After watching the WB v Saints match I predicted (to my wife and myself) that we wouldn't be able to play the game style that has won us the last three games. The ground is too easy to bottle up and our game atm relies on space and run. Another poster on here said that we picked too many talls. Talls weren't the problem. North had effective talls who were able to take contested marks on the forward line. Ours weren't. Our boys really looked tired and lacking spark. They turned it on in the third but probably spent all their energy. North were able to fire up and capitalise. I also think that Firrito's foray into our huddle was also designed to fire them up.

The worse thing about the game was not the loss, but again another serious injury. I hate Darklands. It is as ill-conceived as Waverley. Crap, dangerous surface, horrible vibe, crap facilities! It only ever brings us pain. I have only been to four games there and each time we have had injuries. Remember Davey's hammie in 2005 when he was absolutely on fire. It is a dark and evil place full of bad spirits. I am placing the same boycott on that ground as I have on Kardinia Park (I have not seen the Dees win at Geelong in all the years I have been following them.) In fact, I won't even glance at Darklands when I drive past in case I get the heebies.

The darklands,even when we win (V Bombers 2006) it is still a somewhat dissatisfying. Being at the footy and yet not really being at the footy. Like making love to a blow up doll...so I'm told.

"Being at the footy and yet not really being at the footy."

Hmm.....so true. Its like "Footy LE" or "Footy Lite" (trial version)

Good call on $%HEAD Stadium being easier to bottle up and close down our game style.

North did it well, and it cracked our nerve a bit. Mind you, even then we still managed to put in a six goal burst.

BUT

When 'The Time' comes, 'The Place' will be the MCG.

You would think their would be an afl standard for playing surface length and dimensions.

God I hope the players don't have this attitude about the ground.

A ground that is a few meters smaller than the MCG should not lead to an 80 point turnaround like it did yesterday.

It is the sandy surface that is the problem the players get no traction and there is no stability in the ground. I commented on the number of times that Junior fell over or the ball went under him and he fumbled, it is unstable, unsafe and a disgrace to play on. Those that play there and are used to the surface have a huge advantage over the occasional visitor. What is more frightening is it will get worse and deteriorates after they have a concert or event there and the stupidity is they play finals matches there.

As someone else observed today in another topic, I couldn't believe the number of smothers laid on us yesterday - think I saw around 8 - usually by a man on a mark. And it wasn't all by Joel Mac. I don't think we managed one in return. That suggests to me that we need to make allowance for the different surface when kicking, but obviously don't. This stadium is not up to AFL standard.

Also our clearance from kick-ins was horrible vs previous weeks. I suspect the shallower pockets, even if by a few metres, really cuts off an open left and right option for the kicker. That seriously needs more preparation by the coaching staff.

Correct- you don't win Premierships at eat a s@#t stadium

But you can sure lose the oppurtunity to be in one

But you can sure lose the oppurtunity to be in one

Some would argue we already did - 2006.

i already hate that stadium and yesterday just re-affirmed it for me.

i have a 17 game membership. last year i got online and bought a ticket - free, as i was entitled to one, but add $3 for a reserve seat, fair enough, and 8 bucks for handling of an electronic ticket i had to print myself.

yesterday my girlfriend and i rocked up with subway.

"im sorry but you cannot enter the ground with that"

uh, excuse me?

its not the right brand so you have to either eat it or take it out of the wrapper.

well thats [censored], im going in anyway.

well you cant.

*cue me sitting down then and there infrond of gate 3 and start eating till the girlfriend absolutely cracked it*

then im told we have to go to level 3 (gay) because of our general admin tickets.

and then, we look at the surface. as my girlfriend pointed out, they would be better off playing on a beach. junior kicked the turf at one stage after slipping and created a bunker sized hole. disgraceful.

the walkramp to get back to the trainstation is appallingly designed for traffic flow on the way out after the game.

put short, i [censored] HATE that place.

God I hope the players don't have this attitude about the ground.

A ground that is a few meters smaller than the MCG should not lead to an 80 point turnaround like it did yesterday.

According to the AFL Season Guide 2010 Ethihad Stadium is 159.5 metres by 128.8 (fence to fence).

And the MCG is 160 by 141. However I've checked the dimensions of the MCG with the MCC and it's actually 174 meters by 147.

So, even if the given size of Ethihad is correct (and I suspect the management of the ground may overstate it by a meter or two)

the MCG is quite a bit longer and wider. Players are less likely to be squeezed in at the MCG making the Melbourne game style easier to implement.

Thank god we don' play home games there..............nothing beats the "G" and the occasional trip to Etihad just re-inforces that.

You would think their would be an afl standard for playing surface length and dimensions.

thats what i was thinking, the ground looked way 2 small, even for midgets.

You would think their would be an afl standard for playing surface length and dimensions.

Ground sizes are all over the place.

For instance the Geelong ground is apparently almost as long as the MCG but is only 115 meters wide!(over 30m narrower).

And of course the SCG at 150 meters in length is about 24 meters shorter than the MCG (making CHF/CHB redundant?).

I believe soccer pitches vary considerably in size but at international level they must be between 100 and 110m long by 64 and 75m wide.

So there's quite a degree of variation there!

A rugby (the real one not thugby) pitch is set at 100m by 69m.

i already hate that stadium and yesterday just re-affirmed it for me.

i have a 17 game membership. last year i got online and bought a ticket - free, as i was entitled to one, but add $3 for a reserve seat, fair enough, and 8 bucks for handling of an electronic ticket i had to print myself.

yesterday my girlfriend and i rocked up with subway.

"im sorry but you cannot enter the ground with that"

uh, excuse me?

its not the right brand so you have to either eat it or take it out of the wrapper.

well thats [censored], im going in anyway.

well you cant.

*cue me sitting down then and there infrond of gate 3 and start eating till the girlfriend absolutely cracked it*

then im told we have to go to level 3 (gay) because of our general admin tickets.

and then, we look at the surface. as my girlfriend pointed out, they would be better off playing on a beach. junior kicked the turf at one stage after slipping and created a bunker sized hole. disgraceful.

the walkramp to get back to the trainstation is appallingly designed for traffic flow on the way out after the game.

put short, i [censored] HATE that place.

Benno, It's like you read my mind. Everything you have said echoes thoughts Ive had on the place. Right through to the extraordinary incompetence of the designers in creating a spectacular bottleneck right outside the ground on the ramp/bridge.

It also takes me a minute to calm myself whenever I have to pay that 'ticket handling' fee when I don't speak to a person, and I use my ink and paper to print my ticket. Am thinking of charging the ticketing agencies a fee for my time and resources in producing the ticket.

I would like to preface these comments by noting Swampfox's point - the unfortunate reality is that we MUST learn to play this stadium.

Having said that, time to whinge....I am also a big HATER of this stadium.

A ground where security have to block off the only walkway around the ground level,twice for each interval, to allow the coaching staff to access the ground? That couldn't have been better planned?

Not enough entry gates & ticket boxes - busy games are a queuing nightmare - and all to watch sub-standard, congested basketball style games on dangerous and frankly S*#%house surface. Did anyone see James Mcdonald furiously kicking mounds of sand in the air after his foot got "bogged" in a hole during a forward line contest? I can't remember in which quarter it occurred, but it was a blatant venting of frustration towards the surface.

Another poster on here said that we picked too many talls. Talls weren't the problem. North had effective talls who were able to take contested marks on the forward line. Ours weren't.

IMO - North did the right thing playing tall. There is very little room to get a run & carry style game happening on this S*#%hole of a ground. Both teams adopted the flood and the majority of forward 50 entries were a case of crossing your fingers and bombing it in. In fact for the most part, it reminded me of watching a local Aus Kick game where the entire team on both sides runs in a huddle over the ball around the entire ground.

Benno, It's like you read my mind. Everything you have said echoes thoughts Ive had on the place. Right through to the extraordinary incompetence of the designers in creating a spectacular bottleneck right outside the ground on the ramp/bridge.

I echo all of your sentiments...

What really gets my blood boiling is that is would be so easy to fix. The problem is that the people walking around the Dump on the city side to get Spencer Street or the station are funnelled into clashing with all of the people coming from the other side who are trying to do the same. At the point where the city side people finally get to walk towards the station, not away from it, just glance down to the left; there is nothing but dead space where the walkway could be extended to completely remove the problem.

I hate this shite stadium as much as the next supporter but we cannot blame the grounds surface or dimensions for our insipid and very disappointing brand of football yesterday. Freo play on a home ground bigger than the 'G' and they were able to play an exciting tough brand of footy againt St Kilda one of that stadiums powerful tenants, So to blame the surface/size is way off. We were simply out played and coached by a younger and hungrier side.

We all hate the stadium-But we must learn strategies to play the odd game there WIN, gain 4 points & go home.

The coaching staff must devise a "Plan B Etihad" strategy

Completely agree with everyone on Etihad. Although, its much better at night with the roof shut. Maybe that's because I've usually got a few more under the belt for night games!

My addition to the theories on bad performance at Etihad is to do with the different light. I don't have any stats to back it up but it looked to me that most of Melbourne's disposal errors (esp. smothered kicks)happened as the team was moving from the light to the shaded area of the ground. The contrast is not so stark at the G because the top of the stadium is much more open. Also, there is an awning at the G which softens the contrast. Sylvia seemed to be particularly affected by it. He just looked disoriented when looking across to the west. Distance perception is distorted and not to mention the fact that you simply can't see players in the shade. By the time of the 3rd Quarter, the ground was more or less covered in shade and surprise, surprise we started executing with greater accuracy. The final quarter was just fatigue and psychological disintegration.

I'm still convinced by the 3rd Q though that Melbourne are a better team than North. They just got us on a bad day.

Like everybody else I hate this place too. However we have to play on it. The Captain did not show leadership by displaying his discontent for the surface. This gives a message to the others (particularly the young ones) that this ground is not worth playing footy on. Dont get me wrong - I think his leadership has been very good this season however this petulant display was disappointing.

Like everybody else I hate this place too. However we have to play on it. The Captain did not show leadership by displaying his discontent for the surface. This gives a message to the others (particularly the young ones) that this ground is not worth playing footy on. Dont get me wrong - I think his leadership has been very good this season however this petulant display was disappointing.

True that, and if MFC are going to be a force in the AFL, they must be able to play on all surfaces and all stadiums.

Ground dimensions are a factor.

The Saints tried to implement their post Roo FloodBall Tactics against the Power at AAMI and on a large ground they found it hard to close off space and could not sustain the running. When they went back to their home ground the smaller Etihad they were able to implement their game style to much great effect.

We are starting to progress in the development of our MCG game plan but going forward we do need to work on tweeking it for smaller/larger grounds.

The other thing I noticed about Etihad was that the bounce of the ball was a lot higher than at the G. and of course the sub standard surface. thankfully we only have one more trip there against the Saints on July 4..should be a hoot if they FloodBall.

Judging by the look of the pitch, the AFL have NO standards what so ever. I guess when you run a massive surplus you run the risk of the "who cares" attitude... Just an assumption.

Judging by the look of the pitch, the AFL have NO standards what so ever. I guess when you run a massive surplus you run the risk of the "who cares" attitude... Just an assumption.

It was amusing to see the "Customer Service" Staff creating a human shield to stop patrons from accessing ground level seats, for which an (approx) $20 premium has to be paid. In the section I used adjacent to the demon cheer squad hardly anyone had paid the extra impost, but there were hundreds watching from behind the Etihad staff. Even these 'premium' seats don't let you see if the ball has gone through the goals at height because the compacted upper level blocks the view. VFL Park Waverley was a brilliant ground, and would have made the AFL very wealthy if they didn't firesale it for the benefit of private operators at Dockland.

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by bush demon