Ground Dimensions: MCG v Docklands

[Dee Dee 1,135]

The MCG dimensions are given as 160m x 141m in some publications (although the actual fence to fence dimensions are 173.6 x 148.4.)

Docklands is supposedly 159.5 x 128.8.

The ground does look a lot tighter than the MCG and certainly not 160m in length. A Western Australian man sitting behind me commentated on how small the ground was compared to Subiaco or the MCG.

Are the docklands people kidding us with the ground size or is it just my (and a Weagles supporters) perception?

[Little Richard 6,265]

The MCG dimensions are given as 160m x 141m in some publications (although the actual fence to fence dimensions are 173.6 x 148.4.)

Docklands is supposedly 159.5 x 128.8.

The ground does look a lot tighter than the MCG and certainly not 160m in length. A Western Australian man sitting behind me commentated on how small the ground was compared to Subiaco or the MCG.

Are the docklands people kidding us with the ground size or is it just my (and a Weagles supporters) perception?

I feel the same however I've always thought that the stadium at the Docklands, which is steeper and seems more enclosed than the 'G, makes the ground seem smaller...

[biggestred 5,237]

haha 159.5 is probably fence to fence knowing the spin those douches at TD would come up with

[beelzebub 23,390]

Id have put docklands as a good half kick short and kind squatter than teh G.. The G being more the shape of a ball ( footy ) with Etihad more like.. sort of equal eggy !! ( that might make sense to someone..lol )

[mauriesy 7,410]

The attached picture shows photos (from Nearmap) of the MCG laid over Etihad. It's hard to compare, but I've made the centre square exactly the same size on both so they are scaled to the same proportion. You can't see the whole ground at Etihad because the roof doesn't open that wide.

You can see that the 50m arc on the MCG (more distinct white line) is only marginally different to the 50m arc at Etihad (the faint white line), indicating that the grounds are very close to the same length. The goals are nearly in the same position.

The MCG boundary disappears well under the roof, showing that it's wider, but you can't directly measure it because the roof gets in the way of the Etihad boundary. The pockets are actually slightly deeper at Etihad, then the boundary cuts sharper to be narrower on the wings. The MCG is much more evenly circular, Etihad is more cigar shaped but squashed a little at each end.

I think you need to believe the stats that Etihad is the same length but 12-15m or so narrower.