Why are the games so un-even?

[open365]

2 points for discusion-

1.wouldn't it be fairer to toss up only for the first match then alternate for the remaining ones?

2.Why are the amount of matches countries play so badly organised?teams should never ever play 7 consecutive ODIs against eachother,thats just pointless.on the test side of things, i would like to have a standardised 2 matches against the minnows, 4 against the big nations and 5 for the realy big series like the ashes or Pakistan India.

what do you think?

 

[greg]

If the toss is predetermined then it just gives a massive advantage to the home team.

 

[Barney Rubble]

2 points for discusion-

1.wouldn't it be fairer to toss up only for the first match then alternate for the remaining ones?

2.Why are the amount of matches countries play so badly organised?teams should never ever play 7 consecutive ODIs against eachother,thats just pointless.on the test side of things, i would like to have a standardised 2 matches against the minnows, 4 against the big nations and 5 for the realy big series like the ashes or Pakistan India.

what do you think?

I think ODI series should be limited to 5 matches, 7 in a row is a bit of a stretch. I also think as you said, Test series should be standardised - however, I think with the increasingly small number of drawn games these days, 4-Test series would be better replaced by 3-Test series, which are more likely to produce a winner. 2-match series against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (for the limited time they remain a Test nation), 3-match series against most teams and 5-match series for the big ones - the Ashes, Ind v Pak, perhaps NZ v Aus as well.

 

[Kiwi]

If the toss is predetermined then it just gives a massive advantage to the home team.

How do u work that one out? Neutral grounds man are what is needed to close the gap.

 

[greg]

2 points for discusion-

1.wouldn't it be fairer to toss up only for the first match then alternate for the remaining ones?

2.Why are the amount of matches countries play so badly organised?teams should never ever play 7 consecutive ODIs against eachother,thats just pointless.on the test side of things, i would like to have a standardised 2 matches against the minnows, 4 against the big nations and 5 for the realy big series like the ashes or Pakistan India.

what do you think?

Standardised 4 test series wouldn't work - it's a push as it is trying to fit 7 tests into an English summer.

Rather than reserve the longer series for "historically important" matches (although that can be continued with as well), long series are also important for "top of the table clashes" - see for example the way that India-Aus series were extended to four matches in the last two series. The real problem is 1) the inflexibility of the ICC calender (which is being improved) and 2) the necessity of two match series against the minnows. As was alluded to during the last summer, the past Sri Lanka tours at the start - with a summer playing the counties (with some incentives included to put out strong teams) with a test match at the end are a better model.

 

[greg]

How do u work that one out? Neutral grounds man are what is needed to close the gap.

You've answered your own question.

 

[Pratters]

Toss just lets you decide whether to bat first or second. Maybe some one can bring out a stat of percentage wins after winning the toss and losing the toss to show it doesnt make that big a difference in real terms.

Another point raised some times is let the away teams decide instead of having tosses to neutralise or reduce the home advantage. It is one of the true tests to win in diffident 'away' conditions and it brings charm so I wouldnt want to do that.

However two real problems to be adressed for one day matches raised and obvious are:

1) The super sub rule implementing a greater advantage for teams winning tosses in most cases - why do that ICC?

2) The dew factor effecting teams losing tosses a lot.

These two are serious problems imo.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wouldn't like to see the toss pre-determined. The toss is a 50/50 chance everytime the coin goes up, so there is nothing unfair about it.

The maximum number of ODI are slotted into the schedule simply because of the money they generate.

 

[Kiwi]

well not really as the away team should have enough fire power to overcome there strength. There has to be something that come out of a home advantage. Ok aus prepare pitches to SHane Warnes advantage but sure that means u play 2 spinners to try and take control of that. because really what is one extra seamer going to do

 

[greg]

Toss just lets you decide whether to bat first or second. Maybe some one can bring out a stat of percentage wins after winning the toss and losing the toss to show it doesnt make that big a difference in real terms.

.

I'm pretty certain that the stats will show the opposite.

 

[Natman20]

I found it interesting that out of 10 matches New Zealand have lost 6 tosses and have won only 4 matches of which 2 of them were won when we did win the toss and 2 for when we lost the toss. I guess that was kind of pointless oh well

 

[Kiwi]

in a one dayer i didnt believe the toss had any advantage at all, however now the super-sub thing has happened it is really important part.

 

[Pratters]

For test cricket:

http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Misc/MiscTossAnalysis.asp

  	   Matches  	   Won  	   Drawn  	   Lost  	   Win %
Home Side Won Toss
Elected to Bat 	677 	262 	241 	174 	38.70
Sent Opposition In 	242 	113 	75 	54 	46.69
Overall Total 	919 	375 	316 	228 	40.81
Home Side Lost Toss
Fielded First 	620 	217 	229 	174 	35.00
Sent in to Bat 	224 	83 	88 	53 	37.05
Overall Total 	844 	300 	317 	227 	35.55
Touring Side Won Toss
Elected to Bat 	620 	174 	229 	217 	28.06
Sent Opposition In 	224 	53 	88 	83 	23.66
Overall Total 	844 	227 	317 	300 	26.90
Touring Side Lost Toss
Fielded First 	677 	174 	241 	262 	25.70
Sent in to Bat 	242 	54 	75 	113 	22.31
Overall Total 	919 	228 	316 	375 	24.81

So in ALL matches (sum of home side winning toss and away side winning toss)

M Won after winning toss lost after winning toss
1763 602 528

Home teams win 140 matches more than losing and away teams lose 70 matches more than winning after winning the toss.

Havent found records for LOIs

 

[andyc]

I don't think the toss should be predetermined, it's fine as it is. I do think, as others have said, that ODI's should be limited, perhaps to 5 as Barney suggested. The recent series with 7 ODI's was just plain over the top. They may have been there to make money, but if one team had gone up 4-0 with 3 to play, very little money would be generated from the last 3.

 

[Burpey]

ODI series 5 at most.

In relation to the Ashes, I think 5 matches should always be played, and 6 if it looks like being a very close series (like next year for example). The whole summer should be set aside for the Ashes next year, rather than wasting time against another country, but I'm unsure of the ICC calendar.