How can CA Fix the Shield Final?

[RedStarUncle]

So another year where the top team was able to play defensively on a pretty tame wicket to bat out any chance of the second team securing an outright win...

I think most people would agree Victoria this season has been the better team all season and was the better team in the final, but at the same time a snooze-fest final is becoming a perennial drab end to a competition that desperately needs some good publicity.

There are a lot of options that people have put forward to change the status-quo... my preferred idea would be that the top team can either choose home advantage OR the benefit of the drawn result. Therefore regardless of what they choose, one team in the final is playing to win at their home ground (where they can prepare a result-friendly wicket) OR playing to draw away from home (much more difficult than batting out 3.5 out of 5 days on your home pitch).



The aim is obviously to make the conclusion of the Shield season both a fair method to decide the champion team and also help promote Shield cricket as much as possible. What would you suggest?

 

[LukasTheGreat]

Just play it like the EPL and co, IMO. First place at the end of the season is crowned the victor. I don't think the league is popular enough to warrant a final, keep that for the shorter forms.

 

[eth-dog]

Just play it like the EPL and co, IMO. First place at the end of the season is crowned the victor. I don't think the league is popular enough to warrant a final, keep that for the shorter forms.

Yeah, this.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

When they first introduced the Shield Final in 1982-83, I thought it was a great idea. After 30+ years of mind numbing results I think the time has come to scrap the concept. Top team after 10 matches win it. Simple as that.

 

[Milang_Panthers]

Yeah just scrap it all together.

 

[Hellgood]

Hang on, it was just one year ago that Victoria went over to Adelaide with everything supposedly against them and humiliated the Redbacks with a stirring victory in spite of the pitch.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sheffield-shield-2015-16/content/story/992583.html

As a spectacle, it usually doesn't produce. But as a game of attrition and worth given it's resemblance to test cricket to the players involved it's just simple mindedness to join the chorus of sheep calling to scrap it.

The second placed side get the opportunity to come at the King who has the rightful advantages of incumbency. More often than not they fall short which can be frustrating (as a WA supporter have been on this end of it a couple of times in recent history), but that's just life. When players make it to the next level and go on tours, the hosts won't make it easy for them - why should we train them any differently?

 

[Demosthenes]

Either scrap it or have it at a neutral venue.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Doesn't need fixing

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Does it need to be fixed?
The Shield has long since stopped being a crowd-puller. It is now about producing Test players more than the competition itself, and its certainly not about being a spectacle. CA long ago gave up on trying to get people to attend Shield games.
As such the five days of a Shield final are as close to a Test as domestic cricket gets. A neutral venue would suit me fine (as there is a good chance it would be Canberra fairly often). But over the course of the season, like a series, one team earned the advantage.

Perhaps the away team could be just given the choice of batting or fielding without a toss; but really is it necessary? What would be acheived by changes?

Over the journey there have been some dud draws, some drubbings, and some good finishes (including draws). That's the nature of the multiday game, including Tests. The only "fix" would be to turn the final into a 3 match series, even more like Tests - but that opens up all sorts of new issues.

 

[sobrave]

Make it a timeless test(Well, it's not a test but you know what I mean). No time limit!

 

[Bradesmaen]

Hang on, it was just one year ago that Victoria went over to Adelaide with everything supposedly against them and humiliated the Redbacks with a stirring victory in spite of the pitch.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sheffield-shield-2015-16/content/story/992583.html

As a spectacle, it usually doesn't produce. But as a game of attrition and worth given it's resemblance to test cricket to the players involved it's just simple mindedness to join the chorus of sheep calling to scrap it.

The second placed side get the opportunity to come at the King who has the rightful advantages of incumbency. More often than not they fall short which can be frustrating (as a WA supporter have been on this end of it a couple of times in recent history), but that's just life. When players make it to the next level and go on tours, the hosts won't make it easy for them - why should we train them any differently?

Yeah, you have absolutely no clue on what happened last year, just a result. It was a tough pitch, there was something in it for the bowlers unlike this year. SA didn't want to win via a draw, we wanted to win outright. Sure that cost us a shield, but in the end cricket won.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Yeah, you have absolutely no clue on what happened last year, just a result. It was a tough pitch, there was something in it for the bowlers unlike this year. SA didn't want to win via a draw, we wanted to win outright. Sure that cost us a shield, but in the end cricket won.

That was SA's choice. U cannot bag others just because they dont want to make the same choice.

 

[Bradesmaen]

That was SA's choice. U cannot bag others just because they dont want to make the same choice.

I'm not bagging other states, they are within their rights to do it. I was simply pointing out to someone that they were incorrect on their assumption.

Also, please use the word you and not u. You seem to know how to spell so why bother using a letter instead of the entire word.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Let SA win.

/bradesmaen

 

[ROOTA#6]

I'm not bagging other states, they are within their rights to do it. I was simply pointing out to someone that they were incorrect on their assumption.

Also, please use the word you and not u. You seem to know how to spell so why bother using a letter instead of the entire word.

Because I am lazy

 

[Bradesmaen]

Let SA win.

/bradesmaen

Or more like..

Let there be a proper contest.

 

[barrackers]

Whatever system is used is always going to have issues. My two preferences would be:

Give the second placed team the advantage of deciding whether to bat or bowl. This might not make much difference, but it potentially allows them to better set up a result. The issue with this is it may lead to even bigger roads being created, so it's still a batting paradise on day 4.

Rely on head to head results (win/loss, bonus points, net run rate etc) across the season to determine the winner in the event of the draw. The disadvantage of this is one side potentially still enters the final only needing to draw unless the sides are one win apiece in which case nrr and bonus points including those generated in the final would come into play.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Stuff the second placed side. What the point of working your arse off to finish top only to have the final set up in a manner to try and give second more of a chance.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Whatever system is used is always going to have issues. My two preferences would be:

Give the second placed team the advantage of deciding whether to bat or bowl. This might not make much difference, but it potentially allows them to better set up a result. The issue with this is it may lead to even bigger roads being created, so it's still a batting paradise on day 4.

Rely on head to head results (win/loss, bonus points, net run rate etc) across the season to determine the winner in the event of the draw. The disadvantage of this is one side potentially still enters the final only needing to draw unless the sides are one win apiece in which case nrr and bonus points including those generated in the final would come into play.

Quotient (not run rate, which is immateiral in long form cricket) between the teams, including the final, in the event of a draw is an interesting idea. One side goes in with an advantage but if outplayed risk not taking home the Shield.
Of course, that still leaves the possibility of roads, and both sides declaring seven down so the tail end wickets don't count against them in quotient calculations.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Stuff the second placed side. What the point of working your arse off to finish top only to have the final set up in a manner to try and give second more of a chance.

What's the point of working your arse to go top of the AFL ladder only to still have seven other teams in the mix at the end of it all?

 

[ROOTA#6]

What's the point of working your arse to go top of the AFL ladder only to still have seven other teams in the mix at the end of it all?

The top 4 get an advantage though don't they?? Double chance...home final??

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The top 4 get an advantage though don't they?? Double chance...home final??

Yes, but 1st gets no advantage at all over 2nd.
And 1st in the Shield currently gets a big advantage over 2nd.

 

[barrackers]

Quotient (not run rate, which is immateiral in long form cricket) between the teams, including the final, in the event of a draw is an interesting idea. One side goes in with an advantage but if outplayed risk not taking home the Shield.
Of course, that still leaves the possibility of roads, and both sides declaring seven down so the tail end wickets don't count against them in quotient calculations.

Sides declaring 7 down may not necessarily be a bad thing as it could give more time for a result.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Yes, but 1st gets no advantage at all over 2nd.
And 1st in the Shield currently gets a big advantage over 2nd.

Yes they do. They play the lower ranked sides in their finals

 

[roscreasl98]

Either scrap it or have it at a neutral venue.

Isn't Alice Springs neutral enough for you?