Sheffield Shield final ruined by unfair system
Roar Pro
By Kersi Meher-Homji, 16 Mar 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Domestic Cricket, Sheffield Shield
I am neither a Victorian nor a Queenslander and don’t really care who wins the Sheffield Shield final currently going on in Melbourne. But the system is unfair.
As Queensland finished second on the points table this year, they have to win outright to lift the Shield.
It is fair that the team finishing on top gets home advantage, home venue and home supporters. If there are many (any) spectators, that is!
But as a team finishing second has to win outright to lift the Shield, the team on top of the table can bat on and on. And on! This kills the game and makes a mild-mannered person like me roar in rage.
I am not blaming the Victorian team. They have been at the receiving end many times in the past. It’s the system that stinks and makes the final BORING.
Let’s start the 2009-10 season on a new slate. And a new set of rules for the final.
Give the team on the top of the points table home ground advantage. But that’s it. If the final is drawn the teams can share the Trophy.
But if a team has hunger for victory, it will try its best to win the final and the Shield with bold declarations.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Mathews heroics almost shakes Clarke’s resolve
- Resurgent Pakistan inspire new generation to play
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Resurgent Pakistan inspire new generation to play (0)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Explore:
- Cricket, Domestic Cricket, Sheffield Shield
sheek said | March 16th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Kersi,
This is the problem with cricket, isn’t it? Numerous potential for draws. The final is already given an extra day, making it akin to a 5 day test instead of a 4 day Shield match.
I guess a counter-argument is – if the 2nd placed team isn’t good enough to beat the 1st placed team over 5 days, then it doesn’t deserve the Shield.
Although the system is faulty, I think it is the best available. One other option I thought of years ago, was to hold the final in a neutral venue.
The place I thought of, was Manuka Oval in Canberra. It would be the only first class match held annually in Canberra, & would be guaranteed to be well attended by the locals. For novelty reasons, if nothing else. The top placed team would still hold the advantage of only having to draw.
It would also allow the ground to build its own tradition over time. Whether Manuka Oval is suitable for a first class match, especially the Sheffield Shield final, is something the experts are better able to divulge.
Also, playing on a neutral ground might encourage the 1st placed team to be just a little more pro-active in chasing an outright win.
sledgeross said | March 16th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
I was discussing this yesterday over a few beers. Maybe they should slap a 250 over limit on first innings or something like that?
Pippinu said | March 16th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Yes – I”ve thought along the lines of Sledge for a very long time now – batting on till you score 1,000 runs is a quaint anachronism from another century.
But until that happens – better to give the trophy to the top team than to share it (which is a pretty weak idea, to be honest).
Albert Ross said | March 16th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Has the “away” side ever won the final match?
formeropenside said | March 16th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Its fine as it is; the system puts the pressure on the 2nd placed side to show they can earn an away win.
The leading team has the advantage of simply having to play for a draw; but of course this causes its own problems when you are not properly playing to win.
As a Queenslander, I have been on both sides of home finals in recent years, and going back to the mid-80′s when Qld were somehow held out at the death in Sydney one year, despite a huge effort from Carl Rackemann.
Have Victoria killed this final (and dont forget there has been a day or more lost to rain)? Yes. But the Bulls had them 281/6 at the close of Day 1, and if things had gone differently the game could be wide open.
Justin said | March 16th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Fact is the the top team each year has been the best on a home and away basis. They deserve the trophy if the second placed team cannot win the final.
Michael C said | March 16th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
The main problem in any 5 day match (test of Shield final) is going to be the pitch. If a road is prepared, then that sets the standard.
Mike Veletta certainly killed one final that we Vics remember only too well.
(variables like the weather, well, that’s always there – - but, Melbourne had a sure fire cure for a long dry – - concurrent hosting of a major bushfire concert and a sheffield shield final on an oval next to a lake that doesn’t drain that well!!!! Now,…. we’ll need some follow up rains so what can we put on next weekend????)
sheek said | March 16th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Albert Ross,
I happen to know the first two Shield finals in 1983 (won by NSW) & 1984 (won by WA) were won by the away teams. The top placed losers were WA & Qld respectively.
Perhaps this was before full-blown cynicism took hold? Obviously, it has happened again since then, but I don’t know how often. I would suggest in the vicinity of one-in-5.
So perhaps the #2 team winning one-in-5 isn’t such a bad record, assuming that’s a correct assumption!
Capping the number of overs on first innings is interesting (my suggestion would be 150 max), but I would prefer the neutral venue. I’m surprised it hasn’t found more widespread support. you want the match to be a genuine contest.
And why should the top placed team give the #2 team any favours?
Harry said | March 16th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Sheek for once you are wrong!
Qld never finished top of the shield table in the 80′s and therefore never had a home final until the 90′s. Yhey did lose shield finals away to, from memory, in 83 (WA, would have been one of Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh’s final 1st class games) and NSW (in 85 I think, close game at the SCG with Jeff Thomson just failing to bowl Qld to victory).
As to this debateI think the current system is just fine (and I’m a Qld fan). Take this year – Victoria headed the table by quite some way, therefore to wrest the title from them the 2nd team has to win outright. A shame that the weather has ruined this year’s final but that’s the weather.
sheek said | March 16th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Harry,
Just goes to show I’m human! Must make me more likeable though???
Yeah, the 1984 final featured D.Lillee & J.Thomson (despite R.Marsh & G.Chappell playing) as opposing captains. I stand corrected that Qld finished top of the table.
In fact, that game was the last 1st class game for Lillee, Marsh & Chappell. Although Lillee made an ill-advised return for Tassie in 1987-88.