Australian Domestic Season 2016/17

[Gnske]

No, that's justice.

 

[Burgey]

Like to see SA chase this down with about four overs to spare. Would be good to watch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Travis Head 350* on the cards

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Oh, yeah; Victoria won the Shield with a drawn final.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh, yeah; Victoria won the Shield with a drawn final.

Negative cricket from SA playing out the draw. Sad!

 

[Red]

Shield final should be played somewhere accessible to at least a few Australians. Give it its due. Surely it could have been somewhere like the Junction Oval?

I would have gone to a day or two had it been there. Alice Springs is ridic.

 

[Red]

After writing that, I just had a look at the Junction Oval's Wiki site and saw...

The redevelopment of the venue, expected to be completed in time for the 2017–18 cricket season, will incorporate several new features:[7]

A boutique-sized alternate first-class venue with a capacity of up to 7000;
A National Centre for Diversity through Cricket incorporating the 'Harmony in Cricket' community hub;
On-site self-contained accommodation for visiting teams, coaches, administrators, officials and volunteers;
High quality training, medical and rehabilitation facilities;
An administrative home for Cricket Victoria's various activities;
A home for the Sport Education and Development Australia Cricket Program;
Improved oval irrigation and drainage;
An extensive turf training area;
A 10-lane indoor training centre; and

So perhaps if the Vics happen to host it again next year, it'll be in Vic.

 

[burr]

A final doesn't work in long-form cricket because you can't take the draw out of the equation. They need to scrap it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

After writing that, I just had a look at the Junction Oval's Wiki site and saw...



So perhaps if the Vics happen to host it again next year, it'll be in Vic.

if?

A final doesn't work in long-form cricket because you can't take the draw out of the equation. They need to scrap it.

Nah have to have the final. Having any tournament without a decisive final is stupid. The number of draws in Shield finals is actually quite low in the last couple of decades.

A draw getting you a win is the reward for finishing on top, and if you don't have a final then the team finishing on top wins anyway, so I really don't see what you'd achieve at all by eliminating the final? You just get one less game of cricket.

Don't really follow the logic behind the desire to eliminate the final.

 

[Gnske]

Easy solution, play as many Shield games as it takes for Victoria not to be at the top of the leaderboard.

A solution everyone can be happy with. That way no one has to see Seb Gotch get a winner's medal.

 

[Midwinter]

If the final is done away with it also removes the interest in the final rounds of the season where there is a battle to make the final.

This year 5 of the 6 teams could make the final at the start of the last round and the second finalist was not known until the second last over of the last day of the season.

The final was a contest till after tea on the fourth day, btw how many test matches are still a contest at that point.

No final and the last round had no relevance to winning the shield.

People who don't understand that draws can be very competitive and interesting games (apart from obviously not watching soccer) probably aren't really interested in cricket.

The current final system is not the perfect way to end the season, (playing the final to a finish is the best way), but it is best of the alternatives.

It has been an interesting and competitive season and to denigrate that by complaining that the final was a draw is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Imho

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it'd be interesting to allow the final to be decided by first innings lead (still play two innings, but declare first innings leader the winner if the match is drawn). You'd still get a team playing for a draw sometimes, but never right from the start, and much less often in general.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it'd be interesting to allow the final to be decided by first innings lead (still play two innings, but declare first innings leader the winner if the match is drawn). You'd still get a team playing for a draw sometimes, but never right from the start, and much less often in general.

Not sure about that, but I don't hate the idea tbh

 

[burr]

If the final is done away with it also removes the interest in the final rounds of the season where there is a battle to make the final.

This year 5 of the 6 teams could make the final at the start of the last round and the second finalist was not known until the second last over of the last day of the season.

The final was a contest till after tea on the fourth day, btw how many test matches are still a contest at that point.

No final and the last round had no relevance to winning the shield.

People who don't understand that draws can be very competitive and interesting games (apart from obviously not watching soccer) probably aren't really interested in cricket.

The current final system is not the perfect way to end the season, (playing the final to a finish is the best way), but it is best of the alternatives.

It has been an interesting and competitive season and to denigrate that by complaining that the final was a draw is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Imho

I don’t have a particular dog in this fight but I think that argument could go both ways. Yes, this year the battle was for second but it could be for first another year and make the last round very exciting, as happened in the county championship in England in 2016.

Regards the draw, my issue is not with the draw as an outcome to a match but that one team has less incentive to contest for the win from the start. You’re not starting from a baseline of zero and I think in ‘grand’ finals that should always be the case. Look at other finals, e.g. Champions League. Away goals count up until the final and then it doesn’t matter how you got there. It’s game on, best on the day wins.

 

[Red]

I think it'd be interesting to allow the final to be decided by first innings lead (still play two innings, but declare first innings leader the winner if the match is drawn). You'd still get a team playing for a draw sometimes, but never right from the start, and much less often in general.

It's not a terrible idea, and it's the way most local 2+ day comps decide winners, but you'd still rather a FC comp be played as close to test conditions as possible.

The way it's done now is pretty reasonable. Top team wins if it's a draw as a reward for a great season, and it put some pressure on the lower ranked team to play really good cricket.

Something I'd love to see in the future is Shield cricket played in more regional venues, like Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo in Vic, or Woollongong and Canberra in NSW.

 

[NUFAN]

Congrats Victoria, 3 in a row is a big achievement. I love Pews idea and think it is the fairest and most exciting possible move. The team who finishes first already has a massive advantage playing at the ground of their choice.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don’t have a particular dog in this fight but I think that argument could go both ways. Yes, this year the battle was for second but it could be for first another year and make the last round very exciting, as happened in the county championship in England in 2016.

Regards the draw, my issue is not with the draw as an outcome to a match but that one team has less incentive to contest for the win from the start. You’re not starting from a baseline of zero and I think in ‘grand’ finals that should always be the case. Look at other finals, e.g. Champions League. Away goals count up until the final and then it doesn’t matter how you got there. It’s game on, best on the day wins.

So you're not advocating the abolishment of the final, you're advocating that a draw shouldn't give the title to the home team? Then what you just play a timeless match? You don't think that could get boring?

Clearly not having a final isn't a viable option for aforementioned reasons. Also without a final you could potentially have the Shield winner confirmed with several rounds to go, or even be pretty confident of who it would be as early as half way through the season. Which would be terrible

 

[stephen]

I like the first innings points wins if it's a draw. Lovely idea.

 

[Tangles]

You could make 2 play 3 for the right to play the minor premiers. You still need to stop the no 1 team playing for a draw early though.

 

[Red]

You still need to stop the no 1 team playing for a draw early though.

There's still danger in playing for the draw, and you still have to be a good enough team to bat for a long period of time.

I don't mind it as it is now. It rewards the best team of the whole season, while still giving the opposition a chance to win it if they are good enough to.