Go away you tosser

[harsh.ag]

If pitch doctoring becomes a thing of the past and everyone is able to produce completely uniform, neutral pitches - is that really a good thing for international cricket? Isn't the changing conditions of different tours all part of the richness of the game?

Don't think it will cease and desist with the pitch doctoring and lead to uniform pitches. Small impact maybe. Just that touring sides will have a better chance at winning.

 

[CricAddict]

I remember posting the exact same idea around an year back in CW and was shot down by everyone who stated that the home team making pitch conditions friendly to them is one of the beauties of the game.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If pitch doctoring becomes a thing of the past and everyone is able to produce completely uniform, neutral pitches - is that really a good thing for international cricket? Isn't the changing conditions of different tours all part of the richness of the game?

producing a uniform pitch is not the same thing as producing a pitch where the team batting first or second have an equal chance to win. This change encourages the latter.

 

[Daemon]

Pretty much any pitch that changes characteristics over the match is going to be toss dependent though.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Pretty much any pitch that changes characteristics over the match is going to be toss dependent though.

not necessarily. Batting first is an inherent advantage assuming uniform pitch conditions. The ideal fair pitch will have enough juice early to counterract this advantage while flattening out in time for the second innings.

 

[Dan]

Wonder how this would work over a test series. Awarding every toss to the visitor over the course of a series may take it a little too far. Alternating would just encourage serious doctoring on every second wicket.

Hmm, maybe the team who gets to choose whether to bat or bowl could be decided randomly. Perhaps by a toss of a coin?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

"The ECB believes......." a little ironic that in a game like cricket there is no empirical evidence to back this idea up - it's not as if they don't have all the information - should have let George Osborne have a go at doing the calculations and give him something useful to do

Fred your posts are becoming more and more (and more) full of left wing propaganda with each passing day.

 

[theegyptian]

Seems like a bit of a strange environment to test the idea. Whether you're at home or away doesn't have much impact on the result in second division cricket (certainly not compared to internationals). Things that effect the result there are generally 'are you playing more than 4 medium pace bowlers' or 'are you playing against Leicestershire'.

meh it comes down to the ecb wanting better wickets and wickets that allow spinners to bowl more overs to create better players - rather than they think there is a big home advantage. This is a different issue than international cricket.

At the moment in div 2 the wickets start so green that almost all teams bowl first if they win the toss*. Obviously the intention is that if the toss goes to the away side then the home side creates as fair a wicket as possible so the decision at the toss is unclear.

Ideally the ecb are hoping that the home team prepares a wicket with a little bit of grass on it at the start that offers something for pace bowlers but then turns as the match goes on.

As pews points out the consequence may be that wickets just start flat and stay flat - because that's probably easier to create than a really good cricket wicket.




* Would only get worse in 2016 with Lancs and Surrey(the only two places where teams will regularly bat first in 2015) going up.

 

[Garson007]

I really like this idea.

 

[sledger]

It'd be better if they reintroduced the substitute (super sub) rule.

 

[sidecast]

India are currently putting a compelling case for this proposal.

 

[weldone]

India are currently putting a compelling case for this proposal.

Was it going SA's way in the 2nd test when they batted first?

 

[straw man]

Hmm, maybe the team who gets to choose whether to bat or bowl could be decided randomly. Perhaps by a toss of a coin?

I mean you could do that OR...

You could get the crowd warmed up for a nice relaxing day of test cricket with a

 

[jimmy101]

The reasoning for doing away with the toss I can agree with.

However, I disagree that this change should be made.

 

[Tromperie]

Doing away with it in both divisions now.

 

[Midwinter]

The stated aim of the ECB is that this is to encourage the use of spin bowlers.

Having difficulty seeing how this will help without ECB imposing other conditions about preparation of the pitch.

The visiting team already has a 50% chance of choosing to bat or field.

A few trips to India for the curators would be a quicker and more efficient way to achieve their goal.

 

[91Jmay]

Any proposed system would also have to pass the C9 incredulity test, where they are confused as to the need for it, explain it wrong and then get all worked up based on some misunderstanding. So that counts out something like awarding only every second toss to the visitor or anything remotely complicated.

Not to mention the outrage at the inference that Aus pitches were anything but fair and even making such a system necessary, unlike those nasty English that put grass on the wicket so there's swing and seam. Who US? Nooooooooo. I still remember how incensed C9 were when the ICC stopped local umpires officiating their own countries' games.

This is one of the most underrated posts on this site.