Waverley Park (VFL Park)

[DidakDelight]

For big games there was nothing like Waverley for atmosphere. The place absolutely pulsated when there was a big crowd.

Listen to the sound of the flare zip off as the final goal sails through.
This was the last ever Blues vs Pies clash at the ground

 

[childeric]

Interesting to note that the first game played there wasn't exactly a blockbuster - Geelong (4th in 1969) v Fitzroy (11th) , hardly major crowd-pullers in outer suburban Melbourne

Perhaps the intention was to start out slowly so any teething problems regarding parking etc. could be ironed out before the first big test

When the first blockbuster did come in Round 8 1970 (Coll v Carl), 55,000 attended leading to the traffic/parking horrors that remained unsolved until the stadium was closed down 20 years later

I recall newspaper reports at the time of Mulgrave residents complaining about footy ferals urinating on their lawns after the match and parking in their driveways

 

[RogersResults]

​

Attendances Waverley (VFL/AFL Park) 1970-1999​

Total attendances 23,274,494 (732 matches) - Average 31,796​

​

In 1970 admission was 90 cents to the reserve, 70 cents to the outer - children 25 and 20 cents.​

A Football Record cost 10 cents and petrol was 8.8 cents a litre.​

Average adult male weekly earnings were around $80.​

 

[RogersResults]

Interesting to note that the first game played there wasn't exactly a blockbuster - Geelong (4th in 1969) v Fitzroy (11th) , hardly major crowd-pullers in outer suburban Melbourne.

The attendance of 25,887 at the first match played at Waverley was the 6th highest recorded from the 18 played so far that season. It is the 5th highest recorded 'home and away' attendance for a Geelong v Fitzroy match (1921-1996).
Average attendance at all 'home and away' matches in 1970 was 21,704.
Average attendance at the 18 'home and away' matches at Waverley in 1970 was 21,669.

Highest 'home and away' season average at Waverley (1970-99) was 37,708 in 1990.
Highest 'home and away' season average at Docklands (2000-12) was 37,839 in 2008.

 

[childeric]

The attendance of 25,887 at the first match played at Waverley was the 6th highest recorded from the 18 played so far that season. It is the 5th highest recorded 'home and away' attendance for a Geelong v Fitzroy match (1921-1996).
Average attendance at all 'home and away' matches in 1970 was 21,704.
Average attendance at the 18 'home and away' matches at Waverley in 1970 was 21,669.

Highest 'home and away' season average at Waverley (1970-99) was 37,708 in 1990.
Highest 'home and away' season average at Docklands (2000-12) was 37,839 in 2008.

The crowd at that first game would have included neutrals who wanted to see the opening of the new stadium

If they had scheduled the rematch of the 69 GF as the first game (Carl v Rich) you could safely say that 60,000 would have showed up

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

No chance. Waverley opened (1st game & 1st season i think) was at reduced capacity. Only part of the stadium was open

 

[RogersResults]

The crowd at that first game would have included neutrals who wanted to see the opening of the new stadium

If they had scheduled the rematch of the 69 GF as the first game (Carl v Rich) you could safely say that 60,000 would have showed up

The highest home and away attendance at a Richmond v Carlton match up to 1970 was 51,958 round 2 1968 at the MCG. A Richmond v Carlton home and away attendance didn't go over 60,000 until 1980 (at the MCG).
The only match Richmond and Carlton played at Waverley in the first 3 seasons of its operation was the 1972 drawn semi-final which attracted at crowd of 53,448 - the replay at the MCG saw 92,670 attend.

Of 8 Richmond v Carlton matches played at Waverley the highest attendance was 65,611 for the 1982 semi-final - the average home and away attendance for matches between the two at Waverly being 30,549 - high 56,372 round 1 1981 - low 14,783 round 19 1989.

The Grand Final 'rematch' in 1970 at the MCG in same round as the opening match at Waverley had an attendance of 46,373. For some reason Grand Final rematches are not relatively that popular - only 6 of 29 played at stadiums with a capacity of 60,000 or more have attracted crowds over 60,000 - the highest being 78,465 in 1961.

A prediction of 60,000 for a Richmond v Carlton 1970 opener at Waverly might be a bit over optimistic.
The evidence is not there.

 

[RogersResults]

No chance. Waverley opened (1st game & 1st season i think) was at reduced capacity. Only part of the stadium was open

"At this stage VFL Park has a capacity of 60,000 and can seat 26,000."

Football Record 18 April 1970 - Round 3 - the occasion of the first match played at Waverley.

 

[childeric]

"At this stage VFL Park has a capacity of 60,000 and can seat 26,000."

Football Record 18 April 1970 - Round 3 - the occasion of the first match played at Waverley.

Off topic but I just noticed that in season 1970 there were 12 matches attended by 10,000 or less

Lowest for the year was 6,435 for Nth v Geel at Arden St

 

[RogersResults]

Off topic but I just noticed that in season 1970 there were 12 matches attended by 10,000 or less

Lowest for the year was 6,435 for Nth v Geel at Arden St

Actually 8 10,000 and under - (1 of 10,007) and if your source is AFL Tables it currently has an incorrect attendance for the round 16 match at Kardinia Park - 7,220 instead of 17,220.
5.88% of matches in 1970 had attendances of 10,000 or less.
10.29% of matches in 1971 had attendances of 10,000 or less.
The highest percentage since then has been 14.53% in 1992.
There were 5.31% in 2012.
The last season with none was 2007.

 

[mianfei]

Only got to go to one game out at Waverley. Was freezing, wet, windy and the tiges lost. Everything about AFL footy was there. In a way it was the starting point for the game turning soft the moment an indoor stadium was built for an outdoor game. Wish they kept it open.

The point of building an indoor stadium was that - though you are right that football is an outdoor game and that a lot of competitiveness has been lost - it was much more suitable for the television dollar which nowadays - much more in fact than in other leagues around the world - takes precedence over live audiences.

With the wide-angle long-distance kicks and narrow-angle low-to-the-ground scrambling play so largely gone in a closed roof stadium, the AFL has become much richer because of higher TV revenue at Docklands that would not be possible in an open roof stadium. The two features mentioned above are tough to capture on television and the AFL knew though it never said so publicly. The AFL has simply gone for the television-watching masses and cares relatively little about the size of its crowds: it would be satisfied with much smaller crowds than Docklands gets if TV revenues were adequate.

 

[RogersResults]

The point of building an indoor stadium was that - though you are right that football is an outdoor game and that a lot of competitiveness has been lost - it was much more suitable for the television dollar which nowadays - much more in fact than in other leagues around the world - takes precedence over live audiences.

Evidence for the last statement? Facts? Figures?
Note too that the Docklands Stadium was built as a multi-purpose facility to accommodate events such as concerts which could not go on in the rain. Is there any documentary evidence that the prime intention was to create a football stadium environment 'more suitable for television'?

With the wide-angle long-distance kicks and narrow-angle low-to-the-ground scrambling play so largely gone in a closed roof stadium, the AFL has become much richer because of higher TV revenue at Docklands that would not be possible in an open roof stadium.

What? Do you even know how many matches are played with the roof closed and how many with it open at Docklands? Are you saying that Channel 7 and Fox pay more to broadcast matches at Docklands than they do at other venues? Are you saying that more people watch broadcast matches at Docklands that they do at other venues? What evidence is there for that ascertion?

If you want to do the work, each match at Docklands has indicated whether the roof was open or closed starting here: http://footystats.freeservers.com/Archive/Review12-R01.html

Then you might start to have the beginnings of an argument.

The two features mentioned above are tough to capture on television and the AFL knew though it never said so publicly.

Who says? How so?

The AFL has simply gone for the television-watching masses and cares relatively little about the size of its crowds: it would be satisfied with much smaller crowds than Docklands gets if TV revenues were adequate.

Maybe so but what actual evidence is there that this is the AFL's view?

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

All i know is waverley was shit to watch a footy game on tv from. Yes there have been improvments in the afl scince it closed but it was shocking. Could not even see right of screens goals had no idea if it was a goal or point.


Etihad was desigined BETTER for tv. Cameras behind goals also camera angle is shot from good height

Also being a indoor stadium fixtures like the camera on the roof are a plus.

 

[RogersResults]

All i know is waverley was shit to watch a footy game on tv from. Yes there have been improvments in the afl scince it closed but it was shocking. Could not even see right of screens goals had no idea if it was a goal or point.


Etihad was desigined BETTER for tv. Cameras behind goals also camera angle is shot from good height

Also being a indoor stadium fixtures like the camera on the roof are a plus.

I just watched Tony Lockett with a camera view behind the goals kick a goal for St Kilda at Waverley in the 1991 Elimination Final v Geelong. Then I watched Geelong's Neville Bruns with a camera view behind the goals take a mark in a the goal square at the other end.

Any deficiencies that you remember about TV coverage of matches at Waverly would have been the fault of the TV director not the ground. There is also the possibility that you saw matches on a TV that was over scanning so much (a fault with some CRT televisions) that the picture was cut off at the sides.

Its true that Docklands can facilitate an overhead camera but similiar shots have been obtained at the MCG during the finals without a roof.

Now I think I might watch the rest of the 1991 match.

 

[tandino]

The camera was in a horrible position at Waverley for some reason.

No chance. Waverley opened (1st game & 1st season i think) was at reduced capacity. Only part of the stadium was open

The public reserve was not completed until 1974, and the members stand sometime after that.

 

[RogersResults]

The camera was in a horrible position at Waverley for some reason.

There wasn't "a camera" at Waverley - I just had another look at the tape of the 1991 Elimination Final (see previous post) and counted at least 4 cameras being used - same set-up as appeared to be used in the 1989 Grand Final at the MCG. A camera behind each goal, one on one wing taking a wide shot and one or two in the same position getter closer shots. The coverage of both matches was nearly identical.

More cameras are used today.

The public reserve was not completed until 1974, and the members stand sometime after that.

The next stage of development over the summer of 1974-5 added extensions to 16 bays of the members stand in addition to the completion of the stands in the public reserve allowing for a crowd of 77,770 in the round 4 clash between Carlton and Essendon. The members stand was completed in time for the 1975 Elimination Final.

Football Record 6 September 1975 - Elimination Final edition.​

 

[rdhopkins2]

I was a big fan of Waverley Park. Living locally it was an easy 10min drive after Saturday sport.
A train line out there and refurbishment and we would still be playing games there.

I must admit Footy Park has much the same feel as old Waverley- nice to reminisce (before that too closes).

Hawthorn put up an excellent fight to retain the ground but whilst not ultimately successful, Hawthorn have developed an excellent facility there and alongside the Tassie deal turned a disappointment in to a positive.

 

[mianfei]

All i know is waverley was (expletive) to watch a footy game on tv from. Yes there have been improvments in the afl scince it closed but it was shocking. Could not even see right of screens goals had no idea if it was a goal or point.

Etihad was desigined BETTER for tv. Cameras behind goals also camera angle is shot from good height

Also being a indoor stadium fixtures like the camera on the roof are a plus.

It was difficult to watch on television - when i watch now on DVD I can see it well enough but if you were watching a game just once it is quite likely that you would not be able to understand it.

RogersResults, I can understand your criticisms, but even if they do not pay any more to watch games at Docklands Waverley, in remote and noncompetitive suburbs that had little interest in highly competitive sport, was very much an anomaly in a highly commercialised world. Waverley never acquired any sponsorship as Princes Park and Kardinia Park did in the middle 1990s, and that alone suggests closing it would have improved television and sponsorship revenues (which are often closely linked, are they not?)

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It was difficult to watch on television - when i watch now on DVD I can see it well enough but if you were watching a game just once it is quite likely that you would not be able to understand it.

RogersResults, I can understand your criticisms, but even if they do not pay any more to watch games at Docklands Waverley, in remote and noncompetitive suburbs that had little interest in highly competitive sport, was very much an anomaly in a highly commercialised world. Waverley never acquired any sponsorship as Princes Park and Kardinia Park did in the middle 1990s, and that alone suggests closing it would have improved television and sponsorship revenues (which are often closely linked, are they not?)

Waverly was a victim of the times

The 70's-90's professional sport in Australia was relatively uncompetitive
Many were attending amatuer leagues
The VFA was outrating the VFL on TV when it was televised, and teams such as port Melbourne were drawing 25k
Domestic Cricket was drawing well also

Waverly was finally beginning to get some crowds when it was sold


As for parking, has anyone attempted parking at the MCG? It isn't much easier to get out post-game

 

[Silent Alarm]

Waverly was a victim of the times

The 70's-90's professional sport in Australia was relatively uncompetitive
Many were attending amatuer leagues
The VFA was outrating the VFL on TV when it was televised, and teams such as port Melbourne were drawing 25k
Domestic Cricket was drawing well also

Waverly was finally beginning to get some crowds when it was sold


As for parking, has anyone attempted parking at the MCG? It isn't much easier to get out post-game

Very interesting.

Again, an insight into the truer history of VFL/AFL football. Any weakness – in fact, anything other than being Australia's sporting behemoth – is glossed over. As a younger guy who grew up in WA, I never even knew this. Why did people see the VFA as a better alternative?

The parking thing is also pretty interesting. I guess car culture was a bit more prevalent back then? If there was a train line out there, less people would be parking, and so the car hassle stories would've been way less prevalent. Y'know, less perpetuation.

I mean, I never even went to Waverley. But I'd sooner the centralised, easy to access, bucket seated, good-viewing points of Etihad. So perhaps all these externalities that worked against Waverley, worked for football. At least for me.

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

Vfa was on a sunday Silent Alarm
Vfl was played on a saturday. Most vfa clubs were based in the east or south east basically all within 35 mins of waverley.
The vfl started to televise the "army cup' on sunday mostly from lake oval. The army cup was the vfl reserves comp & the vfl at the time put it on head to head with the televised vfa match of the day on channel 0.

This also is partly to blame for souths move to sydney. Games at the scg were all played on a sunday being streamed live into melb head to head up against the vfa game of the day.


Carparking was very bad at all vfl grounds. Many caught the train to avoid the traffic jams.


I heard a story of tim watson being stuck in a traffic jam on his way to waverley.

 

[Silent Alarm]

This also is partly to blame for souths move to sydney. Games at the scg were all played on a sunday being streamed live into melb head to head up against the vfa game of the day.

Was this because NSWRL games were on Saturdays?

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

Rugby was played at scg back then i do think, but from
Memory there was some law stopping the vfl from playing on sundays. The foubd a loophole that if they played in sydney they could play sundays i think

 

[mianfei]

Waverly was a victim of the times

The 70's-90's professional sport in Australia was relatively uncompetitive
Many were attending amatuer leagues
The VFA was outrating the VFL on TV when it was televised, and teams such as port Melbourne were drawing 25k
Domestic Cricket was drawing well also

Waverly was finally beginning to get some crowds when it was sold


As for parking, has anyone attempted parking at the MCG? It isn't much easier to get out post-game

I had a recent look here at a Time magazine list of the ten worst sports stadiums in the United States.

I wonder if you think Waverley, when the AFL hinted at selling it in the middle 1990s, compares badly with the stadiums listed by Time?? The middle 1990s was a time when many new stadiums were built in the United States with public money (as to some extent was Docklands), so its fascinating to see whether, apart from the complete absence of “luxury boxes”, Waverley was really as bad as these stadiums??

 

[Pessimistic]

The point of building an indoor stadium was that - though you are right that football is an outdoor game and that a lot of competitiveness has been lost - it was much more suitable for the television dollar which nowadays - much more in fact than in other leagues around the world - takes precedence over live audiences.

With the wide-angle long-distance kicks and narrow-angle low-to-the-ground scrambling play so largely gone in a closed roof stadium, the AFL has become much richer because of higher TV revenue at Docklands that would not be possible in an open roof stadium. The two features mentioned above are tough to capture on television and the AFL knew though it never said so publicly. The AFL has simply gone for the television-watching masses and cares relatively little about the size of its crowds: it would be satisfied with much smaller crowds than Docklands gets if TV revenues were adequate.

Tv is terrible in full sun with roof open

Architechture freshman could have predicted that.