I compiled the list below of all grounds dimensions. I didn't know a lot of them and was quite surprised by some of them. For instance the MCG is virtually the 3rd shortest ground in the comp but the widest. The Gabba is virtually the same dimensions as the SCG. Domain, Blundstone and TIO are virtually the same length which is 20 m's longer than the SCG & Gabba. Simonds is 26m's narrower than the MCG which is more than the difference between the shortest and longest grounds. 

I've done my best to verify the accuracy of these measurements. I even rang some of the venues. They all might not be 100% accurate. The AFL website has them on there but some are definitely not correct and I verified that with some of the venues. 

AFL Ground Dimensions

MCG      160 x 141  

Etihad    159.5 x 128.8   

Simonds 170 x 115  

SCG        155.5 x 136 

Spotless 164 x 127.5  

Adelaide 167 x 123  

Domain   175.6 x 122.4  

Gabba     156 x 138 

Metricon 160 x 134 

Manuka   162.5 x 138.4   

Aurora     165 x 135   

Blundstone 175 x 135 

TIO           175 x 135  

TIO Traeger 168 x 132  

Cazaly      172.5 x 149  

 

Due to our defensive  game being high pressure with lots of covering each other, the width of the mcg may explain why we have close games there as teams are able to open us up due to more space but we play etihad well now because its narrower?

Well done with the amount of research that's gone into this!

I wonder if it tells us anything, we won 6/7 on grounds less than 129m wide and then 2/6 on the G which is 141m. My guess is that when were on the wider ground we still have a higher possession rate but those possessions might be of greater distance (forwards, backwards or sideways) so our guys are expending more energy getting to the ball or give's us too much space in which to make error (then less space to minimise them)??? Maybe we'll see more direct play tomorrow night because of this.

It would be good to know why all grounds are different sizes?

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:12, It's Time said:

I've done my best to verify the accuracy of these measurements. I even rang some of the venues. They all might not be 100% accurate. The AFL website has them on there but some are definitely not correct and I verified that with some of the venues. 

If you want to do even more research to check, you can measure the grounds yourself in google earth (and maybe google maps as well).  I did it once for the SCG and was surprised to see that there was now a genuine 50 metre arc unlike the old "50m" one.

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:30, deebug said:

It would be good to know why all grounds are different sizes?

An interesting historical question which have more to do with cricket or just a lack of co-ordination when the grounds were first built. Perhaps the best question is why wasn't Etihad built to the same size as the MCG?

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:30, deebug said:

It would be good to know why all grounds are different sizes?

Geography would play a big part. Given the age of many of the grounds it would have been determined by how much flat ground there was (or near enough to flat to be easily shaped).

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:51, Robbie57 said:

An interesting historical question which have more to do with cricket or just a lack of co-ordination when the grounds were first built. Perhaps the best question is why wasn't Etihad built to the same size as the MCG?

Etihad is probably narrower that the G due to the preexisting infrastructure around (the road and train), although both of those could have been worked around. 

I think it's about time the AFL started looking at alterations to ground surfaces - particularly to keep pace with the frequency of rule changes.

I'd like to see some grounds with a 2m elevation from one to the other.

Maybe a hump across the half forward and back lines.

Turn another ground into a velodrome type set-up with berms so the faster players can use them to run high and evade tacklers.

I also have some thoughts on things such as artificial breezes caused by huge fans at either ends of some grounds which could counter-act some of the one-sided umpiring we regulalry see.

Just a few thoughts.

I think its great that all grounds are slightly different. Or else it would be like drop in pitchs in cricket. Will get boring if every ground and game is the same. 

  On 29/06/2017 at 03:45, america de cali said:

I think its great that all grounds are slightly different. Or else it would be like drop in pitchs in cricket. Will get boring if every ground and game is the same. 

Cricket and footy are pretty much the only sports in the world that are played on a pitch or oval where the grounds are not uniform....

 

Interesting facts thanks Time. I wondered about the actual area of the grounds, but it can't be accurately calculated as they are all probably ovals rather than true ellipse (a squashed circle). But if we assumed they all were perfect ellipse then the area from biggest to smallest would be (sqm)

Cazaly 20,187

Blundstone 18,555

TIO 18,555

MCG 17,719

Manuka 17,664

Aurora 17,495

TIO Trager 17,417

Gabba 16,908

Domain 16,881

Metricon 16,839

SCG 16,610

Spotless 16,423

Etihad 16,135

Eureka 16,135

Adelaide 16,133

Simonds 15,355

Eureka Stadium is the rebuilt stadium in Ballarat that is set to hold its first premiership points game later this year with Bulldogs vs Power. According to Wikipedia it is 159.5 x 128.8. Those are the same as Etihad, which I guess is done to make it suit the Bulldogs.

In short..AFL ground sizes are different....because they've NEVER had to be the same.

Rules only gave guidelines.

Adelaide oval in cricket was always the interesting one:

Traditionally hits to the long on or long off boundary frequently allowed the batsmen to run five. Conversely the boundaries square of the wicket were often cleared for six.

Boundary ropes have massively changed the game in cricket.

Fascinating post on another thread that mentioned the Docker's training facility has other ground dimensions marked out on it.

Out of all of the non-Victorian teams, GWS should be most at home on the MCG given that Spotless is the closest in dimensions to the G.

  On 29/06/2017 at 04:28, beelzebub said:

In short..AFL ground sizes are different....because they've NEVER had to be the same.

Rules only gave guidelines.

Rules actually gave minimum and maximum dimensions that grounds had to fit within (don't know if that is still the case).

  On 29/06/2017 at 04:54, Diamond_Jim said:

Adelaide oval in cricket was always the interesting one:

Traditionally hits to the long on or long off boundary frequently allowed the batsmen to run five. Conversely the boundaries square of the wicket were often cleared for six.

Boundary ropes have massively changed the game in cricket.

Fascinating post on another thread that mentioned the Docker's training facility has other ground dimensions marked out on it.

The redevelopment of Adelaide Oval to accommodate AFL was a bit disappointing for cricket in terms of the uniqueness of the old layout, but I think it is absolutely fantastic for footy and obviously fans love attending sport there.

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:29, Red and Blue realist said:

Well done with the amount of research that's gone into this!

I wonder if it tells us anything, we won 6/7 on grounds less than 129m wide and then 2/6 on the G which is 141m. My guess is that when were on the wider ground we still have a higher possession rate but those possessions might be of greater distance (forwards, backwards or sideways) so our guys are expending more energy getting to the ball or give's us too much space in which to make error (then less space to minimise them)??? Maybe we'll see more direct play tomorrow night because of this.

This is why I had a look. It's interesting that we are doing better on narrower grounds this year but worse on our home ground. It seems to me that zone defences like ours and Eagles are much more suited to narrower grounds like Domain and Etihad and get opened up on wider grounds like the MCG. They might be good in theory but might be causing us to have such a bad home ground record this year. You would wonder why we're doing it if that is the case as IMO any game plan should be developed for the final game of the year. 

The Swans also tend to play a zone defence because of the smaller SCG so we shouldn't be disadvantaged tomorrow night although we seem to get opened up on wider grounds and Buddy has the capacity to rip us a new one with more space. Ironically the SCG probably doesn't suit his strongest attributes. 

  On 29/06/2017 at 03:03, McQueen said:

I think it's about time the AFL started looking at alterations to ground surfaces - particularly to keep pace with the frequency of rule changes.

I'd like to see some grounds with a 2m elevation from one to the other.

Maybe a hump across the half forward and back lines.

Turn another ground into a velodrome type set-up with berms so the faster players can use them to run high and evade tacklers.

I also have some thoughts on things such as artificial breezes caused by huge fans at either ends of some grounds which could counter-act some of the one-sided umpiring we regulalry see.

Just a few thoughts.

Love your work. There was a lot of that wind around Domain on Saturday night but it didn't seem to harm us. 

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:34, sue said:

If you want to do even more research to check, you can measure the grounds yourself in google earth (and maybe google maps as well).  I did it once for the SCG and was surprised to see that there was now a genuine 50 metre arc unlike the old "50m" one.

Thought about that but that would give you the dimensions of the entire arena surface not the dimensions on the field of play inside the boundary lines. 

  On 29/06/2017 at 06:06, It's Time said:

 

The Swans also tend to play a zone defence because of the smaller SCG so we shouldn't be disadvantaged tomorrow night although we seem to get opened up on wider grounds and Buddy has the capacity to rip us a new one with more space. Ironically the SCG probably doesn't suit his strongest attributes. 

but the scg is much the same as the mcg now, so that should be a disadvantage to us?

  On 29/06/2017 at 06:10, daisycutter said:

but the scg is much the same as the mcg now, so that should be a disadvantage to us?

Still a bit shorter and actually a bit narrower in the pockets as well as a slight difference on the wings. We both seem to be in danger of being opened up one on one when the zone gets broken. 

  On 29/06/2017 at 03:03, McQueen said:

I think it's about time the AFL started looking at alterations to ground surfaces - particularly to keep pace with the frequency of rule changes.

I'd like to see some grounds with a 2m elevation from one to the other.

Maybe a hump across the half forward and back lines.

Turn another ground into a velodrome type set-up with berms so the faster players can use them to run high and evade tacklers.

I also have some thoughts on things such as artificial breezes caused by huge fans at either ends of some grounds which could counter-act some of the one-sided umpiring we regulalry see.

Just a few thoughts.

Of course we could add in the opening of the stadium entry doors (thus creating a wind) to help the home team. This apparently worked wonderfully well for the Russian javelin throwers at the Moscow Olympics in 1980.

  On 29/06/2017 at 06:08, It's Time said:

Love your work. There was a lot of that wind around Domain on Saturday night but it didn't seem to harm us. 

Was it that same wind that helped knock Oliver over?

It's all becoming clear now.

  On 29/06/2017 at 06:09, It's Time said:

Thought about that but that would give you the dimensions of the entire arena surface not the dimensions on the field of play inside the boundary lines. 

depends when the satellite pic ws taken.  When I looked at the SCG all the boundaries and goal posts were there.  Google earth allows you to look at old pics too.

Edited June 29, 20177 yr by sue

  On 29/06/2017 at 02:51, Robbie57 said:

An interesting historical question which have more to do with cricket or just a lack of co-ordination when the grounds were first built. Perhaps the best question is why wasn't Etihad built to the same size as the MCG?

I thought exactly the same thing. Its only 12m, 6m on each wing.  Its not that much?? Would have been a good selling point you'd think..

Edited June 29, 20177 yr by Wadda We Sing

  On 29/06/2017 at 06:06, It's Time said:

This is why I had a look. It's interesting that we are doing better on narrower grounds this year but worse on our home ground. It seems to me that zone defences like ours and Eagles are much more suited to narrower grounds like Domain and Etihad and get opened up on wider grounds like the MCG. They might be good in theory but might be causing us to have such a bad home ground record this year. You would wonder why we're doing it if that is the case as IMO any game plan should be developed for the final game of the year. 

The Swans also tend to play a zone defence because of the smaller SCG so we shouldn't be disadvantaged tomorrow night although we seem to get opened up on wider grounds and Buddy has the capacity to rip us a new one with more space. Ironically the SCG probably doesn't suit his strongest attributes. 

I wonder if we've spend a lot of time trying to fix our deficiency's on those other grounds that we've become less effective on the 'g. That should hopefully be pretty easy to over come, and possibly was put in place for the front half of the season, knowing we had more games away from home?