'I'm a big fan of taking away the toss' - Du Plessis

[Top_Cat]

Can we do away with tossers?

 

[Daemon]

Just read that India has won every single Test where Kohli has won the toss. In the recent Aus series I thought the toss was pretty crucial as well.

Kinda lame that test cricket sometimes hands a side an advantage before a ball is bowled. This is nothing new and yes it doesn't happen all the time, but often enough to be annoying imo.

I don't have a proper solution. The half baked idea is leaving the first match in the series down to the toss and then alternating who gets to pick.

 

[Burgey]

Faf just wants to do away with the one captaincy discipline he is yet to be sanctioned over.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just read that India has won every single Test where Kohli has won the toss. In the recent Aus series I thought the toss was pretty crucial as well.

Kinda lame that test cricket sometimes hands a side an advantage before a ball is bowled. This is nothing new and yes it doesn't happen all the time, but often enough to be annoying imo.

I don't have a proper solution. The half baked idea is leaving the first match in the series down to the toss and then alternating who gets to pick.

I think the groundsman knowing beforehand that the home team was picking could see some really bull**** pitches.

I was pitching the idea of the away team picking all the time years before it was cool, but in true hipster fashion I'm not sure if I like it anymore. Pitches that offer a massive advantage to the team winning the toss are obviously unfair, but unfair cricket is better than just plain dull cricket, which is what we ended up with more often than I was comfortable with in the county cricket experiment with this idea. It'd probably be worse outside England too. I'm now on the fence between this idea and just leaving it how it is; I'm all for more trials in domestic cricket around the world though.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm booing myself as I type this, since winning the toss and batting is such a massive advantage perhaps they could limit the length of first innings to say 110 overs for the team batting first and 120 for the team batting second. The first two and a half days are the best for batting and its unfair one team gets to hog most of that time and leaving the team batting last the worst of the conditions as pitches break up in the heat. This way you'd split the conditions fairly evenly while both teams then deal as best they can as the pitch deteriorates. The extra 10 overs for the team batting second is a effort to compensate for them batting last.

 

[straw man]

Awarding all tosses to the away team is too much.
Awarding alternating tosses and removing all randomness leaves room for pitch doctoring.

I like the idea of flipping a biased coin so that the visiting team has say 2/3 chance to win, but noone's ever going to bother implementing that.

Instead I think the best proposal is the following:
Retain the toss, but the visiting captain gets one veto per series, that they may choose to use before the toss. Similar to a DRS review, so there's already precedent.
So, the captains rock up on the first morning of the series and if it looks like a clear bat-first or bowl-first pitch the visiting captain will use their veto and do that. If they're unsure or want to save it, they'll flip the coin instead.

This slightly tilts the playing field in favour of the visitors, likely at the start of the series, and avoids the two problems at the start of this post.
There's still some potential for pitch doctoring later in the series, but the start of the series is the more critical time for the visitors to get a boost, I expect.

 

[cnerd123]

Awarding all tosses to the away team is too much.
Awarding alternating tosses and removing all randomness leaves room for pitch doctoring.

I like the idea of flipping a biased coin so that the visiting team has say 2/3 chance to win, but noone's ever going to bother implementing that.

Instead I think the best proposal is the following:
Retain the toss, but the visiting captain gets one veto per series, that they may choose to use before the toss. Similar to a DRS review, so there's already precedent.
So, the captains rock up on the first morning of the series and if it looks like a clear bat-first or bowl-first pitch the visiting captain will use their veto and do that. If they're unsure or want to save it, they'll flip the coin instead.

This slightly tilts the playing field in favour of the visitors, likely at the start of the series, and avoids the two problems at the start of this post.
There's still some potential for pitch doctoring later in the series, but the start of the series is the more critical time for the visitors to get a boost, I expect.

i kinda like this actually

Or just straight up let the Away team pick what they want to do on the first Test of the series, and have tosses for the remaining games.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Let the away team pick what they want to do for half the Tests, but they can choose which Tests right before play. Prevents the home team doctoring pitches if they know which games the away team can choose.

 

[Athlai]

Awarding all tosses to the away team is too much.
Awarding alternating tosses and removing all randomness leaves room for pitch doctoring.

I like the idea of flipping a biased coin so that the visiting team has say 2/3 chance to win, but noone's ever going to bother implementing that.

Instead I think the best proposal is the following:
Retain the toss, but the visiting captain gets one veto per series, that they may choose to use before the toss. Similar to a DRS review, so there's already precedent.
So, the captains rock up on the first morning of the series and if it looks like a clear bat-first or bowl-first pitch the visiting captain will use their veto and do that. If they're unsure or want to save it, they'll flip the coin instead.

This slightly tilts the playing field in favour of the visitors, likely at the start of the series, and avoids the two problems at the start of this post.
There's still some potential for pitch doctoring later in the series, but the start of the series is the more critical time for the visitors to get a boost, I expect.

More than slightly
73.3% of the time the visiting captain would "win"/veto at least 2 of the 3 tosses in a 3 match series.

 

[straw man]

i kinda like this actually

Or just straight up let the Away team pick what they want to do on the first Test of the series, and have tosses for the remaining games.

Yeah that's not bad either, though could lead to tarmac preparation for the first test.

Let the away team pick what they want to do for half the Tests, but they can choose which Tests right before play. Prevents the home team doctoring pitches if they know which games the away team can choose.

Same as I suggested though I reckon just once a series, or maaaaybe twice for a five test series. More tilts it too much.

More than slightly
73.3% of the time the visiting captain would "win"/veto at least 2 of the 3 tosses in a 3 match series.

I make it 75%, but Good!

 

[vcs]

Let the away team pick what they want to do for half the Tests, but they can choose which Tests right before play. Prevents the home team doctoring pitches if they know which games the away team can choose.

I like this, but I think it'd get predictable because away teams would always choose what to do in the first half of the series. It's rare for teams to be able to come back into a series once they've conceded the lead.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah that's not bad either, though could lead to tarmac preparation for the first test.

Works out well enough for the visiting team though - some time in the middle against the opposition, probably won't start the series with a loss, let's them get warmed up and acclimatized to the country.

Boring for all of us, but since when did we matter to the ICC anyways.

 

[straw man]

Auto-win for the visitor in test #1 is good, but a veto they can deploy to that exact effect, or hold for a later test is strictly better imo

 

[TheJediBrah]

I like this, but I think it'd get predictable because away teams would always choose what to do in the first half of the series. It's rare for teams to be able to come back into a series once they've conceded the lead.

If you get some decent wickets in the first few Tests where the Toss wouldn't be that big a deal (eg. Adelaide & Perth Tests this year) you can just let the toss happen and save your picks for later in the series.

 

[Victor Ian]

At the toss, both teams play a super over that end after one over or a wicket. The highest score gets to choose.
You know TV would love it because it has the word super in it.

If the grounds played as per theory, there should be something in them to aid the bowling side on the first day. If there's not, allow the loser of the toss an official bit of sandpaper.

 

[Victor Ian]

I like the idea of flipping a biased coin so that the visiting team has say 2/3 chance to win, but noone's ever going to bother implementing that.

That would be a die.

 

[vcs]

At the toss, both teams play a super over that end after one over or a wicket. The highest score gets to choose.
You know TV would love it because it has the word super in it.

If the grounds played as per theory, there should be something in them to aid the bowling side on the first day. If there's not, allow the loser of the toss an official bit of sandpaper.

I like this.

But one question, who gets to choose to bat/bowl in the Super Over?

We can have a SuperBall to decide that..

And who gets to choose to bat/bowl first in the SuperBall?

Damn.

 

[the big bambino]

You know allowing ball tampering in the first two innings of the match would be fine. Ban it for the last 2 innings when the bowlers should be getting assistance from the deteriorating wicket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I like this.

But one question, who gets to choose to bat/bowl in the Super Over?

We can have a SuperBall to decide that..

And who gets to choose to bat/bowl first in the SuperBall?

Damn.

Play a Test match to decide

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Moises agrees.