Cricket Australia have not made a single recent decision which is pro-Sheffield Shield. This summer was kicked off not with a few rounds of Shield but the One-Day Cup.
Now don’t get me wrong, it was a great tournament, but surely it was more urgent to get in a few rounds of first-class cricket, especially at a time when the Australian team is rebuilding?
But no, the Shield came second. As always.
Any player wanting to press their claims to the Test side during December or January either has to be in the Test side, have a first-class record they can point to, or do well in the Big Bash. Because January is all international cricket and BBL.
Again, the Shield comes second.
Now they want to get rid of the Sheffield Shield final.
Too boring, too much time, no point. “They didn’t need it in my day,” said Wally Edwards, as if cricket hasn’t changed just a little since the early 1970s.
Well, you know something? A lot of grand finals are boring. The 2015 AFL grand final was boring. The NRL 2015 grand final was so memorable in part because close grand finals are so rare.
The real reason is CA are sick of the Sheffield Shield. It takes up valuable time and money which could be spent on Big Bash games – which give CA greater financial independence.
Also, the current CA management have a personal investment in BBL – it was created under their watch, whereas they inherited the Shield (never underestimate the desire of any decision maker in any field to leave a legacy).
This is extremely short sighted.
The strength of Australian cricket on the international stage stems from the Sheffield Shield. It is the most fiercely fought first-class competition in the world. It is tough, it is ruthless, and it is the best preparation any country has for Test cricket.
Only the very best international players succeed in it (Barry Richards, Gary Sobers, Imran Khan, Wes Hall). Even quality players like Andy Flower and Graeme Hick struggled.
Australia has never really had an extended form slump internationally because of the strength of the Shield. Even in dire times, like the mid ’80s, it doesn’t take long for us to be competitive again. We have form recessions, not depressions, because we can rely on this fabulous nursery to put up good, battle-hardened players.
But now that looks to be changing.
We live in the real world and money has to be brought in, but that means looking after the talent pipelines, and the Shield is the best there is – better than academies or development squads or high-science bootcamps. It is fiercely competitive, parochial and tough.
The Shield needs to be given more priority. We neglect it at our peril.
Bakkies
Guest
That's a pathetic response. If I wasn't clueless than I wouldn't have asked the question.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Neutral curator is the way to go for me.
matth
Guest
Something needs to be done about the Shield final being constantly played on absolute roads, as the home team need only draw the match. Even giving the away captain the option of batting or bowling won't really help, the pitch will be a draw making highway even so. I guess options are to play at a neutral venue (it's not like crowds show up anyway), or more radically, let the visiting team's curator prepare the pitch - then of course you will get a green monster. I don't have the answer, but the current system just doesn't work.
Ash
Guest
I don't think you've ever watched a single game of Baseball in you life if you're comparing T20 cricket to Baseball. They're nothing alike. Actually Baseball is more comparable to Tests where nothing happens for a large part and then in between sudden flurry of action occurs. Plus you seem clueless to the fact that the State Associations are the ones who actually own the BBL teams not CA.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Excellent post, JohnB. Cheers.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Yeah, I agree with this. Five rounds of Shield cricket is at worst 17 days of 100 overs of cricket.
Bakkies
Guest
Due to the made up entities in the Base Ball League do the state associations which actually develop the cricketers and run club competitions actually profit from that competition. I don't how any Victorian Cricket come to a decision to support with the option of the Renegades and the Stars? Cricket in Australia is run by nutcases and old boys
no one in particular
Roar Guru
By time the Big Bash starts there would have been 5 rounds of Sheffield Shield played. How many more rounds do you think they should have played? If they played seven by Christmas the same people would be complaining that there hasn't been enough Shield games at the back-end to help selectors for the next tour
JohnB
Guest
Atawhai, that sort of thing has happened for a long time. I believe one Michael Maranta (well known sporting name in Brisbane) was the first to "sub in" to a Shield game replacing someone called into the Australian side, in the early 1980s. As an aside Maranta was an Australian Schoolboy in rugby and an absolute gun cricketer at school - his very modest FC record shows just how tough an environment that is. I understand your point about integrity of the Shield, but it's a hard one. The national side should have first call on players, so if they need someone who has started to play a Shield game, that player should go. Does that player not get replaced, handicapping his team? Recognising that that isn't what happened in Pattinson's case, and that there's much less handicap involved if you just require the Vics (in this case) to keep their original team, the question is does the national team interest extend as far as having its fringe players able to get playing time rather than twiddling their thumbs? The issue is I think you could easily have a situation where someone didn't play for much of a season because they were constantly 12th or 13th man. There's also the argument that it strengthens the competition to have the best players playing. On balance, I think it's better to have Pattinson (and O'Keeffe) playing than not. Getting rid of the Shield final seems crazy to me, although some control needs to be exerted on pitch preparation (how I don't know). If nothing else, I think it's had a role in identifying potential test cricketers. The scheduling certainly doesn't help the Shield. I don't so much mind getting the 50 over competition over early in the season, but while the big gap in school holiday time may be a commercial imperative it does turn the Shield season into 2 quite separate seasons, and must affect the players who get no chance to play a FC innings for a long period. It also doesn't help that Shield games coincide with tests - hardly surprising no-one goes to them. It also obviously means the test players don't play, slowly eroding the standards. Unfortunately, there's little solution for that unless you cut right back on international cricket which isn't going to happen.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Tests are still the pinnacle of cricket, first class cricket should be given more priority.
Rellum
Roar Guru
No you are not alone, I think it was pathetic and definitely degrading the integrity of the Sheffield Shield.
Sambo
Guest
Totally agree with Stephen. The comment by Atawhai enforces the lack of support given to the Shield competition. A bit of a joke to change players in the middle of a match.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
After being overlooked for the third Test, James Pattinson was sent to Perth to play for Victoria on days three and four of their Shield clash with Western Australia. Chris Tremain played the first two days, after which Pattinson took his place. Am I alone in thinking that this has the effect of degrading the integrity of the Sheffield Shield? And how is that what amounts to a tactical substitution did not cost the match its first-class status? Just wondering.
Wayne
Roar Guru
BBL = Pay Day for CA If the players want the ridiculous amount of money they get now, CA needs the BBL
AREH
Roar Guru
Yep good call I think. Sadly the sheffield shield comp is not considered a priority now by anyone apart from hardened fans, and CA needs to see it as number 1!