'No toss' option rule at Test level..

[Zinzan]

Many will be aware they've been experimenting with toss regulations in England for the 2016 Championship season, in which away teams were given the choice of bowling first or asking for a toss in instances they wished to bat.

The move was designed to discourage teams from preparing green, seaming pitches and give spinners more of an opportunity as games wore on. I see Chris Rodger has suggested it could benefit Sheffield Shield cricket in Australia also, especially to help encourage young spinners and improve batting vs. spin. 'No toss' rule could benefit Australia - Chris Rogers | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo


I know the toss is one of the traditions of cricket, but I can't help think it could be a great leveller if something similar was trialed at Test level, initially between sides scheduled to play one another in back to back home and away series.

However, rather than the default being the choice of 'bowling first' as with the English county stuff, instead allowing it to be the choice of the touring side ( perhaps months before the tour) to decide whether they want the choice of bowling first or batting first as the default. Example, Australia tour India, & 2 months prior to the tour and pitch preparation, they advise they would like first option to bat first. If Australia then got to the morning of the test and saw a green wicket and didn't want to bat, they could opt for a toss.

I think we all find there's often a big sigh of resignation when losing the toss in the sub-continent, since it;s generally such an advantage to bat first, or in NZ on occasions when there's often a real green sticky wicket, in which it's a huge advantage to bowl first.

This change may force home sides to prepare pitches that perhaps aren't so one-sided, with the obvious risk being that it ends up producing more 'drawn' tests. So there'd need to be ways to mitigate that.

Thoughts on whether this could some how be adapted to test tours? And more importantly whether it would even the field between home and away tours and hence make Test cricket more alive, or would it end up just producing more boring draws regardless.

And please, no tosser' jokes

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah let touring teams decide what they wanna do I'm fine with that

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think it would work at test level. It would simply lead to flat pitches (i.e. Australia the last few seasons) becoming more flat. No team would risk preparing a proper green-top if they were certain to be put in on it, so pitches would become even more homogenised than previously. That, of course, leads to boring matches that no-one watches.

As far as the Sheffield Shield goes, it may work there but I feel that the real answer is to reestablish variety in the pitches. The SCG doesn't really turn anymore, and that should be rectified.
Also development of spin bowlers in Australia is hampered by use of matting surfaces on wickets, good finger spin on those is nigh impossible. And if the batsmen aren't learning to play spin when they're young, they'll have a hard time doing it quickly at high level.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah that was my consideration, unless there was also a real disincentive for home teams to then produce wickets conducive to boring draws, whether that's financial, I don't know. But you're probably right.

That said, I would be interested to see something trialed.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah let touring teams decide what they wanna do I'm fine with that

That they get to nominate their default choice prior to the series and have to coin toss if they want to choose the other on test day, or that the away side flat out get the choice either way and there's no coin toss at all?

 

[mr_mister]

second option

This India/Nz series is making me see the value in home advantage and batting first.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just say the touring side gets to choose whether they want to bat or bowl. I don't see why there has to be a "or choose to toss" option, it just creates all the issues you just mentioned (ie. draws). It's that simple.

Home sides have such an advantage these days that I don't see an issue with it.

edit:

That they get to nominate their default choice prior to the series and have to coin toss if they want to choose the other on test day, or that the away side flat out get the choice either way and there's no coin toss at all?

Basically, that one. "Nominating a default toss" and all that just creates needless complications and if anything could further encourage home sides to doctor pitches. I don't see why anyone would want to do that.

 

[the big bambino]

If you're the home side and the away team chooses innings I reckon they'll just produce roads. Produce a green wicket - give away an advantage. Produce an Indian crumbler - give away the advantage. Produce a 'fair" wicket - rest assured the oppo will bat first and you get the last dig when it does begin to break up. So basically the touring side will always bat first unless its a green mamba. Best chance you have for a fair go is produce a road.

If anything I'd go for the option of bowling as a default. In most cases batting first is a real advantage so let that option be open to chance rather than gifting it to one side.

 

[Daemon]

India would probably just make all their pitches turn from day 1, to negate the advantage of batting first in easier conditions.

Pitches in SL have been very good of late imo, that's a model the SC pitches should strive to follow.

 

[Victor Ian]

Toss on odd games in series, 1,3 5. Loser gets to pick in even tests 2,4,6,

A slight advantage for winning toss in first test of an odd numbered series but the longer they go the less pronounced.

 

[Howe_zat]

In England, there was a rather unique situation in that Test pitches were already more varied than domestic pitches, particularly in the second division. There wasn't that big a home advantage in county cricket - there was just a heavily curtailed role for spin bowlers.

The toss rule wasn't brought in to make the matches 'fairer', it was brought in to bring more spin bowlers into teams and matchwinning roles, particularly in the second innings. It worked with Rayner, Batty, Leach, Bess and others having breakthrough seasons.

In Test level we don't have the situation where sides with no or little spin produce green wickets in the hope of bowling first to knock a side over with medium pace bowling. We have less of a need to knock sides over immediately anyway because there are five days instead of four and winning over drawing isn't particularly incentivised.

Using the no toss rule in Tests wouldn't make the matches easier for touring sides as that was never the point of it in the first place, nor the effect.

This is even assuming that making touring easier is something to aspire to in the first place.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In England, there was a rather unique situation in that Test pitches were already more varied than domestic pitches, particularly in the second division. There wasn't that big a home advantage in county cricket - there was just a heavily curtailed role for spin bowlers.

The toss rule wasn't brought in to make the matches 'fairer', it was brought in to bring more spin bowlers into teams and matchwinning roles, particularly in the second innings. It worked with Rayner, Batty, Leach, Bess and others having breakthrough seasons.

In Test level we don't have the situation where sides with no or little spin produce green wickets in the hope of bowling first to knock a side over with medium pace bowling. We have less of a need to knock sides over immediately anyway because there are five days instead of four and winning over drawing isn't particularly incentivised.

Using the no toss rule in Tests wouldn't make the matches easier for touring sides as that was never the point of it in the first place, nor the effect.

This is even assuming that making touring easier is something to aspire to in the first place.

You're missing the point. The reason the no-toss-rule was brought into county cricket is irrelevant to whether it would be beneficial in Tests. The issue with Tests is excessive home-ground advantage, not a lack of spin bowling or whatever. Giving choice of innings to the touring side combats this problem.

Using the no toss rule in Tests would absolutely provide a benefit to touring sides. I don't understand how you could think otherwise.

 

[Shri]

You're missing the point. The reason the no-toss-rule was brought into county cricket is irrelevant to whether it would be beneficial in Tests. The issue with Tests is excessive home-ground advantage, not a lack of spin bowling or whatever. Giving choice of innings to the touring side combats this problem.

Using the no toss rule in Tests would absolutely provide a benefit to touring sides. I don't understand how you could think otherwise.

Read it again. The question is if touring should be made easier in the first place. No, it shouldn't.

 

[Daemon]

Read it again. The question is if touring should be made easier in the first place. No, it shouldn't.

Howe did say that it wouldn't make it easier in his second last paragraph.

 

[the big bambino]

If it counters doctoring then it should be considered. Its only a question of making touring easier by making it fairer and that's a fair enough aim.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Read it again. The question is if touring should be made easier in the first place. No, it shouldn't.

Did you even read the post?

And regardless of the fact that the question of whether touring should be made easier wasn't really mentioned, I honestly find myself baffled that you could think that it shouldn't.

Home team advantage in test Cricket has been absurd in recent years

If it counters doctoring then it should be considered. Its only a question of making touring easier by making it fairer and that's a fair enough aim.

Yeah the only legitimate issue that anyone could have with it, IMO, is if they think it gives the touring side too much of an advantage. Which is theoretically a fair enough concern, but in practice not so much.

 

[Burgey]

Not tossing would mean plenty of toss pot test cricketers over the years would have been barred from playing. No bad thing either.

 

[Howe_zat]

I can see why you'd think home team advantage is a huge issue if you only watch Australia dominate on their friendly home pitches and then get trounced away.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can see why you'd think home team advantage is a huge issue if you only watch Australia dominate on their friendly home pitches and then get trounced away.

Silly me for expecting an intelligent and sensible response

 

[Shortodds]

I prefer the idea that if you win the toss of the first match of the series you get the option of choosing to bat/bowl and your opponent choosing for the 2nd test, or giving that choice to your opponent so you can decide for the second.


Its not home advantage or a toss advantage that bothers me so much as when one team consistantly wins the toss throughout a serries where ithe pitch makes that an advantage. Reducing the luck element a little would help there.