View Full Version : Should there be a Shield final?
Unwritten_Law
9 Feb 2004, 15:16
Just interested in the general concensus on whether or not we should have a shield final.
If you look at this season in particular it would be criminal if Queensland made the final and knocked off the Vics. [I would include Tassie as well but they haven't beaten us yet :D]
In saying that, if the home team can't prepare a road and at least hold out for a draw, I guess there is a pretty good case for them not deserving to win the shield anyway. The odds are heavily stacked against whoever the visiting team may be.
Another factor would be the weather, a team which finishes second may have a shocking run of washed out matches and if not for those matches may well have finished top. One scenario that favours the use of a final.
So, should there be a final OR should the team that finishes on top of the "league" be awarded the shield?
PS Do they still present the winning state with the original shield now it's the milk cup?
Fall Out Boy
9 Feb 2004, 15:28
We need to have a final, otherwise the entire rest of this season would be worthless.
fearlessone77
9 Feb 2004, 15:30
So whats English Premier League all about then???
:p
thewhippersnapper
9 Feb 2004, 15:32
A) Theres usually a final in most competitions.
B) Not having a final would be good only that it would mean the team that deserved to win did win.
Bomber Spirit
9 Feb 2004, 15:36
I think there should be a final.
The odds still favour the minor premier in that they get the home ground advantage and only need a draw; and that's fair enough. But if the 2nd team is good enough, they still have a chance.
As for the original shield, I'm not sure if it's still presented. I hope so but I doubt it. Maybe the shield could go to the minor premier and the milk cup to the winner of the final.
Fall Out Boy
9 Feb 2004, 15:40
Originally posted by fearlessone77
So whats English Premier League all about then???
:p
Absolutely nothing, which is why i no longer watch it.
Thank god the AFL a) has finals and b) has a salary cap.
snakebite01
9 Feb 2004, 15:52
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Absolutely nothing, which is why i no longer watch it.
Not true at all.
Some clubs have the aim only to stay in the top flight and are happy with that.
Teams have to fight to avoid relegation, Champions League spots are on the line as well as UEFA Cup spots. They are not only playing for the title in the EPL. In fact there are realistically only 3-4 teams whose aim at the start of the season is to win the premiership. Every team has their own agenda and own goals and that is what makes it still interesting when Man U or Arse have the title wrapped up with 5 games to go.
thewhippersnapper
9 Feb 2004, 15:54
If you have a lot of money then your going to be successful in Soccer. In AFL is much better and fair.
Yes.
If you're not good enough to prevent a loss on your home patch in a 5-day match then you don't deserve the Shield.
Fall Out Boy
9 Feb 2004, 18:38
Originally posted by snakebite01
Not true at all.
Some clubs have the aim only to stay in the top flight and are happy with that.
Teams have to fight to avoid relegation, Champions League spots are on the line as well as UEFA Cup spots. They are not only playing for the title in the EPL. In fact there are realistically only 3-4 teams whose aim at the start of the season is to win the premiership. Every team has their own agenda and own goals and that is what makes it still interesting when Man U or Arse have the title wrapped up with 5 games to go.
I know how the system works, followed it religiously until my team got relegated and until i got bored with the same old ****.
The EPL is a joke.
With the team that finishes on top and hosts the final decided in many years by the vegrancy of the weather a final is needed. Last season Victoria missed the final due to rain forcing a draw in one match. Although Victoria has clearly dominated the Sheild this season with 5 outright wins from 7 games and in a strong position against SA, it doesn't alter the fact that rain could easily provide a false winner as one state might not get any rain interuptions during a season whilst the a team that finishes second could of been cost 2 or 3 outright wins due to rain. With those extra 8 or 12 points it could easily cost a team a shield victory.
The system has been the same for over 100 years and it ain't going to change soon.
Also for all those EPL nuts, there was a championship match to decide the title 13 years ago.
I was going to say, what they used to do in rugby league is the minor premiers would play off 2nd in the final. If the 1st team won they'd win the comp. If the 2nd team won there would be a grand final played, where the winner wins the premiership. I've always thought thats a good way to have it in a comp with so few teams where you can't have finals series.
On the other hand, i think cricket is unique in that there is already a big advantage to the home side anyway. Although it is a 5 day game, the away side has to win outright. Thats a fair advantage IMO. Would be such an anticlimax without a final.
Bombers_Forever
10 Feb 2004, 06:21
Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
Just interested in the general concensus on whether or not we should have a shield final.
If you look at this season in particular it would be criminal if Queensland made the final and knocked off the Vics. [I would include Tassie as well but they haven't beaten us yet :D]
In saying that, if the home team can't prepare a road and at least hold out for a draw, I guess there is a pretty good case for them not deserving to win the shield anyway. The odds are heavily stacked against whoever the visiting team may be.
Another factor would be the weather, a team which finishes second may have a shocking run of washed out matches and if not for those matches may well have finished top. One scenario that favours the use of a final.
So, should there be a final OR should the team that finishes on top of the "league" be awarded the shield?
PS Do they still present the winning state with the original shield now it's the milk cup?
Last year, QLD were the runaway leaders (just like Vic this year) and were beaten. As a QLD supporter, I was not happy but NSW were better over that one match. As much as it is unfair for the top side to be knocked over, we need a final. The EPL is a joke.
jko'neal
10 Feb 2004, 06:49
Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
Just interested in the general concensus on whether or not we should have a shield final.
If you look at this season in particular it would be criminal if Queensland made the final and knocked off the Vics. [I would include Tassie as well but they haven't beaten us yet :D]
In saying that, if the home team can't prepare a road and at least hold out for a draw, I guess there is a pretty good case for them not deserving to win the shield anyway. The odds are heavily stacked against whoever the visiting team may be.
Another factor would be the weather, a team which finishes second may have a shocking run of washed out matches and if not for those matches may well have finished top. One scenario that favours the use of a final.
So, should there be a final OR should the team that finishes on top of the "league" be awarded the shield?
PS Do they still present the winning state with the original shield now it's the milk cup?
I think it would be criminal if Queensland made it?.Tassie has beat them away and took first innings points at home.Strange that Vic's and Tassie have not played each other yet in the 4 day game.
Russian
10 Feb 2004, 10:27
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
a) has finals The important part of that being the s.
It is ridiculous that a team can go through the season unbeaten and have one bad game and be out but to stop after all the preliminary games is worse. EPL is a bit different because there are other tournaments the clubs play in. Only way I'd consider getting rid of a final is if there was some sort of Super League that the top 2-3 teams get into.