The Sheffield Shield needs more exposure

This is an old article, but I've been enjoying the Cricket Australia streaming coverage on the latest version Apple TV. This is as good as if the matches were on TV and I haven't seen any publicity for them. This season the coverage has improved in most states. Most of them have commentators, it looks like Queensland and WA are the only states that don't have commentators for home games now. I can't see how they would be making any money out of this but it looks like it would be part of a plan to see how it goes and possibly start introducing advertising or making it a paid service. I would like to see them continue this even if it was ad-supported or had an additional fee on top of the Cricket Australia Live Pass. Ad-supported would be better because it allows people who aren't initially interested to start watching and become interested. I started watching Cricket in the early eighties when one-day Cricket was new and exciting, similar to the Big Bash now. Within a year or two Test Cricket was may favourite form and I was attending Sheffield Shield games. The same thing can happen with young people now who are introduced to Cricket through the Big Bash. There will be some fans who develop an interest in Test Cricket and if they can watch it, Sheffield Shield. I hope that Cricket Australia can continue this and start to promote it. They can make it more attractive by making sure there is a commentator at each game. This can be injured, recently-retired, or female players who will have a chance to develop media skills. There is also the chance that aspiring commentators could use it as a low-paid entry into commentating that would possibly lead to future opportunities with larger TV or radio networks. If the coverage became popular enough they wouldn't be low-paid anymore. I don't mind coverage with a camera at only one end, it gives the feeling of being at the ground, but most of them have a camera at both ends. The Queensland coverage has good camera angles but no commentary. Some would argue that no commentary is better but it helps to understand the game. This streaming could also be seen around the World, which provides more opportunities for advertising revenue. From what I have heard from commentators, the coverage is not restricted to Australia.

In what way is it anachronistic, anon?

...and Louis Theroux could umpire while David Attenborough breathlessly explains the finer details of the game.

There is logic in what you are presenting here ChrisB but in a sense I see you speaking for today not tomorrow and also merely pointing out apparent interest. No question T20 is all the rage, as 60 over and then 50 over cricket was back in the 80s and 90s. But over time exposure reduces interest. People are excited about T20 comps but crowds are not as substantial as you would expect. For example the BBL comp involving Australian interstate sides averages only around 11,000 and on average is actually higher than attendance to international T20s here in Oz. Much relates to how the game is promoted. There's big money to be made for players in the T20 matches in India, where it is the most popular. But not so great here in Oz. What is important is to determine how people watch cricket. Here in Oz we televise tests, One dayers and T20s incl BBL. Would it interest you to know that test cricket remains the most popular televised form of cricket and One Dayers second. In a recent Indian test series a maximum of over 3 million were recorded watching test cricket. It proved very popular. BBL rarely gets over the million mark and on occasions less than 500, 000. Even against NZ in test cricket viewer ratings reached a maximum over 1,500,000, thanks partly to the day night pink ball experiment. Test cricket and ODIs still rule the cricket public in Australia, you just dont se them because they're watching it on TV. And what was tried in test cricket with the day night idea is the sort of innovation that brings people back to the game, because they can get home in time to watch it. The problem so long with tests and Sheffield Shield are that they play the majority of their days during the week when people are working. That's one of the reasons ODIs and T20s are successful, because they are accessible on TV and to attend. Add to that heavy promotional work and lots of on ground extras and the appeal is made. What Shield and test cricket need are changes of structure so that they are more appealing to the public. One is day night matches. A second is ensuring the game is being played on weekends for Shield cricket. One idea is to play the game on consecutive weekends as day night fixtures perhaps limiting the innings to 100 overs each and promoting the young stars coming through. Its all in the packaging and availability for people to watch. Sheffield Shield isnt dead, its just been ignored by administrators who need a few marketing skills (and yes I have studied a little marketing)

Anon, Test cricket has never been healthier In Australia and England, and there were great crowds in South Africa, India and New Zealand in all their recent series. The way i see it, Test cricket is bouncing back.

If you believe your last paragraph then I think you are deluded

Everything you said is the truth

I'm probably older than you! I think the lacklustre 2015/16 summer of six mostly uncompetitive tests where the opposition weren't really interested made me realise I'm only watching test cricket out of habit. Even the Ashes series in the middle of 2015 was really underwhelming. Resorting to gimmicks such as pink ball tests to stay relevant, but nothing test cricket does will help. Crowds will eventually drop back to normal day test match levels. Watching the day/night test in prime time, I couldn't help but think why not play a damn T20 game right now. Instead we got stuck with three days of the teams getting skittled for less than 200 in each innings. I think you have it the wrong way around. No-one needs to be told T20 is more exciting than test cricket. It's self-evident. We're constantly told how test cricket is the ultimate form of the game, true cricket, we get to see the full spectrum of batting and bowling skills, so that's why you should pay attention to it. Take away that marketing spin and test cricket would have crowds not much better than Shield crowds.

And that folks is why t20 will never turn a new generation into fans of First Class cricket, at least on mass. Why would a young fan follow the older version of the game when they are told the new version is more exciting.

Let test cricket and first class cricket die. It is an antiquated, anachronistic form of entertainment. Actually, let the old men and traditionalists watch test and first class cricket on suburban ovals. There will always be a place for test cricket and first class cricket because those who can't make it in T20 might still want to play cricket in summer, but it has no real place on TV screens when T20 exists. Tradition is no reason to hang on to something. If it was, women would still be excluded from Lord's. Test and first class cricket was on its last legs 40 years ago, hence one day and World Series cricket. Put the patient out of its misery! Australia, England and South Africa are the only countries that take test cricket seriously. It seems like Australia and especially England hold on to the tradition of test cricket for dear life because it's the only part of the game that hasn't been swallowed whole by India (and that's because India care about test cricket). If you want to see the best batsmen in the world (Kohli and Gayle) and their most inventive and devastating best you watch T20. If you want to watch a game that rewards old plodders like the Ed Cowan's of the world, go watch test cricket.

I dunno, if Stephen Fry was included in one of the teams they would probably televise it.

No it wasn't. Shield crowds dropped dramatically post-WWII and post-Bradman, and they never recovered. Even in the 60s and 70s the Shield was not a "major drawcard". It never will be. I'm all for giving crickey Australia a kicking, but the Shield's insignificance is not really there fault. The only thing they perhaps could have done was moved it to a franchise model back in the 60s maybe that might have done something. You can't seriously expect any broadcaster to devote four days of their scheduling to something no one would watch all the way through? Just because cricket tragics like us argue about it on here doesn't mean there is a latent audience out there for it. The wider public couldn't give a crap The reason they market T20 is because it appeals to a wider, younger largely non-cricket audience not the other way round. I reckon you could spend millions on promoting a Shield final, giving it blanket coverage and still get no more than 500 people turn up each day and a few thousand at best tune in. I ran some of the comments on here past my wife who loathes cricket but has got into the big bash as my boys are into it, and play cricket (funnily she's never watched my team play) and her response was "why on earth would anyone have enough time to watch a game between 2 states all day for how long - 4 days. Madness" Sometimes you need to drop the blinkers and look at the bigger picture

Before World Series Cricket came onto the scene in the 70s, S Shield was a major drawcard. People flocked to games and the final was almost a gala affair. WE did it once. Why then can we not do it again? Requires CA to grow a backbone and say no to the corporate dollar and instead put Shield cricket once again at the forefront of all domestic cricket in this country.

I have been pushing for S Shield being telecast for ages. It should be a proviso as part of claiming cricket rights.. CA should insist on it. Having to watch an acceptable online live stream of the final is not the same as watching it on a wide screen tele. Also having to watch it at the suburban Glenelg ground hardly comes close to having it on at the refurbished Adelaide Oval showcase stadium. What I believe is now the best cricket venue in the country.

Given they have broadcast the Shield final the last few years on Fox, I presume very few actually watched as they haven't bothered this year. And the ABC are no longer in the business of broadcasting mens sport.

Totally agree Jake. Well said. I guess because the games are four days long, some networks are loath to take it on...its length in some ways is in this fast food world a bit of a negative. But when one looks at the burgeoning talent coming through that cant be seen in most other televised areas of the game, you realise what is being missed. Some Sheffield Shield games are as good as some of the lower tier test matches. The fact that four of the six sides finished level on 5 wins each shows how competitive the competition is. We cop endless hours of American football, even sometimes at college level and we cant promote our own major summer game. Wake up TV stations. This is Australia.

It is a shame that traditional cricket has been marginalised and degraded. Cricket Australia has one trick and that is to get the Poms to tour. They have done nothing about facilities or making cricket more accessible. Even the manner in which traditional cricket is played is sloppy and lacks any urgency. It is a shame.

YEEEEESSS!!!!! I have been saying this for years. I wish that domestic cricket was televised, whether on the ABC or on commercial tender, but to deprive us from watching it is to condemn test and long form cricket to a slow death.