Ground Dimensions

[perfectionist]

Goal to Goal and boundary to boundary

Moorabbin: 164m x 130m
Docklands: 159m x 129m
MCG: 160m x 139m
SCG: 147m x 136m
York Park: 165m x 135m

Anyone watching One Week At A Time tonight on 10 will have heard the erroneous claim that Moorabbin was constructed to MCG dimensions. It was not. Whilst it can now be made to simulate Docklands (shorter and narrower) and the length of the MCG, it is too narrow to match the MCG precisely. Remember, when the Moorabbin oval was rebuilt for the Saints in 1964, the plan was to play the finals at a neutral ground - VFL Park.

Both the Gabba and Princes Park were remade to the dimensions of the MCG, much later of course, and after the demise of AFL Park.

Also on OWAAT, the Hawthorn coach demonstrated that a "personality free zone" can coach a side to a flag. I'm glad we're got Ross.

We play on four different grounds in our last five games so our "game plan" will be well and truly tested against the hypothesis that it only fits Docklands.

[undecided]

I cannot see how an extra 10m of width can make that much of a difference. Unless the opposition players get a extra 10m on each kick I don't see that extra width making a distance

[chook23]

I cannot see how an extra 10m of width can make that much of a difference. Unless the opposition players get a extra 10m on each kick I don't see that extra width making a distance

probably not much ...but...the angles....gaps

ala cricket postions (fielding)

[Enrico_Misso]

The extra 10m of width just makes it a bit harder to play our frontal pressure game.
Gives the opposition a bit more room to lead to and leaves us more territory to defend.

[saintdooley]

whats subiaco?
from where i sit it looks like 220x180 lol

[F_Q_F]

whats subiaco?
from where i sit it looks like 220x180 lol

175x120

[#1GILL]

The extra 10m of width just makes it a bit harder to play our frontal pressure game.
Gives the opposition a bit more room to lead to and leaves us more territory to defend.

Yeah but if we dominate the clearences then they will be struggling to defend against us


I'm a glass half full sorta guy

[TassieJones]

how bigs AAMI?

[perfectionist]

how bigs AAMI?

165m x 133m

[degruch]

Roo summed it up nicely when he said "At the end of the day, it (MCG) is just a big piece of grass with sticks at either end...". Every ground is a little bit different, every opposition is a little bit different, neither obstacles are insurmountable and the team has coped pretty well under all conditions so far. Your Tim Lane's and BT's can talk up the MCG factor 'til the cows come home, but on the day, it's two teams in a paddock, both have to cover the same territory.

[vacuous space]

The extra 10m of width just makes it a bit harder to play our frontal pressure game.

I don't think it does. The focal point of our forward defence is the ball carrier. I don't think field dimensions make much of a difference there. I certainly haven't noticed a dropoff in pressure when we've played on larger grounds.

We take away short options and force opposition players into longer options. Trying to use the wings is just going to play into our hands. Teams are playing on quickly to prevent us from setting up our defensive structure. It takes a lot of skill. The Bulldogs had a pretty good plan against us on Saturday night. They just didn't execute it very well.

Even if some team manages to get the structural and tactical side right, there's still the talent gap to contend with. Even when sides do get it inside fifty, it's very hard to score. Our defenders are all incredibly good one-on-one. Having Blake, Clarke, Fisher, Gilbert and Hudghton back there makes it really hard to establish any kind of aerial attack. We might be a little more vulnerable at ground level, but that hasn't shown up so far.

I don't think we'll struggle at the MCG at all. I think the specualtion is just people grasping at straws looking for a way that other teams might get a look in. I don't think we're unbeatable, but if somebody beats us it it won't be because of ground dimensions. It's contested ball, clearances, pressure and ball use that decides games. The ground will have little impact on most of those things.

[ace]

Goal to Goal and boundary to boundary

Moorabbin: 164m x 130m
Docklands: 159m x 129m
MCG: 160m x 139m
SCG: 147m x 136m
York Park: 165m x 135m

Anyone watching One Week At A Time tonight on 10 will have heard the erroneous claim that Moorabbin was constructed to MCG dimensions. It was not. Whilst it can now be made to simulate Docklands (shorter and narrower) and the length of the MCG, it is too narrow to match the MCG precisely. Remember, when the Moorabbin oval was rebuilt for the Saints in 1964, the plan was to play the finals at a neutral ground - VFL Park.

Both the Gabba and Princes Park were remade to the dimensions of the MCG, much later of course, and after the demise of AFL Park.

Also on OWAAT, the Hawthorn coach demonstrated that a "personality free zone" can coach a side to a flag. I'm glad we're got Ross.

We play on four different grounds in our last five games so our "game plan" will be well and truly tested against the hypothesis that it only fits Docklands.

A 10 metre wider ground increases the distance from goal to goal around the boundary by 15.7 metre.
Yet the distance from goal to goal down the corridor remains the same.
A team that is forced to play, or plays defensively, around the boundary is significantly disadvantaged compared to a team going down the guts.

Hawthorn dominated the centre square in last year's grand final forcing Geelong to play around the boundary.
That contributed to Geelong's loss.

[desertsaint]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

[VietNam_Saint]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

They are ,, huh , how about that then,,,,,,,,,,


for mine , I have been thinking about the whole issue of not getting our home final in week one .
Rd22 at the G ,, and if we have to give away our home ground to play the G in week one ,, well i reckon thats great ,, more experience straight away there.

Different surfaces have an impact ,, weather and wind ,,

So if the AFL wouldn't move our Rd 14 game,, let em move this one ,,

[plugger66]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

No they are not.

[perfectionist]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

No they are not.

Given that the centre square is now 50 metres (increased from 45m in 2004), it would be rather difficult to have two 50m arcs at the SCG (playing surface length 147m) without the square intersecting the arcs. So, the arcs are 45m.

[ace]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

No they are not.

On a wider ground of the same length, the 50 metre arc subtends a larger angle. .
This means kicking from the boundary is on a tighter angle.
This angle would be out of bounds at Docklands.

[undecided]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

No they are not.

Given that the centre square is now 50 metres (increased from 45m in 2004), it would be rather difficult to have two 50m arcs at the SCG (playing surface length 147m) without the square intersecting the arcs. So, the arcs are 45m.

Somehow I don't believe that the 50m arcs at the SCG are 45m

[saint vince]

The 50 metre arcs are the same size on every ground!

No they are not.

Given that the centre square is now 50 metres (increased from 45m in 2004), it would be rather difficult to have two 50m arcs at the SCG (playing surface length 147m) without the square intersecting the arcs. So, the arcs are 45m.

Somehow I don't believe that the 50m arcs at the SCG are 45m

I am sure they are. They used to intersect the square but that only lasted about 4 games before they shortened the 50 to 45 or so.

[perfectionist]

Further research shows that the SCG said that they were going to "lengthen" the ground during the construction of the new "Hill" stand in 2008. They now say that the goal to goal length is 151.6m which would leave 0.8m between arc and square. So, it may be true. I'll get a better idea on Saturday night.

[Halo]

What's the Distance between the Goal Posts at each Ground ??

[perfectionist]

What's the Distance between the Goal Posts at each Ground ??

Originally, it was 7 yards, but is now 6.4m, which is about 0.008m short of 7 yards. So, it is harder to kick goals these days!

[snoopygirl]

Hmm, that would explain all the "posters" the other night then.

[Batnoe]

how bigs AAMI?

As big as you want her to be

[matrix]

how bigs AAMI?

As big as you want her to be

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=54378

....and scroll
all dimensions posted