The Toss

[Goughy]

Yeah, that's a better figure, I just spun mine out quickly.

I thought excluding the West Indies might have been a mistake but looking at their record in the period you're quite right to.

There is a significant trend that winning the toss increases the chance of winning but, as we said, it isnt the only factor.

Except for Pakistan who are almost twice as likely to win when they lose the toss.

Win Toss- Wins 6 Loss 17 W/L 0.35
Lose Toss- Wins 10 Loss 16 W/L 0.62

Im not saying any conclusions should be drawn from that as we could speculate all sorts of reasons for this (small sample size, teams winning toss tend to bat which plays into Pakistans strength etc)

However, when one team is such a statistically anomaly and bucks such a common trend then it should be looked into.

 

[Daemon]

Win the toss- Wins 106 Loss 90 W/L ratio 1.17
Lose the toss- Wins 90 Loss 106 W/L ratio 0.84

So clearly the toss isnt as significant as some may think

A 15% greater chance is pretty significant I would think

 

[Goughy]

A 15% greater chance is pretty significant I would think

I agree. Please see my post.

 

[Daemon]

I agree. Please see my post.

Hmm? You said it isn't as significant as some may think..

 

[Furball]

I feel Ponting's sportsmanship should be applauded here.

Clearly he's not comfortable with the toss influencing the result in England, so he generously inserted England at Edgbaston in 2005 and batted first against Pakistan at Leeds.

 

[kingjulian]

I've always had a bit of time for the idea that the away team just chooses whether to bat or bowl in Tests - it'd neutralise the HGA a bit and make pitch-doctoring a little less effective as well as obviously removing the toss.

I think the home teams should have the right to prepare pitches that suit their strength. Homogenization of pitch preparation is going to lead to very predictable results and it also becomes impossible to define what is an ideal pitch.

The idea that 'winning away from home is hardwork' is something that needs to be preserved. Killing that would mean the end of test cricket, as we know. In my opinion the current ranking system is plain idiotic just for this reason - because it doesn't assign greater value for winning away from home. India is one of the top 4 test teams, but a number one test team, it is not. To get that status, they need to do more away from home.

My problem with the toss is this - up until the start of the match everything is fair - both teams get to play on the same surface, the teams know who their opponents are and what their strength is. But the order of the innings is the only unknown and it remains a lottery that is decided by a coin toss. There is no other fair way to choose this, but my problem is that the winner gets all the benefit of the coin toss. I want the losing captain to have a counter say in a way, so he can neutralize the decision made by the winning captain to his favor.

For example in India, lets say punter goes to India and loses the toss. Presently most sane captains would choose to bat first in India - blindly. That way the can avoid facing the spinners in the fourth innings. Or in Dhoni's case he would be looking to maximize his teams' strength - forcing the opposition to face Indian spinners in the 4th innings. But if Punter can then choose the Duke ball, which offers his fast bowlers more movement in the air and poses a different kind of issue or may be choose the Kookaburra ball which his bowlers are able to control better- it will help neuter the effect of the toss. It will also make Dhoni to think twice if the opposing team has especially strong swing/seam bowler. Choosing to bat first will not be the only option, in that case, and the Captain would know that if he wins/loses the toss his odds of a favorable result will not reduce or increase greatly....instead both captains are just left with a tactical decision to make.

 

[Jarquis]

Hmm? You said it isn't as significant as some may think..

Which is entirely different from saying it is insignificant.

 

[kingjulian]

I dont know if it would work or if there are sponsorship issues with balls in certain countries but it is worth a thought.

If Sponsorship is the only issue i think there are more arguments to introduce competition between types of balls. Presently what balls are not known and commentators don't give a **** or dont bother to mention it on the air, only cricket nutters like us know what it is. So by implementing something like this Duke, SG, and Kookaburra stand to get more air time. Hell - if you leave this up to BCCI they will sell the naming rights of the balls for money."The winning captain chose to play the Outback Steak-house Duke ball, which gives them an advantage over using Sachin's Curry-house SG balls as they are an unknown entity for his bowlers" etc..etc... We will be hearing them on tv all day and wishing they would shut up about it...

Contractual obligation may be a problem, but if there is money to be made, i'm sure opinions can be changed and people can be convinced...

My doubt was - can the balls have such a big impact? as big as the innings order?

If not, what else can be done to change status-quo?

 

[vcs]

Something needs to be done about this.

 

[Uppercut]

Something needs to be done about the fact that one team gets to have Dale Steyn and the other doesn't tbh. Makes cricket horribly unfair.

It's a much bigger problem in ODIs, especially in day-nighters, there are grounds in Sri Lanka and South Africa where the toss has an obscene effect on the outcome of the match. Which is handy because if something is to be done about it you'd rather they used one-dayers as a guinea pig.

 

[Prince EWS]

Something needs to be done about the fact that one team gets to have Dale Steyn and the other doesn't tbh. Makes cricket horribly unfair.

It's a much bigger problem in ODIs, especially in day-nighters, there are grounds in Sri Lanka and South Africa where the toss has an obscene effect on the outcome of the match. Which is handy because if something is to be done about it you'd rather they used one-dayers as a guinea pig.

I'd really rather they didn't do anything about that "problem" in ODIs.

 

[Blaze 18]

Call me crazy, but i'm tired of test matches being influenced by the toss.

Especially in places like India and England. Because of the whether .conditions in these countries, there is a clear advantage in choosing to bat first or bowl first.

This shouldn't be the case.

I would say, to even out the impact of the toss, ICC should consider some innovative measures.

In football the toss is largely irrelevant, but the winner can either choose to start the kick off or pick the goal that they want to attack (I think). So there is something to choose for both the winner and the loser. Is it not possible to have something like that in Cricket.

How about the toss-winner being able to choose either the innings order or a choice of ball?

For example English like to play with the Duke ball, Indians the SG ball and the Aussies the Kookaburra ball etc.In each test they should nominate two types of balls that can be chosen. If the toss winner decides the batting order, then the loser can level the effect of the toss a bit by choosing the ball.

Does this make sense?

I don't know about the overall statistics, but over the last two-three years, I think the team losing the toss in India has won far more often than not.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd really rather they didn't do anything about that "problem" in ODIs.

At least not til the bookies catch on.