Sheffield Shield final ruined by unfair system
Roar Guru By Kersi Meher-Homji, 16 Mar 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- 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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Domestic Cricket, Sheffield Shield
March 16th 2009 @ 12:10pm
Michael C said | March 16th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Interesting that the Vics this year did NOT concede a single point in the SHield.
Could you imagine if they were able to be beaten on 1st innings points??
March 16th 2009 @ 11:06pm
Brian said | March 16th 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
The current system works well except they should ensure a fair pitch and a reserve day. Most games with a fair pitch and 5 days of play usually end up with a result. But hey these are cricket administrators, the benson & hedges always had reserve days for best of three finals yet World Cup Finals don’t (Farce of 2007)
I agree with Michael C Vics definately deserve the title
March 17th 2009 @ 2:35pm
Greg Russell said | March 17th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Quite independently of Kersi, I was thinking about the “problem” of Sheffield Shield finals, and I came to exactly the same solution: the top-placed team has home advantage, the match lasts for 5 days (for more on this, see below), but the title is shared if the match ends in a draw.
The advantage of this system is that it puts the onus on the home team to produce a “result” wicket, as opposed to the current system. The media was full of the fact that Victoria was aiming to bat forever. It has turned out to be slightly more interesting than that, however the point stands.
I can see three main objections to Kersi’s suggestion:
1. There should always be only one winner, not two (there has never been shared winners of the Sheffield Shield). The only answer to this is that a change in mindset would be necessary.
2. The team who finished second obtains an unfair advantage, in that they can seek to bat out a draw. My response to this would be that if there is some life in the wicket (the whole aim of the changed system), then usually it’s a dangerous thing to bat for a draw.
3. Rain, as in the present match. For example, let’s say that the majority of this year’s final had been washed out: that would be very unfair on Victoria, who clearly are the best team in the country by some distance. A solution here would be to say that a final should last for 475 overs (i.e., 5 days at 95 overs per day, the current required rate for SS cricket).
To answer Albert Ross’s question “Has the “away” side ever won the final match?”, in the last decade there have been 3 occasions: 1998-9 WA def. Qld, 2002-3 NSW def. Qld, and 2004-5 NSW def. Qld.
The interesting thing here is that all three of these occasions have been in Brisbane. And what do we know about Gabba wickets? That they are fair and they have plenty in them for (good) bowlers. Isn’t this exactly the point at issue here?
March 17th 2009 @ 3:49pm
Spiro Zavos said | March 17th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Shouldn’t the attitude be in a competition like the Sheffield Shield that the team that has performed the best over the season should really take the title. If you put in artificial requirements for the final you are creating a Sheffield Shield that focusses mainly on the final.
The focus really should be on the game before the final. This was the way the Sheffield Shield was contested until the pull of money forced a final.
I have no objections to the present system. It rewards the most consistent side in the tournament while giving some chance to the second side that is playing in the final.
I don’t think an outcome where the trophy is shared most years with teams playing not to lose and only going for the victory when they can’t lose is something cricket lovers would want.
Part of the attraction of the final now I think is to see if the second team has anything special to unveil to create pressure on the home side. Queensland dropped catches and did not deserve to be given credit as a co-champions which would have happened if ‘a draw is good enough to tie the champlionship’ system had come into play.
March 17th 2009 @ 4:19pm
John B said | March 17th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
I agree that there should be a winner, and the team topping the regular season league deserves the advantage of winning the title if the final is drawn. I don’t see that you can introduce artificial rules (restrictions on first innings length) to the final, when those rules don’t apply in the rest of the season (and such rules don’t belong in the Shield comp in my view).
Should the first placed team also get home advantage, which includes the ability to produce pitches very favourable to batting even when they are not characteristic of the ground normally? I think that is a step too far.
Greg, the Gabba may have produced examples of its usual good cricket wickets in the years Qld lost home finals, but the powers that be certainly got the message the last time Qld played a final at home – 2005/6 when they beat the Vics, scoring 900 along the way. Even as a Qld-er, that seemed too much of a farce to be acceptable. Like Sheek, I thought a neutral venue seemed a reasonable approach (and plenty, if not most, Cup competitions in the football codes around the world have their finals at neutral or set venues remember). Unlike Sheek I couldn’t figure out how you could do this in practice – I thought maybe play at the field of the last placed or third placed team – but there might be ground booking and other logistical issues there (and of course likely minimal crowd interest). I like Sheek’s idea of always playing in Canberra as a neutral venue. The only issues then are whether Manuka and its pitch are at a high enough standard, the cost of keeping them that way for one big game per year, checking that typical Canberra March weather is suitable, and clashes with other uses of the ground.
March 18th 2009 @ 12:33pm
Greg Russell said | March 18th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Spiro and others seem not to be aware that, from what I can gather, yesterday’s was only the fourth draw in the 27-year history of having finals.
Yesterday I pointed out that it is also far from correct that the home team always wins.
Given this I’m not sure where the perception comes from that finals are invariably boring, batting-dominated draws. It seems people only remember when the home side makes a huge first-innings score in a final. But this is largely restricted to the tit-for-tat Vic-Qld finals of recent years (there seems to be an curiously unusual animosity there). Even so, these have all ended in results until yesterday. For example, the Gabba cannot have been that much of a batting superhighway in 2005-06 given that Qld managed to take 20 Victorian wickets in just over 2 days.
Another thing is that some of the few draws have been amongst the most exciting finals there have been, most notably the 1985-6 final in Sydney (when Carl Rackemann was left crying over his inability to dismiss Mike Whitney) and 1995-6 in Adelaide (the match when Adam Gilchrist announced himself big-time but SA held on for a draw).
Finally, I have no problem with Spiro’s suggestion that there be no final at all, as is the case in most football leagues.
However this raises the question: why was a final introduced? I am not sure, but I can only assume that it was because of the possibility of doctored results, something for which English County Cricket is legendary (i.e., teams declare their innings at 0/1 so as to set up a final-day chase for maximum points). This year such set-ups would not have mattered, because Victoria were a country mile ahead on points. But last year Vic and NSW were neck and neck on points right to the end (they both finished equal), so in that case it was fitting that the two sides settled the issue in a final, rather than having the possibility of one being gifted the title through a doctored result against another side in the final round of matches. Cricket is different to football in this respect, so one can make the case that where there is no need for a final in football leagues, there is in cricket.
March 18th 2009 @ 6:59pm
Ian Jessup said | March 18th 2009 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
A few years back the first day of the Shield final (possibly Vic-NSW 90-91) was washed out entirely, yet the rules allowed for another 5 days. Given day 2 was washed out in this year’s final, surely they could have the final to go on for another day?