Standardised playing field size

[hitthepost]

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.

It's not common, but that's part of the charm
It's still recommended that the pitch block not be on the same level as the field itself, so that water doesn't pool on it.
That and the slope too are not as necessary at international-standard grounds; in fact many of them thesedays especially ones like AO and MCG with drop-ins are lazer-levelled, because the surfaces have amazing drainage systems built under them, but older grounds and lower-standard grounds such as grade venues etc still need this because they are literally ovals with pitches, not professional sporting arenas.

 

[Garlic muncher]

No i don't support a standardised playing ground, i like all grounds to be different, part of the charm.

 

[Seeds]

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.

All teams that play each other face the same conditions when they play each other. Whilst teams may be favoured in a particular game by different ground sizes because they are more used to those conditions, no team is favoured over the course of a season if all teams get the same amount of home games and it's the season which matters in regards to bias, not the game. Your conclusion is wrong because you are making this mistake. It is possible that it fits with common sense if the majority are making the same mistake that you are but if so common sense isn't worth much.

 

[Woodie99]

This has not been a problem for over a century, not one now. Even if you were going to change it, it would cost millions. AFL not forking that out, for no apparent benefit.

Don't think painting new lines & moving the goal post would cost that much, that's all that would have to be done, just pick the smallest ground & move the boundary line & posts at all the others.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I voted yes but it's not a hard yes.

I'd rather there be limit ranges on length and width

At the moment grounds are anywhere between 135-185m long and 110-155 wide. That's way too much difference imo. I'd rather be something like 150-170 long and 120-140 wide.

So yeah they should be standardised to a degree, but not so every ground is exactly the same. It's pretty unprofessional to have such big differences in dimensions from ground to ground.

 

[Hawkboy62]

How the hell can you run a fair and even competition if the grounds vary in size all over the country? Now I get there are historical reasons for this but with all the stadium redevelopment which has happened around the country in the last two decades, the AFL could have pure more effort into making sure grounds we're at least the same ******* shape.

New stadium development is in the hands of the developers and their various interested stakeholders. The clubs planning to use it would be major interested parties, the AFL less so.

The clubs have generally opted for a configuration that they are familiar with to maintain a home ground advantage. Think Domain and the Weagles Web. The new Perth stadium will be of similar shape to Domain rather than slightly wider to replicate the MCG. Now some teams are "Anywhere, Anytime" but others struggle to cope with different grounds, possibly due to the game plan or to coaching deficiencies. Obviously the richer clubs have more resources to prepare for games away from home; staff, practice grounds etc. However it is impossible to prepare optimally when you cannot replicate the extra width of an opposition ground.

With the GF at the MCG for the foreseeable future the clubs whose home ground is the MCG have a definite advantage come Grand Final day. Still recent history shows that interstate teams have a good winning ratio this century, and have been well fancied in recent GFs.

 

[McCrann]

Still recent history shows that interstate teams have a good winning ratio this century, and have been well fancied in recent GFs.

Coming from a Hawthorn supporter that's a bit rich! 3 different interstate teams have failed to win the last 3 Grand Finals against an MCG tenant club!!

 

[kranky al]

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.

Common sense would suggest having a home ground the same size as the ground the granny is played would avoid giving a team whos home ground is the granny venue, an advantage in a granny.

 

[Seeds]

Common sense would suggest having a home ground the same size as the ground the granny is played would avoid giving a team whos home ground is the granny venue, an advantage in a granny.

Wimbledon is played on grass. Is it common sense therefore for all tennis courts to be on grass?

 

[yyou]

vive la difference
ˌviːv lɑː ˌdɪfəˈrɒns/
exclamation
humorous

1. an expression of approval of difference, especially that between the sexes.

 

[kranky al]

Wimbledon is played on grass. Is it common sense therefore for all tennis courts to be on grass?

My point was more an expression of disquiet with the decision to make the new perth stadium a different size to the g.

 

[pazza]

Perhaps all clubs should be allowed to have training venues of MCG dimensions.

 

[BustedWing]

Perhaps all clubs should be allowed to have training venues of MCG dimensions.

Whats stopping them?

 

[kranky al]

Whats stopping them?

Our new training venue has 2 - one perth arena size and one the g.

I just think its criminally stupid not building a gameplan for the venue of the gf and then playing it week in week out at our home ground.

The face that a team has to travel 2-4000km is enough of a home advantage

 

[PerthBoy86]

New stadium development is in the hands of the developers and their various interested stakeholders. The clubs planning to use it would be major interested parties, the AFL less so.

The clubs have generally opted for a configuration that they are familiar with to maintain a home ground advantage. Think Domain and the Weagles Web. The new Perth stadium will be of similar shape to Domain rather than slightly wider to replicate the MCG. Now some teams are "Anywhere, Anytime" but others struggle to cope with different grounds, possibly due to the game plan or to coaching deficiencies. Obviously the richer clubs have more resources to prepare for games away from home; staff, practice grounds etc. However it is impossible to prepare optimally when you cannot replicate the extra width of an opposition ground.

With the GF at the MCG for the foreseeable future the clubs whose home ground is the MCG have a definite advantage come Grand Final day. Still recent history shows that interstate teams have a good winning ratio this century, and have been well fancied in recent GFs.

I wonder how much ground size is overstated in home ground advantage, honestly. I think with West Coast and Freo it does play some role, but it's only part of it. even if Domain/Subi were the exact same dimensions as the MCG I think the Eagles home ground advantage would be quite strong. The psychological impact of having 90% of the stadium against you shouldn't be underestimated. It's a test of a team's mental strength, sometimes. Like in other sports home ground advantage is still a big deal despite stadia/court size.

 

[PerthBoy87]

Two things - im looking forward to seeing how the non-wa teams go on the new Perth Stadium. Also what are people's opinion on this: How much of a goal advantage is the MCG for Victorian teams when they play non-victorian teams?

For example - I reckon there is a 3-5 goal advantage for the WA teams at Domain. Is it roughly the same goal advantage for Victorian teams when they play non-victorian teams.

 

[hitthepost]

im looking forward to seeing how the non-wa teams go on the new Perth Stadium.

Well it's slightly wider and a bit shorter than Domain, thus more similar in size to other grounds. Closer to AO.

 

[Walshawk]

While we are here. What is the perfect size.
For mine, MCG too wide and promotes indirect, defensive footy.
165 x 130 for mine.
Slightly longer than MCG, slightly wider than Adelaide. Same as Perth Stadium will be.

 

[blitzer]

If it were commercially feasible then I would love all grounds to be the same. Its always struck me as unprofessional to have it any other way.

I don't think its 'part of the charm' at all.

 

[PerthBoy87]

How wide is the MCG? isnt it 141m wide? If so then thats bloody wide.

The Gabba seems like a wide ground, anyone know how wide the Gabba is?

 

[hitthepost]

If it were commercially feasible then I would love all grounds to be the same. Its always struck me as unprofessional to have it any other way.

I don't think its 'part of the charm' at all.

Is it also unprofessional for some stadia to have rooves? Stands that shade the field at different amounts? Different heights above sea level? Closer/further away from oceans?

 

[blitzer]

Is it also unprofessional for some stadia to have rooves? Stands that shade the field at different amounts? Different heights above sea level? Closer/further away from oceans?

I can name other professional sports where sometimes they have roofs but mostly they don't they don't eg Tennis. I don't believe it gives the sport an unprofessional feel.

The size of the ground in a team based sport makes a huge difference to how the game is played stylistically from one ground to another.

Those other things you named are not important to how the games perceived or how its played and you were just taking the piss with the last 2.

 

[hitthepost]

I can name other professional sports where sometimes they have roofs but mostly they don't they don't eg Tennis. I don't believe it gives the sport an unprofessional feel.

The size of the ground in a team based sport makes a huge difference to how the game is played stylistically from one ground to another.

Those other things you named are not important to how the games perceived or how its played and you were just taking the piss with the last 2.

Just like playing at night, or in the rain, or with a massive sea-breeze coming off Antarctica, or at a higher altitude where the ball travels further, all make a difference to how the game is played. A longer ground takes an extra kick to get from goal to goal - so does kicking into a gale.
I can think of other professional sports where the size of the playing field is different, within a certain range. Cricket, soccer, rugby union.

 

[Wallaby]

Baseball grounds are all different, motor racing circuits are all different, there are about 10 different tennis surfaces (at least football is only played on grass).

Probably basketball is the team ball sport with the most uniform playing surface/conditions at the top level.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Baseball stadiums are not standardised.

The goal posts are the same distance apart at every ground and that's all that really matters at the end.