A couple of years ago Cricket Australia changed the points structure for the Sheffield Shield. This included adding in points for every run over 200 scored in the first 100 overs of the innings and points for taking the fifth, seventh and ninth wickets within the first 100 overs.
Basically,the idea of this is to encourage teams to be more attacking. I get it, people like attacking play.
In some other parts of the world this might almost make sense, but Australia really has never had an issue with players not being attacking enough.
However, we certainly have had plenty of criticism regarding the ability of the Australian Test team to be able to dig in and eek out a draw when required, or even just being able to just bat time and grind out runs in difficult batting conditions when required.
The current point system is completely counter productive when it comes to building the sorts of skills into our cricketers required to bat for long periods of time on slow pitches that make it hard to score. It doesn’t build the ability to keep it tight with the ball, keeping the runs down and eek out wickets over a long period of time on a flat wicket without giving too many runs away.
Let’s have a look at the final ladder for the current Shield season.
1 South Australia 5 wins 0 draws 5 losses Points 49.63
2 Victoria 5 wins 2 draws 3 losses Points 49.13
3 New South Wales 5 wins 3 draws 2 losses Points 47.57
4 Queensland 5 wins 0 draws 5 losses Points 46.66
5 Western Australia 4 wins 3 draws 3 losses Points 44
6 Tasmania 2 wins 0 draws 8 losses Points 27.19
So, four teams finished with five wins from 10 matches, that was the most. So there wasn’t any real standout team there. However, South Australia finished top of the table with five wins and five losses, ahead of Victoria and New South Wales. These teams also had five wins, but Victoria had two draws and three losses and NSW had three draws and two losses.
So what we are saying here is that you are better off losing a match but scoring your runs a bit quicker, than scoring a bit slower and getting a draw.
The system is specifically designed to allow a team with five wins and five losses finish ahead of a team with five wins and just two losses simply by virtue of scoring runs faster.
It can cause an unfair advantage for teams whose home grounds tend to favour fast scoring too, since it’s all about the number of runs and wickets taken in that first 100 overs. There are no points for a first innings win, and scoring 300 in the first 100 overs of a single innings gets you as many bonus points as you get for a draw.
So you are better off going for the smash to get a few more runs in the first 100 overs and losing, than you are in playing out a draw.
If Australia wants to be able to be a dominant Test team both abroad as well as at home, then the team needs to know how to win ugly, how to grind out wins in conditions that don’t allow really attacking cricket to succeed.
We have a points system that gives more value to batsmen averaging 30 with a strike rate over 90 than a batsman averaging 50 with a strike rate of 45. Similarly for bowlers, it favours a bowler with a strike rate of 40 who goes at six runs per over than a bowler with a strike rate of 65 who goes at two runs per over – despite the latter having a vastly better average.
Using bonus point type things as tie breakers for teams with the same record is reasonable, but to have it result in dramatically favouring style over substance is only going to have a negative effect on the Test team.
Come on Cricket Australia, let’s come up with something better by the time the next cricket season rolls around.
Shaun Devlin
Guest
There has a system were in case of a draw no bonus points apply.
Bearfax
Guest
Had a feeling your tongue was tucked well in your cheek.
Peeeko
Guest
Just a poor attempt at humour sorry
Nate
Guest
It's a pretty horrible system when NSW who were clearly the best team all year don't make the final. Take into account the possible points they lost from the abandoned match and they could have been even further in front.
E-Meter
Guest
Glad this has been brought up. Bonus point systems in any sport are an abomination. As some have already mentioned, 6 points for a win, 2 for a 1st innings lead in the event of a draw and you get nothing for a loss.
Bearfax
Guest
Certainly easier to understand James and I agree the supporters of the game need to be able to understand how points are given easily. But I still think what happened this year where there was only 5 draws says something for the way the game was played this year, and that has a lot to do with the points system. The way I see it, the game should seek to have as few non results or draws as possible. Maybe that could mean having a limited number of overs per innings. I'm just conjecturing. But draws for the most part are boring, unless its a near thing with tension all the way to the end. And if crowds are going to be drawn to the longer form game, it must remain interesting and generally have a satisfying ending
jamesb
Guest
You need a points system where the fan understands. The current points system is pretty complicated to understand. An example, a team like SA wins. How many points do they get from winning the game? Previously it was six points. And when it was a drawn game, it came back to first innings points, which was two points. Much prefer the previous points system. Much easier to understand.
Bearfax
Guest
That may be a justifiable argument peeeko, but just saying it implies only a gut feeling without any rational reasoning, or is this just a bit of humour as a put down for things South Australian (if so I'm amused). I suspect you have a good reason for your position and would like to hear it. And I'm not a South Australian supporter so there is no more ulterior motive than to read what it is that leads you to that conclusion. Certainly luck was on their side, but how much of that was because of the efforts they put in.
peeeko
Guest
any system where SA not only makes but hosts a shield final is fatally flawed
Bearfax
Guest
I see your points here Chris and I agree in principle. But I would point out a few issues that dont make the issue so simple. Firstly Victoria didnt win 5 matches. They were awarded wining points in their match against NSW because of the poor quality of the NSW home ground. The result could have gone either way or ended in a draw. NSW were therefore disadvantaged in a major way which the points system didnt take into account. Both sides also did not get extra points for their scoring rate etc. In fact rained out matches disadvantage some teams over others. Secondly about some grounds giving certain home teams advantages. Well this happens anyway, whether you change the points system or not. Certain teams playing on certain home grounds are likely to have an advantage skewing the results, so I think a change in the points system would have little impact on this issue. Third, teams should be playing for a win if the game is to progress and attract fans. To play for a draw is negative thinking unless your backs are up against the wall and you have no chance of winning the game. Only then should the game be played for a draw. Playing for just a first innings win again is negative thinking in my mind and nt what the game intended. Since the 2008 season, the lowest draw rate for the season was this latest series with only 5 drawn matches. In the 2013-14 season there were 13 draws. That's what the old system encouraged where 62% of matches did not reach a full conclusion, whereas in this season so far it is only 25%. OK I agree that first innings wins should be given some value. But I wouldnt be giving a large chunk of points because personally I like cricket being played to win, not dragged out to a draw just to get first innings points.
Peter Z
Guest
Yep, agree, it seems out of whack that this could happen. The final should have been Vic - NSW.