I think when they are both finished theWembley will pip the MCG.

The MCG, for all its history etc, has a limited appeal around the world, when compared to Wembley.

I will conceed that technologically when completed wembley will beat the MCG but, Wembley is primarily a one sport stadium, it cannot accomodate as many sports as the MCG so remember that.

One sport?

It can host all kind of rectangle sport. Old Wembley hosted Soccer, Rugby League, I think it hosted Union, American Football (regularly too), Athletics, Dogs (I think) and Speedway (I think).

The new Wembley will at least host Soccer and RL. I'm sure other plans are in the pipeline too.

No crap. Of course a Soccer stadium can host other rectanglar sports. Even the famous Knights Stadium here in Melbourne could host Soccer, Rugby League, Union, American Football, Dogs, Lawn Bowls, Table Tennis.

One thing which is evident of the MCG is the fact it's the most inovative venue in this country. It has always lead the way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the first venue to have a large video screen, two large video screens (and wide screen for that matter) (the ponsford screen is still the best large screen in this country - fact), a gound-breaking grandstand - when built, the Southern Stand was out of this world), the new advertising screens around the whole ground (now the scg and gabba have followed), and obviosuly it's 100,000 capacity. And not to mention it has the best website of any venue in this country.

The best stadium in the world is May Day stadium.

Capacity 150,000

Can acommidate most field sports

and what a perfect location, North Korea.

Cam, if the MCG is so good, how come it is undergoing redevelopment? Doesn't that mean it's not so good?

Cricket lovers around the world wouldn't necessarily say the G is the best. the SCG has better views, as does Lords, Adelaide and other smaller grounds. Try watching test cricket with 10 000 at the G. Boredom plus.

And if the G doesn't cope with rectangular sports, that surely rates heavily against it. Telstra can be configured to accommodate all sports, yet according toC am it is far worse than the one sport suited G, because of it's boring roof'

Being close to the city is not a plus either. Telstra is in the suburbs, where the people are. Being in the city was the thing that killed the SCG (hence we left it to the Swans)

The MCG may lead the way in Australia, but don't forget we're after the best stadium in the world.



Apart from the football codes, Wembley will also be able to accomodate athletics:

"Athletics will be hosted on a specially built platform that keeps fans as close as possible to the action for football, rugby and athletics while allowing for uninterrupted views of the events."
- www.wembleystadium.com/brilliantfuture/stadium_uses.htm

How's this for logic...

Wembley is the Cathedral of Football,
Football is the world game.
Therefore, Wembley is the world's best stadium.

I don't wish to speak for Cam, but isn't alot of his argument for the MCG based on how it will be when the work is completed?



Horses for courses. The primary function of the MCG is to accomodate cricket and Australian football. I agree it's not ideal for rectangular sports, but this shouldn't go against it. Telstra Stadium's flexibility is clever and a great asset, but as the people at Wembley are quick to point out, spectators in the upper tiers are still now as far away from the action as they were when there was an athletics track around the pitch.



Still, if we don't venture into the city now and then, it will suffer the same fate as you say the SCG has!


PS. Best Stadium in the World, not just Australia!

Of course it should. IN the past it has had to cope with some very big games (Origin, Soccer WC qualifiers), and it has not fared well in either. melbourne's long time lacking of adecent rectangular sports facility led the ARL's dilemma a decade or so ago about where to stage Tests in Melbourne. The7y opted for Olympic Park, archaic as it was, becuase it was the city's best rectangular venue.

The MCG was not a great stadium when hosting these sports. Hence, it must be marked down for versatility

Being able to accommodate only 2 sports is hardly a huge plus.

I find it very hard to understand the idea, that a venue becomes better if it hosts several sports.I would think the opposite is true.
Would wimbledons centre court be better if also hosted basketball? or how about the church of st.Peter in Rome, a better place if it also hosted the italian indoor tennis championships... hardly.

there is no best venue, but if there was, it would really have to be wembley since facilities will be second to none, and as James said,its football´s most famous venue and thats the world game

The ground (MCG) isn't to blame for its inability to host rectangular sports, the sports administrators are to blame for holding these events at an inappropriate ground (presumably, it's their desire for greater gate receipts that compromises spectator comfort).



Tend to agree. As they say... jack of all trades, master of none! This could be said of Telstra Stadium and others.

So all of a sudden we put parameters on the original question. So the MCG is the best stadiumon earth, because it is good to watch cricket at? That means that Redfern Oval would be better, because you are closer to the action than the G.

To use your argument, one should only judge it by the sport it was intended to be used for. Thus MCG=Cricket. Telstra =Olympics+Leauge+Union+Soccer+AFL+Cricket+Gridiron. Thus, the G is the 12mm spanner. Telstra is the whole set.

Wimbledon is only a Tennis venue, and a good one at that. However, doesn't suitability for useage count? Of course it does. And the officials might be to blame forpoor suitability iof grounds, but only the G officials, for not proviing a decent and suitable venue. They are the ones that ultimately decide scheduling of events

The only decent argument the G deciples have put forward is that it 1) Big and 2) in Melbourne. There is a histtoy argument, but the Colloseum in Rome flogs it on that one.

For the life of me I can not comprehend how one could put Telstra stadium in the same catogory as the MCG.

Telstra is built in the middle of a wasteland in Western Sydney, it lacks character, it made me laugh during the olympis with those stupid stands at either end. It now looks cheap with the single tier at the ends.

The Melbourne cricket ground is in the middle of yarra park, minutes from the CBD, easy to get to from any part of Melbourne via public transport, It also has a history that most other stadiums in the world would envy.

The first ever test match
Olympic games
International Soccer games
Cricket world cup final
Bledisloe cup games
papal visit


Plenty of sold out AFL and one day internationals

and plenty more

Also I disagree that it is no good for rectangle sports, as when I have been for these sports I have never had a problem with the view and I didn't need to buy the most expensive ticket.

I'm a MCC member, I've attended almost every sport played at the venue. To this day, the best event I've attended at the ground was the 2002 World Cup Qualifier against Uruguay. It was bloody amazing. I was standing up the back of the Ponsford Stand, and yet I have no complaints about the view.

The best stadium in the world cannot be judged by what sports it plays host to, maybe only to a small extent. The main factors are: facilities, design, capacity. Even location can only be used to a certain extent.

Misty, what about the people who love on the other side of the city? It's a bloody nightmare to get to! The city is central, therefore it's easily the best location.

Personally, I don't really consider any stadium to be the best in the world. It's kind of pointless anyway. My favourite, however, is Stadium Australia.

Unlike most 70 000+ capacity stadia built or redeveloped in the last decade or so, it isn't simply a three tier wrap around (The new Wembley still looks great, though). Its design is truly unique from just about every other stadia in the world, and best of all, it's in our own country.

Australia really needed a rectangular, 70 000+ stadium as well. AFL may have had a 85 000+ venue in the MCG but before 1999, soccer, league and union really only had the SFS (43 000).