The Toss

[kingjulian]

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?

 

[NasserFan207]

The toss often gives an advantage, but it never assures a certain result.

And what would you replace it with anyway?

 

[andyc]

... Then how would you decide who bats or bowls first? Tossing a coin is by far the best and fairest way of making that decision.

 

[vcs]

He wants the side losing the toss to get some sort of say as well, choosing the ball for example. It's an interesting idea I guess.

 

[Goughy]

I quite like the idea.

As you said, the winner of the toss gets the choice to bat or bowl or the choice of ball used in the game. The loser of the toss gets to pick the other.

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

 

[G.I.Joe]

I like the idea.

 

[Prince EWS]

I like the idea.

Same.

 

[NUFAN]

I don't mind the idea as long as in the warmup matches you can test the different balls a bit.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Or we could just use the Duke worldwide?

 

[Cevno]

Good Idea.Like it..

 

[GIMH]

... Then how would you decide who bats or bowls first? Tossing a coin is by far the best and fairest way of making that decision.

Learn to read, ****

Good suggestion IMO

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[Uppercut]

It's worth noting that statistically the toss makes barely any difference at all.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Certainly not as big an advantage as it sometimes appears to be.

Nevertheless, excellent idea imo.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's worth noting that statistically the toss makes barely any difference at all.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Certainly not as big an advantage as it sometimes appears to be.

Nevertheless, excellent idea imo.

I reckon it's one of those two negatives cancelling each other out thing. Like how people justify a batsman being let off by an umpire by claiming how it evens out when he gets a ****ty decision on another occasion. They do cancel each other out, but it's still two crappy decisions in the end.

 

[andyc]

Learn to read, ****

Good suggestion IMO

Haha yeah, my bad.

 

[zaremba]

It's worth noting that statistically the toss makes barely any difference at all.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Certainly not as big an advantage as it sometimes appears to be.

Nevertheless, excellent idea imo.

Good stat work.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha yeah, my bad.

Was Craig your English teacher in China, Andy?

 

[Daemon]

It's worth noting that statistically the toss makes barely any difference at all.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Certainly not as big an advantage as it sometimes appears to be.

Nevertheless, excellent idea imo.

Well if we're talking about India, winning the toss gives you a slight advantage
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

It's even better in England

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Excellent idea though.

 

[Goughy]

It's worth noting that statistically the toss makes barely any difference at all.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Certainly not as big an advantage as it sometimes appears to be.

Nevertheless, excellent idea imo.

I see your point but the stat is a little over simplified as including Bang, Zim and WI, who lose no matter what the result of the toss, reduces the relevance of the data in assessing the importance of a toss.

For the time period you defined (WI, Zim and Bang excluded) for the 7 top Test nations against each other:

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 but it is certainly a factor and enough maybe to influence a Test and therefore a series. It is fair to say it is one of a number of factors that influences a game. One factor of many and, while not critical, an advantage to win.

Looking at Australia for 2 reasons (a) alphabetical and b) for the period in question they were the best team in the World)

Australia
Win toss- Wins 34 Loss 9 W/L ratio 3.77
Lose toss- Wins 24 Loss 9 W/L ratio 2.66

The data suggests that they are hard to beat but your chances increase significantly if you win the toss.

 

[Uppercut]

I see your point but the stat is a little over simplified as including Bang, Zim and WI, who lose no matter what the result of the toss, reduces the relevance of the data in assessing the importance of a toss.

For the time period you defined (exc WI, Zim and Bang excluded) for the 7 top Test nations against each other:

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

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.