Great teams contain great tossers

What's buzzing in the world of cricket....

Great teams contain great tossers

Postby bigfluffylemon » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:25 pm

Ok, deliberately provocative thread title, but this is a thread about the coin toss.

I saw an article recently that said that of the last 13 tests in Asia with a non-Asian touring side, the Asian team has won the toss in all 13 games, and won 11 of them (the only exceptions being the washout between South Africa and India, and England's effort in Abu Dhabi). Similar issues happen in Australia (see the recent Australia/NZ series, where Australia won the toss in all three, and in the first two proceeded to bat NZ out of the game), and in England, where England has made a habit of winning the toss and bowling on moving wickets and taking out underprepared opposition before the pitch has flattened out (see the 2015 Ashes series, where Cook won four tosses in a row, Pakistan and Sri Lanka series).

Is there a case for trying to even the odds and reduce home pitch advantage by adopting the CC rules of giving the visiting side the decision of whether to bat or bowl? Or is that simply not suitable to a bilateral series of multiple games?

I did wonder if it might be worth doing an alternating series, so that whoever loses the toss in the first game of a bilateral series automatically gets to choose bat/bowl in the next game, and so on alternating throughout the series, but my concern is that if a groundsman knows that the home team is guaranteed to win a toss, especially in a vital game, it will encourage even more biased pitch preparation that is currently the case.

One idea that I do like very much, as it appeals to the mathematician and gamer in me, is bidding for the result you want. (I love modern boardgames!). Both captains would present to the umpire a sealed envelope in which they have written down whether they would prefer to bat or bowl first, and the number of runs they are willing to concede to the opposition in order to get that result. If one team wants to bat and the other field, no problem, both teams get what they want for no cost. But if both teams want to do the same thing, the team that bid more runs gets to do what they want, but they concede their bid in runs to the opposition. So for example, India and Pakistan both want to bat first. India bids 50 runs and Pakistan bids 40. India wins and bats first, but Pakistan starts its first innings at 50/0 rather than 0/0.

Statistically speaking, at some grounds the bat-first advantage is over 50 runs, so teams should be willing to bid a significant number of runs to get what they want:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 05001.html

Thoughts?
2022 Big Bash League FL
2023 Women's T20 World Cup FL
User avatar
bigfluffylemon
 
Posts: 6365
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:40 am
Team(s) Supported: England. Australia.
Any team playing good cricket in the right spirit.

Re: Great teams contain great tossers

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:57 pm

Never liked that idea, much as I don't like the idea of being fined runs for slow over rates. I like that the cricket is a pure quantifiable contest. Bidding takes that away, to the point where I'd suggest they'd hardly be playing cricket any more, and it would be (hope this isn't too fanciful) something akin to applying a degree of difficulty tariff in diving. The way forward is for proper preparation, less greedy itineraries, and more co-operation between countries regarding playing conditions. The worst thing about the 2015 Ashes was the introduction of the idea that there was a winning pitch and a losing pitch for the hosts.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80415
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

Re: Great teams contain great tossers

Postby Dr Cricket » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:38 am

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Never liked that idea, much as I don't like the idea of being fined runs for slow over rates. I like that the cricket is a pure quantifiable contest. Bidding takes that away, to the point where I'd suggest they'd hardly be playing cricket any more, and it would be (hope this isn't too fanciful) something akin to applying a degree of difficulty tariff in diving. The way forward is for proper preparation, less greedy itineraries, and more co-operation between countries regarding playing conditions. The worst thing about the 2015 Ashes was the introduction of the idea that there was a winning pitch and a losing pitch for the hosts.


Not going to lie but you generally have similar opinions to me but tend to say them in a more diplomatic or written better.

1 Cricket Major
2019 IPL Season.


Dr Cricket
 
Posts: 9403
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:46 am
Location: UK London
Team(s) Supported: India

Re: Great teams contain great tossers

Postby bigfluffylemon » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:01 am

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Never liked that idea, much as I don't like the idea of being fined runs for slow over rates. I like that the cricket is a pure quantifiable contest. Bidding takes that away, to the point where I'd suggest they'd hardly be playing cricket any more, and it would be (hope this isn't too fanciful) something akin to applying a degree of difficulty tariff in diving. The way forward is for proper preparation, less greedy itineraries, and more co-operation between countries regarding playing conditions. The worst thing about the 2015 Ashes was the introduction of the idea that there was a winning pitch and a losing pitch for the hosts.


Much as I agree that your way forward is ideal Arthur, I fear in practice that the local cricket boards and ICC are far too self-interested to let that happen. We have seen the same with the abandonment of the two-tier test structure which seems to be the logical next step for the development of the game.

What do you think about free hits? They are effectively a 'fine' for a no-ball, but in practice the major difference has been that the no-ball rate is significantly reduced, rather than lots of free runs being given out. Proponents of fines of runs for over rates would argue the same thing - set the penalty high enough and it'll almost never be used. It's the same here - encourage ground staff to produce a pitch where there is no obvious advantage to batting or fielding first.

I understand that the little mathematical formula idea is unlikely ever to be adopted, but I do feel that the toss does need to be reformed somehow. It's not good for the long-term health of the game that home sides keep demolishing the opposition - people are getting bored with test cricket. The home side winning the toss, especially multiple times in a row early in the series, just seems to add to home advantage for the worst.
2022 Big Bash League FL
2023 Women's T20 World Cup FL
User avatar
bigfluffylemon
 
Posts: 6365
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:40 am
Team(s) Supported: England. Australia.
Any team playing good cricket in the right spirit.

Re: Great teams contain great tossers

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:02 am

Free hits are just in limited overs though. Tests are a different game, its attractions are more traditional (two divisions would have been a threat to that too). Restrictions are a core part of what ODIs are about, an essential part of concentrating a game into 100 overs. It can't exist without ersatz rules. The strength of Tests is its rich culture, and it needs its rules (laws!) to be eternal to maintain that. Which doesn't mean change can't happen, just that it comes with risks and should be approached cautiously.

It's likely that cricket boards will destroy themselves through self interest (as the big three carve up threatens to) but I wouldn't say it has to happen. Cricket is a small world. It could change. I'd feel happier if the future of the game was in the hands of people like Atherton, Dravid and Sangakkara though than the conflicting interests of ex bankers and owners of a chain of shops.

Pitches that rely on the toss can easily backfire (though I suspect India would have won their games even if they'd lost the toss, but not so sure about England at Trent Bridge). I think the bigger problem is exaggerating conditions to gain too much of a home advantage, though to an extent, the differences do add to the charm (and traditions) of the game.

Regarding people getting bored of the game, I suspect it's the fear of the boards regarding the commerciality of its games that leads it to rig the pitches. Micro-rig them. You got the impression that the ECB felt like they couldn't afford England to lose the Ashes at home in 2015, in case everyone stopped watching (people of my generation watched England lose for two decades!). If interest is so fickle, it won't last anyway. The continued relevance of Tests is a big subject. You could write a book on it. My guess is that the toss won't change this.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80415
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.


Return to International Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests