Who is accountable for our club's catastrophic misreading of our list?

[MRB37]

2 years ago it should have been turned over after the grand final debacle. We are currently sending out the oldest team in the league each week with no chance of september success. Club cares more about making the finals than developing a team to genuinely contend quicker. Wrong.

Look at how much Geelong turned their list over after losing the PF to us compared to us after losing the GF.

 

[SaltPeter]

Spot on. Interesting that the new Optus Oval in Perth was constructed to meet the dimensions of the MCG.

No coincidence that a good side like WCE has now improved its record there, including a GF win.

Optus isn't the same as the MCG though.

Football Park, where the club still trains, isn't massively different in width to the MCG

edit: 165 x 135

 

[Scorpus]

Optus isn't the same as the MCG though.

Football Park, where the club still trains, isn't massively different in width to the MCG

edit: 165 x 135

Yep, Football Park is closer to the MCG than Optus, at 165x135m versus 165x130m

 

[Tex200]

Not quite true:

MCG - 160x141m
Perth Stadium - 165x130m
Subiaco Oval - 175x122m
Adelaide Oval - 167x123m
SCG - 155x136m
Docklands Stadium - 160x129m
Giants Stadium - 164x128m
Kardinia Park - 170x115m
Carrara Stadium - 161x134m
Gabba - 156x138m

Optus is 7m wider than AO and 2m longer, but the MCG is 5m shorter and 11m wider

The stadium that remains the closest in dimensions to the MCG is the Gabba

That’s odd - sure I read it somewhere it was similar or same.

Not doubting your research though, so I’ll withdraw that one

 

[Scorpus]

That’s odd - sure I read it somewhere it was similar or same.

Not doubting your research though, so I’ll withdraw that one

Yeah not sure where the misconception has come from. It's a lot wider than Subiaco and was "aligned to the MCG", but even the stadium's official fact sheet says the dimensions are different to the MCG: https://optusstadium.com.au/the-stadium/fact-sheets/afl-fact-sheet

 

[Tex200]

Yeah not sure where the misconception has come from. It's a lot wider than Subiaco and was "aligned to the MCG", but even the stadium's official fact sheet says the dimensions are different to the MCG: https://optusstadium.com.au/the-stadium/fact-sheets/afl-fact-sheet

Yep - as I said previously, not doubting the research

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

[Controversial opinion]
Size of grounds means **** all
[/controversial opinion]

 

[Scorpus]

[Controversial opinion]
Size of grounds means **** all
[/controversial opinion]

The MCG is only 9 percent larger than Adelaide Oval. It's not like it's massively larger in terms of surface area.

In fact the average ground size for an AFL oval out of the major home grounds is 163x130m ± 10m, with a 15% difference in area between the largest (MCG) and smallest (Kardinia)

 

[Slippery Pete]

[Controversial opinion]
Size of grounds means **** all
[/controversial opinion]

The MCG is only 9 percent larger than Adelaide Oval. It's not like it's massively larger in terms of surface area.

In fact the average ground size for an AFL oval out of the major home grounds is 163x130m ± 10m, with a 15% difference in area between the largest (MCG) and smallest (Kardinia)

How would Phil Jackson’s triangle offence go if they fronted up to a game and the key was a couple of metres wider?

Pretty much every other field sport you can think of has regulation dimensions. It makes a significant difference, especially when the teams are otherwise evenly matched.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How would Phil Jackson’s triangle offence go if they fronted up to a game and the key was a couple of metres wider?

He'd know the conditions the competition presented

 

[Samcro24]

[Controversial opinion]
Size of grounds means **** all
[/controversial opinion]

Yep. It’s how you use it.

 

[Sanders]

[Controversial opinion]
Size of grounds means **** all
[/controversial opinion]

Think you’re still overstating the significance