Many would prefer playing at the MCG and in the past with our Fevola lead forwardline the MCG seemed to be our ground of preference. But after Monday nights effort I'm thinking that Etihad Stadium could be the go for us in 2010.

All up we play 9 games at Etihad this season (including 5 in a row between rounds 12-16). Never thought I'd see the words 'Carlton' and 'Pace' being used in the same sentence but we certainly do look a lot quicker this season and its definately something that we have been working very hard at.

Under the roof at Etihad has helped the Bulldogs and Bombers out pace teams over the last few seasons and I think Carlton playing their 9 times this year will help our new 'pacey' style of game also.

Anyone else think that playing 9 games at Etihad this season will help our style of game?

_________________
HENDERSONALENKO......YOU BEAUTY!!!!!

I think we have a good mix of Etihad and MCG games. We get enough at the G we are ok for finals, and enough at Etihad we are not going to be caught napping when we play there.

Good point, when was the last time Carlton was described quick?

Weren't we too old and too slow from 1992-2001? We werent from 2002-07, we were just terrible.

If we've decided that the gamestyle we employed vs St Kilda is our preferred method, then playing at docklands will definitely be an advantage.

But I suspect there'll be a multitude of styles to suit the opposition, the personnel available, and the venue.

hey guys, i have been wondering why people go on about etihad and the MCG being completely different grounds when they are actually quite similar in size:

Etihad Stadium - Melbourne 159m x 130m
Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) - Melbourne 160m x 139m

i found this info on an old website i admit which is http://www.afana.com/af_faq_sec2.shtml#2.1.2

but the grounds are just as long and the mcg is only 9 meters wider.

i cant see how people can play well on the MCG but not on etihad or visa versa because they are only a little bit different in width.

Agree re their respective sizes, they are similar enough for that not to be an issue. But having the roof closed obviously makes a big difference to the conditions teams face. And even when it's not closed, there is rarely any wind at Etihad.

We played better at Etihad last season than the MCG.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

We lose a day to recovery every time we play at Etihad. It's rock hard under foot.

Makes you wonder why they don't do away with the grass completely and go for some whiz-bang synthetic turf.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

Its not so much the size of the ground its the weather. Running into a breeze is very difficult and taxing on the body let alone kicking. At Etihad it must be a lot easier running and just general ball use, especially on those cold and windy days. That could perhaps advantage us if we rely on these quick players to run and carry the ball.

_________________
Koperek.

Have heard players comment on how quick the 'deck' at etihad is. The ball does seem to move faster in games there (games like saints/dogs being the exception)

_________________
#DonTheStash

The pockets are tighter at etihad. MCG being more rounder.

We do play etihad well these days. My only worry would be the rock hard surface (so i am told).

thanks for the response guys, i guess players with high endurance and with less than perfect skills eg. Walker and Carrazzo would be etihad specalists as their kicking would not be shown up as much as there is no wind but thier running would be an advantage.