the WACA is still the home of cricket in WA. They still need an elite high performance centre for the WA and Scorchers teams to use as the current one is outdated. Tests, women’s matches, WBBL, Domestic Men’s, Domestic Women’s, WAFL and AFL Women’s would be used there as well as being a training venue for big teams playing at Optus.
I still prefer the WACA over the Burswood stadium in cricket. I know the waca holds approximately 20k while the Perth stadium holds approximately 60k. A Sheffield shield game at Perth stadium a few months ago had fewer than 1000 people attending the game. For me, this has to be the quietest event being held at Perth stadium. (Sadly I didn’t attend the game as I was at work in East Perth)
Cricket is a ‘county green’ type pursuit.
Pull out a picnic basket and watch the players in their creams.
The WACA did the right thing by introducing grassed embankments a few years ago.
The Adelaide Oval did the right thing by still keeping the Hill (and having various coteries and whatnot around the ground).
If one is to spend the whole day at the cricket, one does not want to seat in a tightly packed row of plastic seats in a concrete football stadium all day.
While not all English county grounds have grassed viewing areas - at least one can still walk around and enjoy a whole range of activities and food trucks and picnic type places.
If they are only getting crowds of say a few thousand, why not play more games in suburban grounds like Joondalup or Fremantle?
Same could be said for other states, I know VIC and NSW teams have hosted Shield games at venues like Drummoyne Oval or Junction Oval, I think QLD have played games at Allan Border Field too. That would also be fitting of the type of atmosphere that @Ched_cider has referred to.
Only 37 per cent of people support or strongly support the government’s stadiums policy. 52 per cent of voters oppose or strongly oppose it and about 10 per cent are undecided.
Yep. The SGC Trust and various sporting bodies who want the SFS rebuild should be paying for it, not NSW taxpayers.
The SFS needed a reno job, not a full blown demolition. I can think of plenty of schools that could do with reno jobs that should come first before the SFS.
At least SCG members can still get decent sightlines.
Normally north-south isn’t it? What’s the thinking behind the change?
Yes, we’re not allowed to piss them off.
The Swans should be concerned with just how easily the turf is coming up under footy boots. The Roosters…who cares.
Yes ‘The XXXX Gabba’ style seems most likely… I remember one of the first major cricket grounds in the world to get a sponsor was the Oval. The the name ‘Oval’ was a stipulation by the SCCC (or maybe the Duchie of Cornwall) and seems to remain the dealbreaker even to this day.
I can’t see it being an 'Broncos stadium/Sports Authority Field/Invesco Stadium @ Mile High type deal… too wordy
A name like Suncorp Stadium works because when the deal was done it was virtually a completely new ‘glittering’ stadium as oppossed to the old Lang Park, hence much easier to associate ‘Suncorp’ (‘Who’s playing at Suncorp tonight’?) with the new ‘building’ (as the yanks like to say) and save ‘Lang Park’ for all the distant memories of when the place used to have a pig pen.
The Brisbane Cricket Ground has no such luxury.
You’d be closer watching it on telly at the pub
I moved around to the Brewongle stand. This is what it looks like from one end of the rectangle configuration.
Also…look at this! Big chunks coming out of the SCG turf.
I have SportsEars and the refs are going off about the state of the SCG pitch. They keep having to call time off
Thanks for the views from different angles.
Sightlines in a round stadium for a rectangular game are never great (hence why I guess the SFS came about in the first place).
I guess that the old orientation probably harkens back to the old days of the hill… having the hill behind the goal posts and the MA Noble side sitting parallel.