The toss of the coin in cricket is no longer a random way of deciding who bats and bowls first. It often decides the outcome of the match.
The captain these days doesn’t even have to make a calculated decision. The obvious decision in ninety-five percent of cases is to bat first in Test matches and one dayers.
The two Tests played thus far in India show that the team that won the toss and batted first was the dominant side in that test match.
Coincidence? I think not.
Groundsman these days prepare their pitches so that the Day One pitch is a flat track that offers nothing to the bowlers. This is in pretty much the same in every country.
Over the match, the pitch deteriorates which makes it hard to bat last on.
Of course, in the first innings even when the second team bats, the pitch is usually still good for batting.
But there are several other factors against the team batting first:
1. The psychological factor of going out to bat facing a large deficit.
2. The bowlers of the team that batted first are fresh and are confident knowing they are defending a large total.
3. The opening batsmen of the second innings team are probably a bit fatigued because they have standing out on the field for a long time.
4. In one dayers, the team batting second has to chase under lights, which is generally harder to do due to visibility factors.
Ultimately, if a team is significantly better than the opposition, they will win regardless of whether they bat or bowl.
But if the teams are evenly matched, I think the outcome is generally determined by who wins the toss and bats first.
A possible solution would be to instruct groundsman to prepare pitches that offer more to the bowlers on Day One, or design pitches that don’t deteriorate as much over five days.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
Greg, Some interesting statisitcs you have provided. Australia was extremely dominant when Taylor was captain, and I as said in my article if a team is head and shoulders above the opposition they will win regardless of the toss. Australia I think for the last 10 years has been head and shoulders above the the rest. I think a good example to illustrate my point is South Africa during the 2003 World Cup. They lost two very close games to the West Indies and Sri Lanka (actually a draw). Both were D/N and both times South Africa lost the toss and batted second. I reckon if they had batted first , they would have won those games and made it into the Super 6.
sheek
Guest
It's funny how some things stick in the mind more easily. I only mention this, because it was a long time ago when I was soooo young. !966/67. Bobby Simpson's Aussies in South Africa. Lost series 1-3. Team batting second won 3 of 4 decided tests (2 by Sa, one by Aus). So in this series the team batting second had an advantage. BTW, SA batted first in 1st test, & turned a 125 odd run 1st innings deficit into a 200 plus run win. They scored a mammoth 620 in 2nd innings. 1969/70. Bill Lawry's Aussies in SA lose series 0-4. Team batting first (SA in each test) won all 4 tests handsomely. Don't know what to make of this except SA were the better team in each series by a country mile. So I guess, if you're good enough, it doesn't matter if you bat or bowl first.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Greg, These are very interesting statistics which certainly challenge the conventional wisdom that a team should always bat first. I'm wondering if the fact that two of the greatest wicket-takers in the history of cricket, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne, had anything to do with the skew of these statistics. They would bowl out sides reasonably cheaply in the first innings. Australia would pile on the runs. And the first innings team was effectively batting as a last inning side. What do you think. Is it possible to break down these statistics to show how many runs Australia had to get in the second inning to win in those Tests Taylor's side had to bat a second time?
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
India is a place where winning the toss and batting first clearly is a big advantage. What to do about this? A friend once suggested that there should just be a toss before the first match of the series, and after that it simply alternates from test to test which captain decides what to do first. The obvious weakness with this is that the home curators might tailor their pitch preparation accordingly (although it would still involve double-guessing what the visiting captain wanted to do). In places like India the traditional mantra of "always bat first" obviously holds true. But some time ago I began to suspect that in general this is a misconception. So I looked at all of Australia's tests under Mark Taylor, of which there were 50 (which is certainly a statistical sample). Here are the results: Batting first: 29/50 for 14W/8L/7D (48% win, 28% lose) Batting second: 21/50 for 12W/5L/4D (57% win, 24% lose) Taylor wins toss: 26/50 for 13W/7L/6D (50% win, 27% lose) Taylor loses toss: 24/46 for 13W/6L/5D (54% win, 25% lose) In other words, Australia had greater success when batting second and when losing the toss. Under S Waugh these trends were even more pronounced. Sorry boys, but these are the facts, whatever your intuitive impressions may be. The mystery is that most (Australian) cricket player and commentators are completely unaware of this information.
mitzter
Guest
I've always felt the toss was too much of a determinate as well. Of course there is no fairer method for a single match but in a 3 way test series or whatever, it's too much. Why not divide the series in half with teams alloted half the coin toss wins. You can even have a coin toss at the start of test 1, 2, 3 etc but claiming the win counts as one of your alloted coin toss wins. If it is an uneven test series (ie 3 or 5) the last is determined by a 'traditional' coin toss
Daryl
Guest
As Ian Chappell used to say (and probably still does) when you win the toss rule number 1 is: ALWAYS BAT. If you are thinking of having a bowl rule number 2 is: Refer to rule number 1! But seriously, one of the best things the ICC could do to enhance test match cricket is to improve the standard of pitches by developing the skills of curators from around the world.
sheek
Guest
Rich Daddy, You're talking history. The team batting first has usually always enjoyed an advantage. And any wise old captain will always tell you, "think about sending the opposition in, but then bat first"! They say the traditional good pitch should have bounce & movement on the first two days, become at its best as a batting strip on days 2, 3, 4, & provide spin & turn on the last two days. As if curators can prepare pitches like this day in, day out! This is the way it's always been, & I don't know how to make it better & fairer. But I do think the toss had a great deal to do with the way the 2nd test recently panned out.