Increase the prize money for winning the Sheffield Shield to $2,000,000
Paul Ryan | December 03, 2024
The Australian men's Test cricket team's first Test loss to India by 295 runs in Perth has sparked significant debate about the composition of the Australian Test team and the future of Australian cricket.
Before the first test, there was much debate about who should open the batting. There was so much commentary about the lack of runs from Labuschagne and Smith over the past 12 months. Commentators and cricket fans questioned whether the players had adequately prepared for the test.
Post the 295-run loss, there’s been considerable commentary and questions asked about not only the makeup of the team but also if anyone knows of any players worthy of taking their place.
Father Time doesn’t slow down for our champions, and normally cricket fans around Australia would know who and how many players would be next in line for selection. Sadly, “the cupboard is bare” has been the consistent headline and clickbait.
The Sheffield Shield competition has been a breeding ground for the success of the Australian men’s test team for over 100 years.
It has always been a fierce competition, widely regarded as the strongest domestic competition in world cricket. It’s a competition where players proved their worth to be selected to wear the baggy green by scoring runs, taking wickets, and showcasing their wicket keeping skills.
Along with grade cricket, Sheffield Shield games were where current test players refined their skills, created the necessary workload, and got into shape, leading to a test series.
To put it simply, when the Sheffield Shield competition was at its strongest, so was the future of the Australian test cricket team.
The Sheffield Shield was a competition that every state and player aspired to win.
Many people ask, "Do Cricket Australia and the selectors really care about the Sheffield Shield competition nowadays?" State associations and selectors face similar questions about their respective premier cricket competitions.
I fully appreciate that the landscape of modern cricket is different. Money and confusing scheduling across all formats have changed the game.
But does money need to take away the fundamentals and what’s required for a team and players to win games?
For whatever reason, the test players rarely play Sheffield Shield cricket even when they’re available. It seems centre wicket practice sessions have become the preparation of choice rather than becoming match-hardened, getting into form, and, heaven forbid, helping their state win cricket games and the Sheffield Shield.
So as the old saying goes, if you can’t beat em, join em.
How do we make the Sheffield Shield competition stronger? How do we empower a greater emphasis on the competition to future-proof the breeding ground and ultimate success of the Australian test team?
Let’s make it about money and make the prize money for winning the Sheffield Shield competition $2,000,000 every season. Make the prize money for making the Sheffield Shield final but not winning the competition $300,000.
I'm not 100% sure, but I understand the current prize money for winning the Sheffield Shield is maybe in the vicinity of $500,000.
While we're making changes, I'd also like to introduce ACT into the Sheffield Shield competition. We need to create more opportunities for players, especially those over 23, to showcase their skills. Cricket selections are so subjective. Most selections are based on performances, some on potential, while others confuse and crush the dreams and aspirations of individual players who consistently outperform those selected.
So, let’s create more opportunities, as the benefits of having $2,300,000 prize money for making the Sheffield Shield final are exciting.
The benefits:
- Restore the Sheffield Shield to be strongest domestic competition and breeding ground in world cricket
- States would have greater negotiating power with CA to guarantee the scheduling of more Sheffield Shield matches when test players are available.
- State associations, coaches, and selectors will ask more questions about the teams they select. Do we have the right team—the right players? Should we be giving a proven premier cricket player an opportunity? Is the player on this project pathway prepared to participate? All excellent questions. There’s a lot of money on the line.
- State teams would be more inclined to play more assertive and attacking cricket to win more games.
- If more questions are asked and more opportunities provided, would more senior players be inclined to stay in the game and continue to prepare and perform to reach the next level? By "senior," I mean players who are older than 24.
- If the scenario materializes, the premier cricket competitions in each state will need to intensify. Again, this should be considered a positive development.
If I were running Cricket Australia, I’d go one step further and mandate how the winning state could spend the $2,000,000 prize money.
- The players who participated in the Sheffield Shield games throughout the season will split 30% pro rata.
- If we divide 10% between the coaches and medical teams, how many unnecessary workload constraints would vanish?
- The state premier cricket clubs will receive an equal distribution of 30%.
- The state will equally distribute 30% to the regional associations.
The distribution of the winning pool would ensure all the key stakeholders within each state are aligned for a common purpose—winning the Sheffield Shield and producing players to perform at the highest level.
Can Cricket Australia afford the $2,300,000 prize money? A quick glance at their 2023-24 annual report confirms gross revenue for the financial year to be $406M. $2.3M represents 0.57% of the gross revenue, so I’m sure there’s every chance those who’ve been chartered to administer cricket in the best long-term interest of Australian cricket and the wider cricket community will find a way.
The better question is, can Cricket Australia afford not to deliver a $2,300,000 Sheffield Shield prize pool to ensure the Australian test cricket team can continue to thrive for generations to come?
Let’s fill the cupboard.
Hi Paul,
Making the Sheffield Shield the premier domestic first-class competition in the world would require the best players (including Test cricketers) to be available to play in it. The problem for CA is that the prizemoney would have to compensate it for the commitments of the international team to the buffet of short form tournaments while sustaining Test cricket. The state Associations are stuck with the international and franchise cricket program in being able to select their best players. If prizemoney was an incentive then it would have to be a lot more than $2.3 million. When you break down the proposed distributions, none of them are enough to make a difference.
I remember the effect that Shield and Test players had on the quality and intensity of grade cricket, and when Shield matches at the SCG between NSW and Victoria or WA or Qld were like extra Test matches each summer. But that was before the restructuring of international cricket and the emergence (and dominance) of super-rich franchise cricket like the IPL and its many imitators. The Sheffield Shield is no longer a necessary pathway to making a good living playing cricket around the world. There is more professional cricket being played under lights around the world than ever in the game’s history, but, it is almost exclusively the shortest forms of the game. Remember when Kerry Packer set out to create a program of five-day Test cricket—an investment in a Championship that sat alongside the establishment Test cricket program? The establishment went into meltdown!
We can look back at what the Sheffield Shield once was in a time before it was overwhelmed by the current surfeit of international and franchise cricket. But we cannot bring that back. Instead, as you are proposing, we can look at the purpose of the Sheffield Shield today for the players who aspire to it and who are playing in it. I follow the Shield closely and see competitive cricket and wonderfully talented players who value their state caps as much as players in the past did. The Shield will continue to have a place in exposing the players who might succeed in Test cricket. It is important to preserve the integrity of the Shield as a pathway for players to Test cricket. If increasing the prizemoney for the Final will ensure that the state associations will always be picking the best talent available to them to compete in the Shield, then let’s do it. I’d do it without any caveats on how it is distributed—that should be up to the boards of each state association and CA. But I’d make sure the amount is something that will create an incentive for all the states to strive to be as good as they can be in competing for the Sheffield Shield.
Awesome article
Love the idea!!!
I'm sure with further discussion and buy in from the right people around our great game there may be some tinkering.
Great comments Ryany however like many things we do in cricket we wait to the end of this magnificent era to start planning for the next. Shield cricket / Grade cricket has always been the corner posts to a successful national team.
Money shouldn't be the prime objective to an improvement in approach / standard .
Find a way to convert a player or off field medical staff, for individuals to play.
Been a battle and frustration for many a year...
It’s a great topic to talk about Ryano.
Like Steve said, I’m not sure it’s primarily about money. Don’t get me wrong I believe it has a place but more needs to be done by CA to
move away from rushing to the end product and do the bloody hard work at grass roots level, premier cricket and then state based cricket. AFL is a good case in point. If it was a simple triangle with all levels noted, it’s the wrong way around for cricket in Australia I’m afraid.
I coach a lot of very good junior cricketers, and their families get very lost in knowing what the best pathways are for their talented kids.
Us cricketers think it’s simple but it’s not. I have one talented kid that I managed to get included in a Sydney based Premier Club in the 13/14s development squad. That wouldn’t have happened without my knowledge of the system and my connections. He could very well be lost in club cricket land and perhaps zone rep cricket at best even though he has the drive to be his very best.
We know having our countries best players back in Premier cricket and being available for State games when available makes everything better. It should be written in their player contract that they must play unless there is an independent medical report saying they are ruled out.
Former Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy once shared an intriguing perspective: at any given time, there could be around 11 wicketkeepers in Australia capable of stepping into the Australian Test team.
He explained that the Australian incumbent Test wicketkeeper is, of course, one. Then there are the six Sheffield Shield wicketkeepers representing their states and four wicketkeepers playing grade cricket who could also perform at the Test level if given the opportunity.
It’s worth noting that Ian himself was playing first-grade cricket in Brisbane when he got his chance to represent Queensland after Peter Anderson was injured. Remarkably, Ian played just six first-class matches for Queensland before earning selection for the Australian Test team. Healy went on to play 119 Test matches and was ultimately named the wicketkeeper in Australia’s Test Team of the Century.
In my opinion, Healy is Australia's greatest pure gloveman, yet his journey highlights how he rose from grade cricket to the Test arena after only six first-class games.
This raises an intriguing thought: if we consider Ian’s perspective on wicketkeepers, could we apply similar reasoning to other skill sets within a balanced cricket team? For example, could Australia potentially have the following number of players capable of performing at the test level across these roles?
55 batters
11 all-rounders
11 wicketkeepers
22 spinners
33 fast bowlers.
It’s a fascinating concept. With the right combination of hard work and opportunity, who knows what might be possible?