Opinion Have the MCC and the AFL ruined the MCG?

[Underarm]

They could fit over 100,000 people there in 1978.

And now they can do so with a roof over all of it, Escalators and lifts to the top deck and ample concourse space.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And now they can do so with a roof over all of it, Escalators and lifts to the top deck and ample concourse space.

The capacity is only relevant for one day per year really.

 

[Underarm]

The capacity is only relevant for one day per year really.

There were 30 sporting events that cleared the capacity for any other AFL/Cricket grounds in 2024, plus the added benefit of cheaper ticket prices.

Adelaide oval has protected their hill and city views, SCG has protected their heritage stands. MCG is the only one that has priortised the spectator, at the cost of looking a little plain.

 

[LordLucifer]

When the MCC did the big renovation and jumped into the next century, I feel it was a wasted opportunity.

When using the ground, cricket runs north-south whilst footy runs east-west because the ground is a circle not an oval or oblong.

It is my theory (and you can poo-poo it as much as you like) that during the three stage renovation process, they should have realigned the ground so that it was always north-south.

So you understand where my head is at, this change would have made the Brunton Ave wing the southern goal. One of the benefits to this change is that one team's players would not have to look directly into the sun during daytime games.

Furthermore, if they followed the natural curve of that wing (forming the southern end of the playing surface) and then went 'straight' along the new wings and added on another curved northern end, the playing area would be dramatically increased which would have to assist with the flow of the game as well as reducing congestion.

With a bigger area, the boundary line could have been brought in another 10m or so (like they originally had out at Waverly) which definitely was a benefit for player safety etc.

From a spectator perspective, the seating capacity could have been increased as well as they pushed the ground another 30-40m towards Wellington Pde to create the complete shape. It may have also resulted in the reduction of some of the nosebleed seats right at the top of the stadium too as they may not have been neccesary (I'm not an engineer or architect so bear with me there).

Overall, an oval or oblong shaped venue running north-south with a larger playing area and seating capacity could have been an inspired move if there was some lateral thinking ............ but as usual, there wasn't.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They could fit over 100,000 people there in 1978.

And people stood all day, on a six pack of cans if they were shorter, they got soaking wet if it rained or burnt to a crisp in the sun, and you stood in line for the toilet while rivers of piss flowed past you as people up the line gave up waiting and pissed against the wall.

Oh and the whole thing was a shocking fire hazard.

The capacity is only relevant for one day per year really.

As I pointed out above, there were 23 events last year that drew over 75k. It needs to be very big.

 

[Dazb86]

Marvel is the premier stadium in Victoria

 

[Seattle Mariners]

I reckon the viewing is better these days than in the past.

Sitting on the ground level of the old Olympic and Ponsford stands was tough viewing.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And people stood all day, on a six pack of cans if they were shorter, they got soaking wet if it rained or burnt to a crisp in the sun, and you stood in line for the toilet while rivers of piss flowed past you as people up the line gave up waiting and pissed against the wall.

Oh and the whole thing was a shocking fire hazard.



As I pointed out above, there were 23 events last year that drew over 75k. It needs to be very big.

It only really needs to be about 85,000 to 90,000 capacity, then there would be much more room to retain some character.
It wouldn't hurt to have about 5,000 in standing room either, that would make more space.
Unless there's at least 40,000 there , the ground looks empty and lacks atmosphere imo.

 

[hawkman]

It only really needs to be about 85,000 to 90,000 capacity, then there would be much more room to retain some character.
It wouldn't hurt to have about 5,000 in standing room either, that would make more space.
Unless there's at least 40,000 there , the ground looks empty and lacks atmosphere imo.

There were 9 AFL games over 85k last year plus another 3 that were close to it. 85k is generally a sell-out especially during H&A. If you limit the capacity to 85k a lot of those crowds become mid to high 70's. Tickets also now become more expensive

I'm pretty sure there is about 5k for standing room

So we cater for the clubs that can't get a crowd rather than the ones that can

 

[Papa G]

You've got to keep updating stadiums or you end up with the Gabba. The old Adelaide Oval had bucket loads of character but it had barely been touched since Larwood and Jardine played there, I miss some of that but it's more than made up for by what we have now.

The should have kept those old Pissers under the members stand. They were always freshly painted and fitted hundreds of blokes all pissing at once.

 

[Gough]

The should have kept those old Pissers under the members stand. They were always freshly painted and fitted hundreds of blokes all pissing at once.

But on a hot day they smelt like nothing in a developed country should.

 

[darcytiger]

Aristotle Pickett wanting crusty old stadiums instead of modern facilities is a tale as old as time.

 

[Partridge]

They could fit over 100,000 people there in 1978.

And over 110,000 regularly (119K+ in 1969, 118K+ in 1971 etc.).

I believe it was 1970 when all four finals drew over 100,000 fans.

 

[Boxo004]

Checked the op. Not surprised

 

[Boxo004]

Aristotle Pickett wanting crusty old stadiums instead of modern facilities is a tale as old as time.

Type of person who belongs in Noosa then whinges about development and tourists

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It only really needs to be about 85,000 to 90,000 capacity, then there would be much more room to retain some character.
It wouldn't hurt to have about 5,000 in standing room either, that would make more space.
Unless there's at least 40,000 there , the ground looks empty and lacks atmosphere imo.

There is plenty of standing room, it’s just behind the seats.

There’s not more because quite simply, people don’t want it. It either doesn’t sell, or if it’s a capacity event, it’s the last thing to sell out.

I get that some people prefer it - I like it myself a lot of the time. But I don’t actually think it’s badly located now - it’s right next to food, bars and toilets which makes it simple.

But people don’t want it en masse. They want a seat.

 

[Macca180]

there's not a tree or an old scoreboard in sight.

Who gives a **** about a tree? If I want to see a tree I'll go to park.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Who gives a **** about a tree? If I want to see a tree I'll go to park.

What about the 2 hours before the game starts, you're looking at concrete.

 

[Mr Meow]

What about the 2 hours before the game starts, you're looking at concrete.

Bring a pot plant.

 

[Jeremias]

What about the 2 hours before the game starts, you're looking at concrete.

Why are you at the game 2 hours before it starts?

Perhaps sit outside looking at the trees, then move inside half an hour before the game.

The extra 90 minutes of tree watching ought to keep you happy.

 

[Senor M]

What about the 2 hours before the game starts, you're looking at concrete.

Then either look at the grass on the oval or sit outside in Yarra Park. Plenty of trees to look at between the statues.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Then either look at the grass on the oval or sit outside in Yarra Park. Plenty of trees to look at between the statues.

No one is going to sit in a park and look at trees before the game.
Let's face it, the MCG is not a good a place to watch sport as it used to be.
The ground has been changed to cater for corporates and advertisers, it has lost it's character.
The SCG and Adelaide oval are superior imo.

 

[Foxman98]

No one is going to sit in a park and look at trees before the game.
Let's face it, the MCG is not a good a place to watch sport as it used to be.
The ground has been changed to cater for corporates and advertisers, it has lost it's character.
The SCG and Adelaide oval are superior imo.

There are no trees inside the SCG I went there last year was fairly stock standard stadium nothing out of the ordinary,

If you're lucky now Richmond is shite again you might get to head up to Manuka Oval has trees a hill and little to no stands

 

[Senor M]

No one is going to sit in a park and look at trees before the game.
Let's face it, the MCG is not a good a place to watch sport as it used to be.
The ground has been changed to cater for corporates and advertisers, it has lost it's character.
The SCG and Adelaide oval are superior imo.

Do you actually go to games mate? Or just whinge on BigFooty. Maybe you need to look up from your phone next time & look at what other people are doing.

Yarra Park is often buzzing with people before games, especially family friendly afternoon slots.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

There are no trees inside the SCG I went there last year was fairly stock standard stadium nothing out of the ordinary,

If you're lucky now Richmond is shite again you might get to head up to Manuka Oval has trees a hill and little to no stands

The SCG kept the old ladies stand which looks great.