Hear, Hear!

100% Agree with you there. The Victorian Government had ear marked $100M for the MCG to refurbish the Great Southern Stand. Use that and dip into the World Cup fund for refurishments and retracable seating on level one and you have a world class stadium for all codes, no matter what anyone NSW or Tasmania thinks. FIFA would love it, they realise football is the third biggest sport media wise in Australia.

Just confirms that he knows nothing about "world class" football venues. It simply isn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the bid, just that it will be the worst large capacity venue in any of the bids for viewing football. You can't have only 15% of seating within FIFA's recommended maximum distance for optimal viewing and another 15% of seating further away than FIFA's maximum permissible viewing distance and be world class. The current standard for a large capacity "world class" venue is Wembley. It has 55% of its seating within FIFA's recommended maximum distance for optimal viewing and none of its seating outside FIFA's maximum permissible viewing distance.

By the way I agree that including retractable stands in the rebuild of the southern stand and retrofitting them in the northern stand would significantly overcome the viewing problems in the bottom bowl. Would probably reduce the capacity though because the rake would need to be steeper to get good sightlines. This would result in about 30 maybe even 35% of seating moving within the 90m radius and would lift the MCG up from the 3rd rung of football viewing stadiums to near the top of the 2nd rung of football viewing stadiums like the Olympiastadion in Berlin. Purpose designed rectangular pitch stadiums are on the first rung of football stadiums.

Edited by gyfox: 8/12/2009 02:45:05 PM

Whilst i appreciate your insight regarding the recommended viewing distances for stadia design, i have to disagree about it being "an absolute dog for watching football.". i sat i the very last/highest row on the wing for the aust v japan game, and the view was (as others have said) more than acceptable, even "good". I agree that the lowest tier requires improvement if the 'G was to be considered more football-friendly, or "a world-class football stadium". It would be great to get retractable seating (with a greater gradient). Anyway, i suspect that we'll all have to agree to disagree...

have seen some pictures from inside bubbledome taken this week... eg: the view from the top of southern stand:

I used the term "dog" relatively. The seats you were sitting in are at the upper limit of permissible viewing distances and even world class large capacity stadiums will have seats at that distance but they will be the worst seats in the corners of the stadium, you were in the best back row seats. The last row of seats where you were sitting at the MCG would be 15m closer to the pitch at Wembley. The front row at half way at Wembley is 32.5m closer to the pitch than the equivalent seat at the MCG. The fact that every seat at a stadium like Wembley has way better viewing distances than the equivalent seat at the MCG makes the MCG a dog of a stadium to watch football in my view. Every seat is further away from the pitch than it should be for watching football.

Viewing distances are not the only problem with excessively wide infields. Sound intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance so sitting in the front row at Wembley you would get nearly 3 times the sound intensity as sitting in the same seat at the MCG from the same noise source on the other side of the ground. The atmosphere at a ground like Wembley is way better than one as wide as the MCG.

By the way I have been at the MCG in similar seats to you and wouldn't buy tickets there again because it is way too far away from the play.

Edited by gyfox: 8/12/2009 04:02:12 PM

in fairness, he never actually says world-class venue for viewing football. whether by coincidence or design. it absolutely is a world-class venue, there can be no argument on that front. in terms of a venue for watching football, it's medium at best. but the facilities are absolutely first-class, particularly in the new stand.



retrofitting the northern stand would be inhibitively expensive, i have no doubt. but even only having one side moving in would improve the viewing experience for a number of the spectators and, significantly, the tv-viewing public.

in terms of capacity, any losses from rake etc (assuming this was factored in which i am unsure of given afl's primacy at the venue) would no doubt be negated by an increased overall capacity from the new stand. if it was built to mirror the northern stand, there'd be a marked increase in capacity. i think if that happened at present with no allowance for movable seating, the overall capacity would be in the range of 105-110,000.

i really think that a redeveloped southern stand would be the best outcome overall, leaving a true legacy for all users of the mcg. let's hope it gets considered by the powers that be.

im calling for a ban on Gyfox commenting on this thread anymore. He has repeated his point over and over! you have some statistics and when the the MCG and was one of the dissatisfied minority. I get it its not Wembley, but its good enough in the eyes of the FFA.

lol, sorry but i am soo bored!

Edited by imonfourfourtwo: 8/12/2009 04:06:25 PM

I am not sure how you could only have retractable seating in the southern stand because it is around an end of the ground. It would look very odd. I understand that by converting the standing spaces at the G they can increase the seating capacity by 5,000. If I remember correctly if they match the norther stand there would be an extra 13 rows of seats for say half a stadium. Thats about 6-700 seats a row, maybe as much as 10,000 seats.

By the way, I agree with you that the MCG is a world class venue but just not for football. Viewing distances and sight lines are the two paramount factors in my view. The MCG has significant problems with the former and also with the latter in the bottom bowl.

agreed it would look odd. but it would be;
a) better than an entire oval, particularly for the patrons on the ground level in the moveable area, and
b) a much better television spectacle, as with the current tv camera set-up, cameras are in the northern stand and subsequently would be able to cut out the big patch of green on that side of the ground. so for tv audiences the ground would look almost rectangular.

obviously converting the whole ground would be ideal, but failing that converting half the ground would be an acceptable alternative in my eyes.

Lets hope they can do the lot because it would make it quite good and it would certainly take it past ANZ as the better football watching ground. ANZ can only move the side stands.

that says enough...

It would be great for football to have a rectangular venue as big as the MCG, unfortunately it can't be done like that.

That rectangular MCG looks fantastic. Actually, stuff em. Lets build our own football specific venues owned by the FFA/A-League Clubs. That'll solve all our problems.

If the venues are too big you can take down some of the seating and build new venues in other places. too easy. :cool:

Almost 90k for State of Origin there yesterday, an annual event. Time to consider a reconfiguration?

We are never going to get a proper stadium for big Union, League and Football events if people keep throwing away money to sit a kilometre from the pitch at big events.

This was talked about at the time of the bid.  Some insane idea about continuing the upper tier of seating on both sides of the pitch down infront of the existing lower tier(s) to create a continuous bank of seating.  Original plan was extremely expensive, and didn't appear to take into account cover for new seats - no doubt would have ended up costing more with Aussie contractors on the job.

I smile every time I see those unworkable rectangularisations put up.

All but the few thousand sitting directly around the field (at a shitty low viewing angle) are still just as far away from the action. 

Dumb.

The MCG is shit for football. 

Those rectangularisations are basically impossible, take it up with geometry. But just to entertain it for a moment, it would require sinking the playing surface. Before sinking the pitch, up to 1/3 of the top tier of the stands are outside the permitted 190m maximum viewing distance. With the pitch sunk you'd lose half of the top tier around the ground. Basically, gain 3-5k seats around the surface, lose 20k at the back of the stands, and all remaining seats in the middle still the same distance from the action.

Huge public expense, no benefit, but prevents a different code from playing there. On this basis, fucking do it. The AFL pulls this shit to kick us off our grounds, bout time we gave it back. If they want AFLX give them the premium fkn package.

Sacrilege! It's the Melbourne Cricket Ground where first ever Test match was played.

The turf is too hallowed for it to stop being for cricket (even with the turf being crap since the introduction drop-in wickets - PUCK YOU, AFL!)

Exactly, totally agree. I really can't work out why Australians are so brain dead when it comes to standing up to those suits making decisions that fuck the whole experience for fans.
Imagine if Fulham moves it's home games against Arsenal, Chelsea, West Ham, and Spurs to Wembley ( mind you it's still rectangular ) for a bigger crowd and more money. Just imagine the outcry while here people whine, bitch, and moan, then go ahead and purchase a ticket and attend. 
When you have no option fair enough, but look at Melbourne Victory signing a deal to keep 5 games at Etihad for some extra cash. Fuck the cash think about your fans and play it at the best football stadium ( for A-league ) in the country ffs. But then again why should they care when fans come out and support the stupid idea. 

Didn't mention the free tickets did they? Rabbits had a stiffy every-time there was a crowd shot. 

MCG doesn't need to rectangular-ised - it's already massive as fuck and WC games have been played at oval stadiums before with no drama (see Olympiastadion in Berlin WC 06) 

How does it work at Docklands without sinking the pitch then?

Never heard of this 190m rule before, got a link?

Because the seats move. Those MCG mockups involve digging the pitch out and building additional seats infront of the existing lower bowl. Obviously the pitch has to sink because each row of seating has to be lower than the row behind.

The 190m maximum viewing distance is a FIFA guideline. 190m is the furthest distance the human eye can resolve the detail of a football - any further and they can't see the ball, but only judge its position by context. All seats must be within 190m straight line distance of the furthest corner flag. Have you noticed how the Emirates or New White Heart Lane have that curved shape? It's because they are built to the maximum distance. This diagram should do. 190m is the maximum, 150m is the optimum.

https://www.google.cz/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCZ773CZ773&biw=1536&bih=758&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=q-8YW5TJGYXXwAKizKow&q=london+olympic+stadium+viewing+distance&oq=london+olympic+stadium+viewing+distance&gs_l=img.3...285368.291750.0.291867.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0....0.b6zTfu3Y5m8#imgdii=aNysAfTCMA4BEM:&imgrc=hypDqL5jScsyKM:

This is why all modern football stadia have the same curved shape which dips in the corners and peaks at the centre of the wings and end stands.

Part of the reason the Australian WC bid was so pathetic was that it was completely noncompliant with these basic regulations. Huge areas of the MCG were outside the maximum distance and couldn't be sold. Similar has happened at the London Olympic stadium. The seats are there but West Ham can never sell them.

The purpose of the small curve in the main stands of modern stadia is to improve the viewing angles.  For good viewing you need to be able to see the base of the corner flags on the near side at both ends of the pitch.  With a straight stand spectators nearby in the same row of seating impinge on a clear view of these corners but with the curve they are moved slightly out of the direct line of sight.

Another trend in modern stadia is not to have the front row as close as possible to the pitch but to set it back a number of metres extra to reduce the head movement required to watch a game comfortably.  The optimum position in a stand is 15 to 20 rows back in the bottom tier near halfway because the field of view covers the whole sideline with minimal head movement and the viewing distance is well within the optimal viewing distance.

The 150m line in the linked plan in Bohemia's post is the limit of optimal viewing and is more normally quoted as 90m from the centre of the pitch.  Anything outside that distance is a compromise that should only be needed for large capacity stadia.

In the MCG virtually all of the seating in the elevated tiers in outside the limit of optimal viewing.

FIFA have produced a document of their requirements and recommendations for stadiums and I have linked it below.  It has some of this stuff in it.  For some reason they have the 4th Edition on their website but the 5th Edition is available on scribd.

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/51/54/02/football_stadiums_technical_recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf

The MCG will NEVER be rectangular.
 Both the cricket and AFL administrators will make sure of it.

This is even a discussion point? Lol

“The Melbourne Cricket Ground will never be rectangular??!!!”

Fark me.

The loonies on this site get carried away easy don’t they!

😃

Saying the Olympiastadion is an oval like AFL grounds is not accurate. It is far better for Football than the MCG and you don't feel like you're as far away. AFL ovals are far more bloated than a athletics track, especially along the sidelines.