Since the final was introduced into the Sheffield Shield competition in 1982-83, there have only been a handful of close finishes.
There have been thrilling results and memorable matches despite big margins, like Queensland winning for the first time in 1994-95, or Victoria’s emotion-charged thrashing of Queensland in 2003-04 just two months after their coach, David Hookes, died.
However the matches that went down to the wire have been few and far between.
NSW beat Queensland by one wicket in 1984-85 as Carl Rackemann bowled himself into the ground for the Queenslanders searching for that elusive first title. They had a draw the next year, with NSW hanging on at home and claiming the shield.
After a 13-season drought, South Australia in front of a big home crowd, which grew as the afternoon continued, managed to stave off Western Australia to stonewall a draw. The last-wicket pair deprived Western Australia for more than an hour, with then-skipper Jamie Siddons batting 107 minutes for four runs.
However, there have been too many tame draws and conservative attitudes taken into the final, generally by the home team who finished on top after the home-and-away season and therefore only need a draw to win the competition.
Since the final started 32 years ago, there have only been five occasions where the visiting state has won: NSW three times, Queensland in 1996-97 and Western Australia in ’98-99.
Draws have also often been caused by flat wickets being prepared, as we had at the neutral Bellerive Oval during the week.
Victoria finished on top and earned the right to host the final, but with the MCG in World Cup mode and the Junction Oval deemed not at first-class standard, the Bushrangers chose Hobart, even though Cricket Australia rules state that if the top team doesn’t have a suitable venue to host the final, their opponents can (but that’s another issue).
The Bellerive pitch was like a road, with Western Australia having to make the running right throughout, and they did, but the Vics on the final day blocked all day to hoist the famous shield for the 29th time.
Their long-serving, out-going coach, Greg Shipperd, is conservative by nature and the Bushrangers were playing time, which got them in trouble on the fourth day as a lack of intent saw their first innings fall away alarmingly. But their experienced campaigners led the way on day five.
The final format means you have the potential for outstanding, attacking cricket being played in the last round to decide who clinches a finals spot. But do we want a flat pitch prepared where it will be impossible for the visiting team to get the 20 wickets they need to win? The answer has to be no.
If the final was to stay, do you make it at a neutral venue like Manuka in Canberra? Or – as former Tasmanian assistant coach and Australian bowling coach Ali De Winter said during the ABC’s coverage of the final – make it a match with a guaranteed outcome, like the old timeless Tests?
I think they should resort to the original format: whoever is on top after the 10 rounds of home-and-away fixtures wins the title.
There have been plenty of examples where the last round or even last match has decided the Shield.
In the last first-class match of Ian Chappell’s brilliant career, in 1980, South Australia was looking to draw against Victoria in Adelaide, but the Vics bowled them out and won.
In 1974, Jeff Thomson had hardly played a game for his original state NSW. However, they picked him for the last match of the season against what was to become his new home, Queensland, who needed to win to claim the Shield for the first time.
Greg Chappell was in charge of Queensland for the first time that season and they had charged from bottom to top, but Thommo ripped through them, giving the shield to Victoria.
There have been examples with that format where the title is decided with a few rounds left, but unless they make changes to the concept of the Shield final, our domestic competition’s showpiece will continue to largely be a drab affair.
Sheikh
Guest
The top side get home field advantage - the ability to prepare a wicket that suits them and with a home crowd. That's considered to be sufficient for the remainder of the Sheffield Shield competition, so why change it? As to the points system - it benefits teams attacking, because scores or wickets after the 100th over of an innings don't accumulate bonus points. I'm sure it's by no means perfect, but the scoring system for the final should reflect the scoring system for the rest of the competition, surely
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I was also thinking you could use a point system to help decide the game, with some additional weighting for the top side to give them some benefit for finishing first. I do have concerns about the current point system though, as it doesn't seem all that in tune with the game and there's too much randomness in how it benefits teams.
GD66
Guest
CA have made it crystal clear they couldn't care less about the Shield final, with last year's game allocated to Manuka and this year Hobart the chosen venue, despite a clear-cut set of rules regarding home ground advantage. If they don't care, why should we ? As soon as Blundstone was announced as the venue, the memory of game after game being played there on a flat deck instigated immediate indifference, and with the locals having no part in proceedings, who would go along to watch? On top of the appalling spectacle of the Matador Cup being played out in empty stadia at the start of the season, the CA marketing team need a massive rocket. Yes, the books will look good with the income from the World Cup, and indeed the Big Bash, but at state level the CA administration are fast becoming a train wreck. Just a home-and-away series will do me, I can recall several teams were in contention to play in the Shield final on the last weekend a couple of seasons back, and that made entertaining radio.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
Keep the final, but make the sure the pitch is a result wicket. Then it will be a matter of who can hold their nerve under pressure - which can only be good for budding Test players.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
The article is spot on. The Sheffield Shield is not there for spectators, so why have a final? Especially when it's played on neutral territory with 8 people in attendance.
Gaz
Guest
I think Sheikh's idea has some merit, similar to how the whole Shield season is played anyway, why not give it a go, means both teams will be playing attacking cricket. Take it to Manuka again too if you like, happy to go and watch Final there again. It's certainly first class standard. Just depends if the AFL want to play some div 3 warm up game there and have it booked.
sheek
Roar Guru
Having given the matter further thought, I agree the 'safety net' for the minor premiers must be removed. In other sports, like AFL, NRL & A-League, it's possible the minor premiers might not even make the final. This is the one thing that holds back the Sheffield Shield final as a potential spectacle. The minor premiers only have to draw so consequently there is no incentive for them to make "a game of it." Whether the final is decided by bonus points, or a restriction on maximum number of overs faced per inninngs, I don't know. But clearly something has to be done to make it a fairer contest.
Pope Paul vii
Guest
Mike Veletta grinded 260 in a SS final
Trev
Guest
First innings points, simple. Vics would have been forced to chase the total on the last day.
Nordburg
Guest
Alex,the Shield final is and has been from day 1 5 days -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Could always just play a 5 day match, as much as obnoxious cricket hierarchy types won't like it a 5 day match would likely have produced a result in 2 of the last 3 years.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Only problem with that is Manuka is inevitably a road. Though I don't think that makes much difference when the home grounds have generally been prepared the same way.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Quit whining.
Sheikh
Guest
The interesting things there would be that WA's 2nd innings was only 55 overs and they declared at 2/293 (an extra 0.93 bonus points for WA, so a 'lead' of 1.1 bonus points), but that left Victoria with only 95 overs to face, not 100. You could do some recalculating of the bonus points so that Victoria then get 0.0105 bonus points (0.01 * 100/95) for every run over 190. This would mean Victoria have two targets: 334 for the win, or 295 without losing their 5th wicket to take the bonus lead. If you left the team batting last with only 50 overs to face, they'd get 0.02 bonus points for every run over 100, so the declaring team would have to balance when to declare against the advantage gained by batting last. I can see it getting complex, but not as complex as Duckworth-Lewis!
Simoc
Guest
Its a waste of time (the shield final). Top points finish is enough for most sporting competitions in the world but in Oz we want a final for everything. Winning the season home and away should be where the big money prize is with a cup going to the grand final winner . Its a TV event but that doesn't apply to SS cricket.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I still say neutral Grounds persons are the best way to avoid "home" pitches. I don't mind the idea of the home team winning the toss as long as other measures are in place to stop them controlling the games pace.
13th Man
Guest
And as usual that favours NSW. Everything favours either NSW or VIC. The shield final should have been at the WACA. Read the playing conditions! The only TRUE neutral venue is Alice Springs! There is no point in the shield final anyway, team finishes top prepares a road and plays out a boring draw. Team finishing top might as well just win the trophy after the home and away season.
dan lonergan
Guest
i like the idea of a bonus points system. introducing that is the only way it can survive.
ghost
Guest
what about leave home ground advantage with first placed side but instead of toss to decide who bats/bowls let second (away) side have that choice ? might not mean less draws but would be interesting to see how away sides with benefit of knowing before match whether batting/bowling set their match plan to try and produce result . also wonder if that might influence preparation of wickets as make it too flat then likely that advantage would be taken up by away team .
Mark
Guest
Love this idea Sheikh! As you point out, there would have to be bonus points in the 2nd innings too to avoid teams "playing for a draw". But at least there would be a game within the game if an outright result is not going to eventuate.