jeemak
18-04-2015, 11:30 PM
It might seem frivolous to some however, I think the dimensions of AFL grounds need to be looked at to combat congestion and other issues the game has with its appeal.
Whilst the majority of AFL infrastructure is set, I view the purchase and sale of Docklands as an opportunity to have an impact on the attractiveness of the game.
Much of the congestion that is derided by all and sundry occurs at Docklands. It has five tenants that play home games there every other week, with other tenants playing there more than a handful of home games a year. It's a ridiculously overused stadium, albeit one with creature comforts not seen in our competition prior to its construction.
When teams play hard and open football there the ball zings around the field and it's great to watch, but since its opening in 2000 games there have become more and more prone to slow ball movement and numbers filling the forward 70m area of the opposition. The end result is in close chaos and skill errors.
The reason for this is it simply isn't long enough or wide enough. It has extremely shallow pockets and flanks, its only two and a half decent kicks across. It has a great roof though. Essentially sport science, and the fitness of players will advance much faster than the legislators of the game can predict.
So when the AFL buys Docklands for a poultry $1.00 sum, largely subsidised by our club, St Kilda and Nth Melbourne sooner rather than later, would the competition and our club be better served in seeing another larger ground being built, to reflect the fitness of the players and the defensive strategy of the coaches, with Docklands being sold for the benefit of the AFL and hopefully the clubs that paid for it?
My personal view is that without tampering with the rules, playing on a ground the size of the originally built VFL park presents the best chance of football being an open game again. I got this idea after watching us crowd the ball on the MCG, which is a ridiculously large playing field, but seemingly not large enough, and watching the 1990 QF between Collingwood and West Coast.
The MCG is always going to be good enough in terms of size for big crowds and open play at the pointy end.....basically because all of the good sides can kick and work through defencive pressure. But what about the majority of teams and games that can't play on that sized playing field?
So we need to be reasonable and understand that it's going to be a tough ask for the AFL to sell the land at Docklands, and it's going to be even tougher for the AFL to find an area of land that can accommodate a ground that is a good 15-30m longer than the MCG and probably just as wide.
But in my view this is the only way footy will be good to watch again. There's just not enough space anymore.
What does everyone else think. Is jeemak going mad?
Whilst the majority of AFL infrastructure is set, I view the purchase and sale of Docklands as an opportunity to have an impact on the attractiveness of the game.
Much of the congestion that is derided by all and sundry occurs at Docklands. It has five tenants that play home games there every other week, with other tenants playing there more than a handful of home games a year. It's a ridiculously overused stadium, albeit one with creature comforts not seen in our competition prior to its construction.
When teams play hard and open football there the ball zings around the field and it's great to watch, but since its opening in 2000 games there have become more and more prone to slow ball movement and numbers filling the forward 70m area of the opposition. The end result is in close chaos and skill errors.
The reason for this is it simply isn't long enough or wide enough. It has extremely shallow pockets and flanks, its only two and a half decent kicks across. It has a great roof though. Essentially sport science, and the fitness of players will advance much faster than the legislators of the game can predict.
So when the AFL buys Docklands for a poultry $1.00 sum, largely subsidised by our club, St Kilda and Nth Melbourne sooner rather than later, would the competition and our club be better served in seeing another larger ground being built, to reflect the fitness of the players and the defensive strategy of the coaches, with Docklands being sold for the benefit of the AFL and hopefully the clubs that paid for it?
My personal view is that without tampering with the rules, playing on a ground the size of the originally built VFL park presents the best chance of football being an open game again. I got this idea after watching us crowd the ball on the MCG, which is a ridiculously large playing field, but seemingly not large enough, and watching the 1990 QF between Collingwood and West Coast.
The MCG is always going to be good enough in terms of size for big crowds and open play at the pointy end.....basically because all of the good sides can kick and work through defencive pressure. But what about the majority of teams and games that can't play on that sized playing field?
So we need to be reasonable and understand that it's going to be a tough ask for the AFL to sell the land at Docklands, and it's going to be even tougher for the AFL to find an area of land that can accommodate a ground that is a good 15-30m longer than the MCG and probably just as wide.
But in my view this is the only way footy will be good to watch again. There's just not enough space anymore.
What does everyone else think. Is jeemak going mad?