval - Always had the best surface, one of the best suburban grounds
Kardinia Park and Whitten Oval; are almost identical dimensions, long and narrow

Who wants everything perfect? I find Etihad sterile and i have no idea what end i'm at now at the MCG, it all looks the bloody same!

 

[The Passenger]

So the basic gist is it's a 50/50 split on whether sports have the same playing field size. We fall into the sports with uneven playing field size. The GAA (Gaelic Football and Hurling) and Lawn Bowls are two others which don't have set playing field size. Haven't seen field hockey mentioned - It has a set playing field size.

 

[Seeds]

Won't lie, I didn't realise soccer pitches weren't standardised.

It's a weird one, it's nice to have unique home grounds and advantages, but common sense suggests the oval dimensions should be the same.

no common sense does not suggest that. Can people stop using common sense in vain? Cricket and baseball use different field sizes. Tennis uses different turfs. Grounds have different climates and weather. Playing in varying conditions makes the game more challenging without being biased in any teams favour as long as all teams have the same amount of home games. The only thing that making dimensions consistent would do is make the game a little more boring.

 

[JackOutback]

no common sense does not suggest that. Can people stop using common sense in vain? Cricket and baseball use different field sizes. Tennis uses different turfs. Grounds have different climates and weather. Playing in varying conditions makes the game more challenging without being biased in any teams favour as long as all teams have the same amount of home games. The only thing that making dimensions consistent would do is make the game a little more boring.

Nothing you have said there refutes the idea that it might be common sense to have oval sizes the same, you've just listed other sports that don't have standardised fields. The reason it is common sense is because sporting contests are usually meant to involve teams or individuals competing against each other under a common set of rules and conditions, but different oval sizes actually changes the way the game is played and most certainly can favour one team over another. Compared to tennis, for example, anyone can practice more on clay surfaces if they would like to become a better clay court player, but Collingwood can't practice regularly on Subiaco Oval to become better adapted to the conditions.

That said, I don't support making them the same.