Cricket Betting Site Betway
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By G.I.Joe
  • 1 Post By Antihippy

Thread: The toss

  1. #1
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    2,595

    The toss

    Dont you think there should be some skill involved rather than a coin toss to decide who gets to bat or bowl first in one day and test cricket, i would prefer a 6 ball bowl out before match so at least there will be some skill involved for a team to get advantage.

  2. #2
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    13,059
    Away team gets to decide, IMO. For neutral games (ODIs), alternate calls.
    zorax likes this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum' Joe says it then it must be true.
    Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!


    'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.
    Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.
    Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'


  3. #3
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Zinzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cover point
    Posts
    25,958
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    Away team gets to decide, IMO. For neutral games (ODIs), alternate calls.
    Always thought there was something to this idea.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,739
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    Away team gets to decide, IMO. For neutral games (ODIs), alternate calls.
    Yeah I've long thought this. It'd encourage fair surfaces and reduce home ground advantage.

    I'd still actually have a toss for neutral games though.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite


  5. #5
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    VIC
    Posts
    2,156
    I dunno, didn't really matter today.
    AldoRaine18 likes this.

  6. #6
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Europe, on the outside looking in
    Posts
    20,103
    If there's any predictability about who bats first that will influence the way the wicket is prepared - leave it as it is imo

  7. #7
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend zorax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    22,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah I've long thought this. It'd encourage fair surfaces and reduce home ground advantage.

    I'd still actually have a toss for neutral games though.
    Would it tho?

    Because even as the home team, the toss is essentially 50/50. Why would you make a pitch where, if you lost the toss, you would struggle?

    The home team has an advantage on their surfaces because they believe they can win/draw on it regardless of the result of the toss. Letting the away team pick if they bat or bowl first won't change that.

    It would remove the abundance of win-toss-win-match pitches, that's a plus. And it would discourage sides from producing the kind of pitches that sides like Pak and India exploit - bat first win, bowl first draw. But otherwise, overall, I doubt you would see less home-side friendly pitches.

    I'm all for the idea tho. I like removing the emphasis on the toss and toss-dependent pitches. If the pitch is such where the decision is obvious before the toss, the away side can see the pitch, decide what they want to do, and pick a side. The home-side can then predict what the away side will do and prepare for that, and be ready to struggle in the first innings.

    To avoid that, they will have to create a pitch where the choice between batting or bowling isn't so obvious, and where doing either will not be massively beneficial. This encourages more balanced pitches and more balanced cricket IMO.

    And even if it doesn't, you'll see the side bowling first on a road pick 5 bowlers, or the batting side on a minefield go with extra batting, and we won't get a massively lopsided match.

  8. #8
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,739
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    Would it tho?

    Because even as the home team, the toss is essentially 50/50. Why would you make a pitch where, if you lost the toss, you would struggle?

    The home team has an advantage on their surfaces because they believe they can win/draw on it regardless of the result of the toss. Letting the away team pick if they bat or bowl first won't change that.

    It would remove the abundance of win-toss-win-match pitches, that's a plus. And it would discourage sides from producing the kind of pitches that sides like Pak and India exploit - bat first win, bowl first draw. But otherwise, overall, I doubt you would see less home-side friendly pitches.

    I'm all for the idea tho. I like removing the emphasis on the toss and toss-dependent pitches. If the pitch is such where the decision is obvious before the toss, the away side can see the pitch, decide what they want to do, and pick a side. The home-side can then predict what the away side will do and prepare for that, and be ready to struggle in the first innings.

    To avoid that, they will have to create a pitch where the choice between batting or bowling isn't so obvious, and where doing either will not be massively beneficial. This encourages more balanced pitches and more balanced cricket IMO.

    And even if it doesn't, you'll see the side bowling first on a road pick 5 bowlers, or the batting side on a minefield go with extra batting, and we won't get a massively lopsided match.
    I've got no issue with home side pitches as such though. When I talk about fair wickets, I don't mean equally fair to batsmen and bowlers, or seamers and spinners, but equally fair to the team batting first and the team batting second. If you knew you were going to get the rough end of the stick, you'd be incentivised to make sure the rough end wasn't much different from the smooth end.

  9. #9
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    29,957
    It is fine as it is.

  10. #10
    U19 12th Man BigBrother's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Watching You
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    Would it tho?

    Because even as the home team, the toss is essentially 50/50. Why would you make a pitch where, if you lost the toss, you would struggle?

    The home team has an advantage on their surfaces because they believe they can win/draw on it regardless of the result of the toss. Letting the away team pick if they bat or bowl first won't change that.


    It would remove the abundance of win-toss-win-match pitches, that's a plus. And it would discourage sides from producing the kind of pitches that sides like Pak and India exploit - bat first win, bowl first draw. But otherwise, overall, I doubt you would see less home-side friendly pitches.

    I'm all for the idea tho. I like removing the emphasis on the toss and toss-dependent pitches. If the pitch is such where the decision is obvious before the toss, the away side can see the pitch, decide what they want to do, and pick a side. The home-side can then predict what the away side will do and prepare for that, and be ready to struggle in the first innings.

    To avoid that, they will have to create a pitch where the choice between batting or bowling isn't so obvious, and where doing either will not be massively beneficial. This encourages more balanced pitches and more balanced cricket IMO.

    And even if it doesn't, you'll see the side bowling first on a road pick 5 bowlers, or the batting side on a minefield go with extra batting, and we won't get a massively lopsided match.
    Hard to argue against the bolded part.
    Last edited by BigBrother; 29-03-2015 at 05:31 PM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Toss
    By kingjulian in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 26-12-2010, 06:16 AM
  2. Replace the toss with the bid?
    By cover drive man in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 27-03-2008, 07:44 AM
  3. The toss is scrapped...
    By Richard in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 17-12-2007, 06:34 AM
  4. Addition to the toss.
    By Dravid in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-10-2006, 06:10 AM
  5. Let the toss go for a toss , says Gavaskar.
    By Deja moo in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 18-07-2004, 04:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •