By Kersi Meher-Homji
November 11th 2008 @ 2:23am
Loading ...Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
The coin toss gives an unfair advantage
In Test cricket, the toss of the coin gives an unfair advantage to a team. To cite the just concluded Test series between India and Australia as an example, India won three tosses out of four and won two of these Tests. Australia won the toss in the first Test in Bangluru, and came close to winning.
Winning the toss is not that important in other sports, but in a five-day Test it is unfair on a team batting last. Also, if the pitch is affected by bad weather, a captain winning the toss sends the opposite team in.
Many of you may say that this has gone on since the first Test was played in March 1877, so why change it? I answer this question with a question: why not?
What I suggest may appear gimmicky, even ridiculous but anything is better than the toss of a coin.
So here it is:
Play a two over 6-a-side match prior to the Test on an adjoining pitch. Country A (alphabetically first) bats first and faces one over of pace and one over of spin. Minutes later Country B bats and faces one over of pace and spin.
The captain of the team winning this micro-match decides to bat first or field first.
A toss takes a few minutes while this micro match may take 20 minutes. But imagine the excitement prior to the main game, the entrée before the main course!
And it would be less of a gamble than a toss. Anything new is frowned upon, but consider this as a possibility. Or give your suggestions.
Anything but a toss. Toss away the toss, I say!
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(12)
We were talking about the important things in life, mainly sport.
Loading ...
Ara said | November 11th 2008 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Coin toss has been part of the cricket scene for a long time. It only becomes an issue when Australia loses a series.
JohnB said | November 11th 2008 @ 10:55am | Report comment
The real issue is the pitch. If ptiches offer something to each of the disciplines in the game, and don’t overwhelmingly favour one over all others, winning the toss ceases to be a significant advantage. Producing pitches like that is not easy and is not an exact science. It won’t always happen and different places will have different characteristics which will make the pitches in that place behave in a particular way. However, preparing even-handed pitches should always be the objective, and plainly hasn’t been in many places (a comment applying to most of the test venues in Australia in recent times also).
JohnB said | November 11th 2008 @ 10:59am | Report comment
And, sorry, meant to add good on you for suggesting a solution to the perceived problem - but I hate the idea. Any other solution involving one side knowing in advance that it will get the choice of batting or bowling is always going to open the way for shenanigans in team selection - if you know you only need to draw, you’ll stack your side with batsmen; if you know you’ll bowl last, you’ll pick the spinner ahead of the pace bowler etc. That’s why you have to nominate your team before the toss (which wasn’t always the case).
Mr Mac said | November 11th 2008 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Whilst his has been the case through the history of the game and it may have been even more significant in the days of uncovered wickets.
I have often thought that in a test series the toss could be made in the first game, the winner gets to choose - then in each game after the choice is alternated. Thus in a five test series there would be a 3-2 split.
However, think of the carry on that would occur - sooner rather than later countries would be much more accused of preparing wickets to suit their teams.
ARA - Many more than the Aus team complain about the toss. However, who would take Punter to a two-up game?
Andrew Jones said | November 11th 2008 @ 11:52am | Report comment
A mate and I were discussing this on Sunday. His suggestion, which I thought was a pearler, was that the away team always got to choose. Whatever its effect on fairness, it would increase interest because it would reduce the incentive for curators to prepare the ‘roads’ that have made the recent Aus v India series (and the one in 2003-04, and the past couple of Adelaide Tests etc) mostly quite dull. Instead you would expect the tracks to have a bit more in them for the bowlers, so the away team would not always bat first. Ara, I certainly don’t begrudge India their victory - they were by far the better side in this series - but I would like to see more of a contest between bat and ball, as played on Day 5 in Nagpur but on precious few other occasions in the series.
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2008 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
AJ, that is a much more plausible alternative to the toss than anything I’ve heard previously. Simple, effective, competitive. And as you say, it would eliminate pitch ‘doctoring’ almost overnight. A brilliant idea…
Kersi, you were right: your two-over, 6-a-side mini game suggestion IS ridiculous, and also proved that perhaps not everything is better than a coin toss…..
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 11th 2008 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Twenty20 cricket idea was also ridiculous 10 years ago, Brett. So was Copernicus & Galileo’s theory that planets revolve around the sun and not around the earth.
India deserved to win the series without the help of toss, Ara, because the pitches remained good till the end. And Dhoni outfoxed Ponting. Good on India on a memorable victory.
But on some occasions, winning of a toss can be crucial. Toss of a coin is archaic and must go, sooner than later.
JohnB said | November 11th 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
I don’t think anyone really talked about 20/20 matches a decade ago. People probably did say the theories of Copernicus and Galileo were ridiculous, but the difference is they were objectively correct.
An important element of the toss is that it affects team selections. If you don’t know who’ll get to choose to bat, you have to have some balance in your team (between batting and bowling, and between pace and spin bowling), and if you don’t you take a grave risk. That is the argument against the away team gets the choice idea mentioned above. The away team needing only a draw looks at the pitch a couple of days before the game, sees it’s not a minefield and picks 6 batsmen, a couple of all-rounders, a batsman-keeper and a couple of bowlers, bats first and occupies the crease, bowls wide of off stump to an 8-1 or 7-2 field and relies on the home team which needs to win to make mistakes. If you have a toss the visiting team can still try that, but would be in danger of the home team taking control of the game in the first innings against their thin bowling.
Behroze Bilimoria said | November 11th 2008 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
Good thinking Kersi me mate! But how’s this for an idea from a simple-minded person (woman) like me:-
At the first match of the series the touring captain gets to choose whether to bat or bowl.
At the next match, the host captain automatically has the choice. And ditto, alternating for the ensuing matches. That would be more equal than what happened in India this time when the coin toss was obviously going to play a huge part in the game. Indians outplayed us but it would’ve made a big difference if Ponting had not been jinxed in picking the wrong side of the coin 3 times in a row! Poor Punters - can’t do anything right, can he!
Cheers
Behroze (not-too-knowledgeable Cricket-fan)
Bipin Dani said | November 11th 2008 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Hi,
Seen your suggestions. May be you can send them to the MCC.
Now the Test series are played on a reciprocal basis, each country (as a home team) gets a chance to toss the coin.
Here the luck plays an important role in the toss rather than efficiency.
Good luck.
-BIPIN DANI.
Behroze Bilimoria said | November 15th 2008 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Andrew Jones’ comment deserves merit, that the away team should always get to choose. The Don once suggested - although it was not followed through - the visiting team should have the choice of whether or not to bat first. It would soon sort out pitch advantage. Why not give this a try?
david said | November 21st 2008 @ 3:08am | Report comment
The real issue is the pitch.
In India it is extremely difficult to win batting second. The match is typically won or drawn by the team batting first (invariably the team who wins the toss). The Indian know this and going in second will always see them play for a draw from the outset.
Elsewhere, for dodgy pitches it works in reverse. Got a storm tearing the ground apart the night before? Put the other team in.
Here is a novel idea… why not let the teams bid (with runs) for the right to bat/bowl first. For instance Team A wants to bat first and is willing to give Team B ‘x’ runs in addition to those they score. Teams could put in sealed bids to the fourth umpire. Now that would be more INTERESTING than the Toss.