Australia's incredible reliance on batting first in Tests

The wicket is unbelievably green. Don’t think I’ve seen a wicket as green as that one, at least in a long time. With India likely to play 4 quicks and a part time spinner, you’d think they’d strongly consider bowling. For me that would be a big mistake. Whoever wins the toss, regardless of what’s happened in the shield this year should back themselves in and bat. 200 could well be enough.

Perth could be interesting though - win the toss, bat first - you gain the bat first advantage, give bowlers another day or rest. On the other hand the record is 3-1 in favor of batting second in the shield matches in the new Perth. Not even a single team domestic 50 overs and in the single ODI has won batting first. Here is the curator – https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/cricket/optus-stadium-curator-tips-fiery-wicket-for-second-test-between-australia-and-india-ng-b881044163z Even he thinks the pitch could be a bowl first one.

The first inn advantage depends on the team taking it. India has won thrice in SA, ENG, AUS - every time batting first. They have lost matches where the home team batted first. In an interesting article in cricinfo - winning the toss can often negate the home advantage when the contest in between even teams. And winning the toss + home advantage is a huge win. Ind - Eng series was a close one with Eng winning all tosses. Without the scoreboard pressure, their long batting often pushed the advantage into a winning one. But with scoreboard pressure, the bowling team doesn't panic that often, the batters are more circumspect. It could have been a very different scoreline in both SA and Eng with some luck on the tosses. Then Eng went to Srl, again similarly matched teams (Eng matching Srl when it comes to spinners and their long batting lineup negating the quality needed to win against spin) with Eng winning all tosses and were able to win the series 3-0. NZ batted first in two games vs Pak in UAE and won the series 2-1. So winning the toss goes a long way in winning - we tend to ignore (or avoid talking about) the fickle luck when it comes to highest grade sports but perhaps the skills are so evenly matched, that a few cms, luck on the toss, mental aspects is all that differentiates between losing and winning. Only when one team is markedly better than the others - say apart from the last Aus in India, all tours of India in last 3 years or so, and barring SA in Aus all other teams in Aus, the bat first strategy doesn't play a huge role. Eng won all 5 tosses on their last tour to India - batted first every time and still lost the series 4-0, often conceding deficits of 200+ despite scoring 400s themselves. Then Ind beat the Aussies in the decider in Dharamshala despite losing the toss. Also, it is debatable that the shorter formats are influencing the temperaments of most cricketers and it is becoming harder for teams to compete once behind.

*You omitted draws. I just grabbed your numbers to demonstrate how warped your statistical interpretations were. If draws were there, we would have seen how my method incorporates them whereas yours ignores them. Another strike against doing it your way. I have nothing against your research in these stats and as you said, you can still draw the conclusion that Australia perform better batting first. I'm only pointing out that your statement of 4x more likely to win than lose is misleading and overstated. Here's an exercise to demonstrate my point. If Australia won 99/100 when 1st and 1/100 when 2nd, intuitively what would you think the best way to report that number would be? 99 times more likely to win (my way), or 9801 times more likely to win than lose (your way)? You can repeat the process for losses or draws if you want to compare their probabilities. Now you can compare win/loss ratios if you want. Just don't compare them by dividing one over the other and making a statement on probability. Your ratio isn't a probability. It's a ratio of their relative probabilities to each other.

I agree it was a great test match pitch and that Australia had the better of the conditions. I am really keen to see what the Optus Stadium wicket is like - I would go to the match if it wasn't run by those idiots at CA - cant believe they will not allow people to sit in the shade on a 38 degree day!!

This does seem a more logical way to view the statistics.

I think some of it has to do with home conditions too. Indian conditions regularly tend to be ones where the best batting conditions are right at the start and they just get harder to bat on as the match progresses. Unfortunately, with the Australian roads we've had over the last few years it's been something similar. Go back a bit further when conditions tended to suit bowlers more early in the match, then flatten out to be better batting conditions in the middle, before deteriorating at the end, it tended to be more even. The team batting first faced difficult batting conditions on day 1, the team batting second probably had the best of the batting conditions, but then would face tough conditions in the fourth innings which made up for that a bit. I liked that sort of classic pitch, there was something for everyone at some point in the match. But we haven't really seen those sorts of pitches in Australia for a few years now.

He played a good innings that time. But it was amazing to look at a stat put up during that test showing Shaun Marsh's averages (before that innings) in the teams first innings v second innings. He averages something like 47 in first innings and 18 in second innings. (ie 1st and second for that team, it's not about which teams bats first). I've seen plenty of batsmen with significant differences, but that's probably the biggest I've seen in that stat. Still, he managed to buck that trend in Adelaide, failing in the first innings but batting pretty well in the second.

Not a big fan of your dodgy statistics there. Australia batting first won 15 of 20 games = 75% win rate (or 75 games in 100). Australia batting second won 11 of 25 games = 44% win rate (or 44 games in 100). So in 100 games, batting first means they would win 75 games as opposed to 44 games batting. That's not almost 4 times more likely. That's 70% more likely (less than double). You are giving a win loss ratio, not likelihood of winning. By comparing the two ratios in the way that you have done, you are taking a ratio of a ratio, which inflates it ludicrously as we have seen.

Ronan, I know you don't select the title, but the article is a bit mis-leading. It looks like you're about to really lay into Australia, but in fact India are even worse. It looks like their superior record recently might even simply be because they've gotten bat first more often than we have. Also, what are the statistics for the other nations over the last 5 years? Is Australia really that bad or is it that no team wins batting last? I'm just old enough to remember Australia losing to South Africa back in about '93 or '94 when we only had to chase about 110. I'm pretty sure Damien Martyn's career was put back 5 years due to us failing to chase that down. Failing in the fourth innings is pretty much "that's cricket".

Well, I dare say Shaun proved that wrong the other day. That was huge pressure, and he played a beautiful innings, only undone by an excellent delivery from Bumrah.

Most countries in the world are bat first places. The exceptions are NZ and South Africa in Dec-Jan and England in May-June.

Thanks Ronan, they are incredible stats to support your premise that both teams are so reliant on batting first. Test cricket is a sublime sport but it sucks when so much depends on the toss of a coin!

How much of this can be attributed to when the Marsh boys inclusion in the team Ronan? Sorry but they are the 2 batsmen that come to mind when I think of capitulation under pressure? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2014/02/28/win-the-toss-or-face-a-loss/