AFL Power rankings of Stadiums

[brucetiki]

The OP is utter garbage as it's just random numbers next to stadia with no criteria or explanation. I can make a video which puts the MCG as last and it'd be just as ridiculous (and make as much sense as the OP).

Teen Wolf has at least provided justification in how they've made their score. Stadia is always going to be a subjective debate. A classic example is Coopers Stadium (where the Adelaide v Brisbane AFLW minor round game was played). A lot of people view the ground in a positive light despite it having some of the worst facilities in the SANFL.

 

[aCunningPlan]

The OP is utter garbage as it's just random numbers next to stadia with no criteria or explanation. I can make a video which puts the MCG as last and it'd be just as ridiculous (and make as much sense as the OP).

Teen Wolf has at least provided justification in how they've made their score. Stadia is always going to be a subjective debate. A classic example is Coopers Stadium (where the Adelaide v Brisbane AFLW minor round game was played). A lot of people view the ground in a positive light despite it having some of the worst facilities in the SANFL.

Haha took me a while to register you were talking about the Parade. When I read Coopers Stadium I think Hindmarsh which has a similar sentiment...great viewing angles and feel but atrocious facilities.

 

[Underarm]

So now I'm thinking a slightly less arbitrary system of ranking venues 16-to-1 in each category might work better. Regarding Etihad, the implication by many players (from numerous interviews and surveys) is they would sacrifice the controlled climate in favour of a surface that causes less stress on bodies. Still, I've bumped the P&C ranking up a few spots because at least it's a football ground more than anything else.

You've been to a couple more than me (and some I've only been at for the cricket) so I appreciate the feedback!



It's a fair point, albeit a difficult one to quantify. As you can see, I've added a horses-for-courses column which basically penalises venues that teams move home games away from, and rewards venues that teams move home games to. I think it lines up surprisingly well with your original premise.

Spot on I reckon.

I would say MCG is easier to get to than Docklands. 2 stations, and plenty of parks.
I'm curious as to why Vis/suitability is based on?

 

[Allan Shorty]

So now I'm thinking a slightly less arbitrary system of ranking venues 16-to-1 in each category might work better. Regarding Etihad, the implication by many players (from numerous interviews and surveys) is they would sacrifice the controlled climate in favour of a surface that causes less stress on bodies. Still, I've bumped the P&C ranking up a few spots because at least it's a football ground more than anything else.

You've been to a couple more than me (and some I've only been at for the cricket) so I appreciate the feedback!



It's a fair point, albeit a difficult one to quantify. As you can see, I've added a horses-for-courses column which basically penalises venues that teams move home games away from, and rewards venues that teams move home games to. I think it lines up surprisingly well with your original premise.

My constructive criticism - Manuka has a lovely backdrop surrounded by leafy parklands, church spire and red hill in the background. Quite attractive and certainly well above kardinia and Subiaco.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I would say MCG is easier to get to than Docklands. 2 stations, and plenty of parks.

Ultimately I put the MCG in second because Southern Cross Station is central to the railway network. But there are a few details making me think I might switch it around, including the underwhelming nature of the Docklands precinct as a whole.

I'm curious as to why Vis/suitability is based on?

Ideally it weighs up four factors: number of games played at the ground, average attendance shown as a percentage of capacity, number of home games moved* from the ground (i.e. 1 Metricon match in 2017, every Subiaco match from 2018 onwards) and number of home games moved* to the ground (i.e. 4 York Park matches in 2017). I haven't collected and calculated all the necessary data for it, so at the moment it's just an estimate.

*The idea is any given team would have one ground where they play 11 home matches if it was viable to do so. The tricky part about deciding what to count here comes from the situation in Victoria where there are some dual-tenant teams (i.e. Essendon at ES/MCG, sorta Geelong at KP/MCG) and even more teams playing home games at Etihad against their own wishes.

My constructive criticism - Manuka has a lovely backdrop surrounded by leafy parklands, church spire and red hill in the background. Quite attractive and certainly well above kardinia and Subiaco.

It's a lot of the buildings and structures in the immediate vicinity that turn me off--the historic but drab scoreboard, that grotty little cottage by the Winston Abraham pocket, tacky golden arches on the wing, and a bit too much of a cheap bleachers look around the ground.

I agree with the good things you mentioned so in a way I accuse myself of rating to a double standard. For some grounds (such as Traeger Park) it's true I've focused more on the positives than the negatives, but for other grounds (such as Manuka) I've done the opposite. In theory it's easily correctable and make no mistake, I'm taking all cogent feedback on board as best I can.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Am I the only one who saw "Power Rankings" and thought this will be rubbish if Roby didn't do it. And even more rubbish if did.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Am I the only one who saw "Power Rankings" and thought this will be rubbish if Roby didn't do it. And even more rubbish if did.

Ease up on roby, its a tough gig being an advisor for the Trump administration

 

[Raleigh98]

Of the grounds I've been to - which is 9 of them - I reckon that's a pretty bloody good effort actually. Certainly from the 9 I've been to (Adelaide, the G, Docklands, SCG, the Gabba, York Park, Bellerive, Showgrounds, Manuka) I'd only have some minor quibbles with the order that you've rated them.

And you've never been to Subi? Not saying it's a good ground or anything. Just found it interesting that a West Coast supporter has never been to Subiaco to watch.

 

[nobbyiscool]

And you've never been to Subi? Not saying it's a good ground or anything. Just found it interesting that a West Coast supporter has never been to Subiaco to watch.

Nup. I've looked at doing it over the last couple of years, but having heard how shit it is, and having been to Perth a couple of times before and knowing how shit it is, it was never worth 3.5 hours in a plane. I'll wait for the new stadium before doing a home game.

 

[McCrann]

I'm not a Geelong resident, I live in Ballarat and honestly I believe Ballarat is far, far, better as a destination than Geelong or Melbourne as far as beauty, lifestyle and pure entertainment is concerned.

You must be seriously mad, or incredibly mentally deficient.

Ballarat as far as pure entertainment is far far better than Melbourne?? One of (and often the) World's most liveable cities??

WTF SRSLY???

How many European, North American or Asian cities have you actually been to???

Wow.

 

[TooFar]

Well clickbait or not, some effort wouldn't hurt, sheesh! Here are my rankings which at least have a degree of transparency about them.

True, I'm not suitably qualified to make most of those evaluations, but plenty of it is influenced by stuff I've read on here. So anything that is way off, it's yall's fault. (Honestly though, if anyone has specific alterations in mind, I'd be happy to hear it)

Doesn't Adelaide Oval have a marginally higher capacity than Docklands? 53,500 v 53,359.

 

[sverik25]

Doesn't Adelaide Oval have a marginally higher capacity than Docklands? 53,500 v 53,359.

Docklands' capacity is a weird one. Official capacity is 53,359 as you said, but it has had crowds as high as 56,000 for State of Origin before. Highest AFL crowd is 54,444.

Not sure whether AO has had crowds over the official capacity or not.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Docklands' capacity is a weird one. Official capacity is 53,359 as you said, but it has had crowds as high as 56,000 for State of Origin before. Highest AFL crowd is 54,444.

Not sure whether AO has had crowds over the official capacity or not.

This year's Showdown reached 53,698 which is the highest attendance for an AFL match in South Australia.

Splitting hairs, but that's the reason I've got Docklands above Adelaide Oval in that category.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Docklands' capacity is a weird one. Official capacity is 53,359 as you said, but it has had crowds as high as 56,000 for State of Origin before. Highest AFL crowd is 54,444.

Not sure whether AO has had crowds over the official capacity or not.

That is odd, unless they put in extra rows of seats when Docklands is in narrow mode and the bottom level seating is brought forward.
They didn't the one time I've been there in that mode (for a rugby test) but might be able to.

 

[nobbyiscool]

That is odd, unless they put in extra rows of seats when Docklands is in narrow mode and the bottom level seating is brought forward.
They didn't the one time I've been there in that mode (for a rugby test) but might be able to.

They don't put in extra rows - I've been there for plenty of Victory games, including derbies, in rectangle mode.

And I'm fairly certain that the Origin game/s that sverik25 alludes to wouldn't have had the ground in rectangle mode anyway - I don't believe they have, or would bring the seats in during AFL season. (Could be wrong though, given the Rugby test you speak about probably would've been during AFL season.)