scg equals ugly football

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Bear
    Best and Fairest
    • Feb 2003
    • 1022
    #1

    scg equals ugly football

    I have mentioned this before, but am absolutely convinced now... when you have a ground as small as the SCG, you will get severe flooding and a poor football spectacle

    compare the style we played on Sunday and compare this to the open, free-running style we played at Telstra Stadium and the MCG last year (eg. against Melb) and tell me if you get a better spectacle at the bigger ground

    before you think I'm a Westy, the SCG is more convenient for me and yes you get a better view at the SCG, but would you rather look at s@*t close up or quality football from a bit further back?

    btw, thanks again Rocket!
    "As a player he simply should not have been able to do the things he did. Leo was a 185cm, 88kg full-back and played on some of the biggest, fastest and best full-forwards of all time, and constantly beat them." Roos.
    Leo Barry? you star! We'll miss ya, ''Leapin''.
    Tags: equals, football, scg, Swans, sydney, ugly
    • Charlie
      On the Rookie List
      • Jan 2003
      • 4101
      #2
      Ah... Stadium Australia is about the same ground size, isn't it?

      Charlie
      We hate Anthony Rocca
      We hate Shannon Grant too
      We hate scumbag Gaspar
      But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

        Comment

        • Cheer Cheer
          On the Rookie List
          • Jan 2003
          • 934
          #3
          Bear, are you are basing this thread on sundays game ? If so that is unfair, and I know which part of the game you are thinking about, the 2nd qtr when sydney had the breeze and were expected to make up the qtr time deficit against the crows?
          The crows had been told by ayres that if they could block up the swans in the 2nd qtr and break even with them or better they would probably win the game.
          Thus there was a big flood in and crowded spaces for the 2nd qtr. ( Which the swans should have done better in the 1st qtr)
          I think you should be aiming your critism at tactics, not ground size is the point I am making.
          No.1 ticket holder of Nick Davis Fan Club...

            Comment

            • Mike_B
              Peyow Peyow
              • Jan 2003
              • 6267
              #4
              Originally posted by Charlie
              Ah... Stadium Australia is about the same ground size, isn't it?

              Charlie
              Stadium Australia is a fair bit longer than the SCG, but narrower. Just at a guestimate, SA would be about 20-30m longer and about 20m narrower.

              I'm on the Chandwagon!!!

              If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.

                Comment

                • Bart
                  CHHHOMMMMMPPP!!!!
                  • Feb 2003
                  • 1360
                  #5
                  Re: scg equals ugly football

                  Originally posted by Bear
                  I have mentioned this before, but am absolutely convinced now... when you have a ground as small as the SCG, you will get severe flooding and a poor football spectacle

                  compare the style we played on Sunday and compare this to the open, free-running style we played at Telstra Stadium and the MCG last year (eg. against Melb) and tell me if you get a better spectacle at the bigger ground
                  When are people going to give this a rest ! There is @@@@ all difference when you have 18 men running around and between the major grounds especially the MCG.

                  From the respective websites of each venue in AFL mode

                  SCG 156 long X 154 wide
                  MCG 164.4 long X 139.3 wide
                  Stadium Australia 170 long x 128 wide

                  The SCG has a bigger surface area than the others.

                  Sure its a bit shorther, but does 8 meters less than the MCG equate to any real difference in terms of footy quality. I think not.

                  And to sum up Gary Ayres when asked at the pre-match confernce about tactics on the "smaller" SCG, he said:

                  "Last time I looked, it was green, had grass on it and had goal posts at both ends"

                    Comment

                    • Mike_B
                      Peyow Peyow
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 6267
                      #6
                      SCG is actually 149 x 144 http://www.sydneycricketground.com.a...field_info.htm

                      I'm on the Chandwagon!!!

                      If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.

                        Comment

                        • Bart
                          CHHHOMMMMMPPP!!!!
                          • Feb 2003
                          • 1360
                          #7
                          Originally posted by Mike_B
                          SCG is actually 149 x 144 http://www.sydneycricketground.com.a...field_info.htm
                          Fair enough. My error.

                          Not enough though to make a huge difference in quality of footy.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...