Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Time to toss the Toss
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 12:59:09 PM3/26/12
to
The toss has got to be the most ridiculous thing in cricket. It is
clearly a major factor in determining the outcome of several matches -
e.g., most Test matches in the subcontinent, where losing the toss and
having to bat last is probably a ~100 run disadvantage from the get-
go. We also saw in the recent CB series in Australia that chasing
under lights was a distinct disadvantage.
Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
"winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
It would also be interesting to see how the opposing captains view the
worth of getting to bat first on a wicket that is expected to become a
minefield on days 4/5, and how that compares to what the pundits and
fans are speculating.
Surely the toss is one of the most flawed things in the game, and
easily fixable (in a good sense)?
clearly a major factor in determining the outcome of several matches -
e.g., most Test matches in the subcontinent, where losing the toss and
having to bat last is probably a ~100 run disadvantage from the get-
go. We also saw in the recent CB series in Australia that chasing
under lights was a distinct disadvantage.
Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
"winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
It would also be interesting to see how the opposing captains view the
worth of getting to bat first on a wicket that is expected to become a
minefield on days 4/5, and how that compares to what the pundits and
fans are speculating.
Surely the toss is one of the most flawed things in the game, and
easily fixable (in a good sense)?
RG
Mar 26, 2012, 2:25:34 PM3/26/12
to
whatever they want to do because the home team has the home advantage
anyway.
RG
jzfredricks
Mar 26, 2012, 5:01:03 PM3/26/12
to
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:25:34 AM UTC+10, RG wrote:
> how about keeping it simple..............just let the visiting team do
> whatever they want to do because the home team has the home advantage
> anyway.
I'd prefer this to a bidding system.
> how about keeping it simple..............just let the visiting team do
> whatever they want to do because the home team has the home advantage
> anyway.
Or, have a toss system, but if the home team is ahead on the toss count, ie 1-0, then the next toss automatically goes to the away team. That'd make it 1-1. Toss again for the 3rd match.
This means the away team would win between 50-100% of tosses, and the home team between 0-50%.
dechucka
Mar 26, 2012, 5:02:12 PM3/26/12
to
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5838893.188.1332795663709.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvg9...
to suit them
skp
Mar 26, 2012, 5:20:46 PM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 9:59 am, Howzzat <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A less radical (but still unlikely to work idea because of logistical
issues) might be to allow teams (or perhaps just the team that loses
the toss) to name their playing XI after the toss result is known.
The toss gets done 24 hours before the match starts or something to
slightly help with the logistical problems.
Hmmm... all that sounds farcical too.
We are stuck with the toss.
skp
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 5:40:34 PM3/26/12
to
being heavily loaded in favor of teams batting/bowling first - in
other words it could still be a lottery. The objective is to take away
the element of toss luck form individual games.
I have long advocated the idea of giving the toss to the fielding
slide (that should restrict pitch doctoring to a certain extent) but
we still need a solution for certain ODI situations. For example,
during the winter months in northern India, for 9/9:30 am starts, it
can be quite hazardous for the team batting first. They won't reduce
the number of overs and start the play late, so we have this
ridiculous situation where the contest between two evenly-matched
teams is reduced to a farce depending on which way the toss goes. It
would be unfair to just give the toss to the visiting side, but in any
case the problem still remains for neutral matches.
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 5:46:49 PM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 2:20 pm, skp <vikani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 9:59 am, Howzzat <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The toss has got to be the most ridiculous thing in cricket. It is
> > clearly a major factor in determining the outcome of several matches -
> > e.g., most Test matches in the subcontinent, where losing the toss and
> > having to bat last is probably a ~100 run disadvantage from the get-
> > go. We also saw in the recent CB series in Australia that chasing
> > under lights was a distinct disadvantage.
>
> > Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> > bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> > bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> > then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> > would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> > score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> > the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> > same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> > "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
>
> > It would also be interesting to see how the opposing captains view the
> > worth of getting to bat first on a wicket that is expected to become a
> > minefield on days 4/5, and how that compares to what the pundits and
> > fans are speculating.
>
> > Surely the toss is one of the most flawed things in the game, and
> > easily fixable (in a good sense)?
>
> IMO, way too radical and even somewhat farcical.
Radical yes, but why do you think it's farcical? What could be more
> On Mar 26, 9:59 am, Howzzat <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The toss has got to be the most ridiculous thing in cricket. It is
> > clearly a major factor in determining the outcome of several matches -
> > e.g., most Test matches in the subcontinent, where losing the toss and
> > having to bat last is probably a ~100 run disadvantage from the get-
> > go. We also saw in the recent CB series in Australia that chasing
> > under lights was a distinct disadvantage.
>
> > Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> > bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> > bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> > then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> > would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> > score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> > the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> > same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> > "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
>
> > It would also be interesting to see how the opposing captains view the
> > worth of getting to bat first on a wicket that is expected to become a
> > minefield on days 4/5, and how that compares to what the pundits and
> > fans are speculating.
>
> > Surely the toss is one of the most flawed things in the game, and
> > easily fixable (in a good sense)?
>
> IMO, way too radical and even somewhat farcical.
farcical than the toss determining the outcome of critical matches?
You know as well as anyone that once you lose the toss at most India/
Pak/SL venues the best you can hope for is a draw. You are starting
the game at -150 or thereabouts, as chasing anything over 250 in the
4th innings is improbable (if not impossible). Contrast that to
500-600 scores routinely put up (and expected) by the team batting
first. Why wouldn't anyone want to level the playing field a bit?
>
> A less radical (but still unlikely to work idea because of logistical
> issues) might be to allow teams (or perhaps just the team that loses
> the toss) to name their playing XI after the toss result is known.
> The toss gets done 24 hours before the match starts or something to
> slightly help with the logistical problems.
disadvantage as in the situation I described above.
Andrew Dunford
Mar 26, 2012, 6:01:40 PM3/26/12
to
"Howzzat" <shgu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e06484cf-49b7-41b5...@z3g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...
> The toss has got to be the most ridiculous thing in cricket. It is
> clearly a major factor in determining the outcome of several matches -
> e.g., most Test matches in the subcontinent, where losing the toss and
> having to bat last is probably a ~100 run disadvantage from the get-
> go. We also saw in the recent CB series in Australia that chasing
> under lights was a distinct disadvantage.
>
> Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
According to my calendar today is only the 27th of March.
> clearly a major factor in determining the outcome of several matches -
> e.g., most Test matches in the subcontinent, where losing the toss and
> having to bat last is probably a ~100 run disadvantage from the get-
> go. We also saw in the recent CB series in Australia that chasing
> under lights was a distinct disadvantage.
>
> Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
<snip>
Andrew
max.it
Mar 26, 2012, 6:19:14 PM3/26/12
to
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:20:46 -0700 (PDT), skp <vika...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It's not just 50/50 you might get a winning outcome from losing the
toss. I would have batted/bowled anyway.
The little green 0 on the roulette wheel was introduced to provide the
element of chance. Before the 0 the wealthy gambler could earn a
living by outbetting the house, after the 0 he had to win a living.
Staggering sums and lordly estates changed hands before the 0 and the
good old house limit were introduced.
max.it
wrote:
toss. I would have batted/bowled anyway.
The little green 0 on the roulette wheel was introduced to provide the
element of chance. Before the 0 the wealthy gambler could earn a
living by outbetting the house, after the 0 he had to win a living.
Staggering sums and lordly estates changed hands before the 0 and the
good old house limit were introduced.
max.it
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 7:23:24 PM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 3:01 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "Howzzat" <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You really think this is a crazy idea? Ask Dhoni who lost 5/5 ODI
tosses in England, 6/8 in Australia, and 3/3 in the Asia Cup. Plus
most of them in Test cricket in the subcontinent (apart from the
recent series vs. WI). How about the first India vs. RSA Test in RSA
last year that was pretty much decided by the toss - in a series
between the #1 and #2 ranked sides at the time?
Why wouldn't anyone want to fix what is clearly a lottery element in
cricket? And what could be fairer than than my proposal?
> "Howzzat" <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
tosses in England, 6/8 in Australia, and 3/3 in the Asia Cup. Plus
most of them in Test cricket in the subcontinent (apart from the
recent series vs. WI). How about the first India vs. RSA Test in RSA
last year that was pretty much decided by the toss - in a series
between the #1 and #2 ranked sides at the time?
Why wouldn't anyone want to fix what is clearly a lottery element in
cricket? And what could be fairer than than my proposal?
jzfredricks
Mar 26, 2012, 7:30:36 PM3/26/12
to
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 7:40:34 AM UTC+10, Howzzat wrote:
> That still does not resolve the issue of some pitches in the series
> being heavily loaded in favor of teams batting/bowling first - in
> other words it could still be a lottery. The objective is to take away
> the element of toss luck form individual games.
There's not a lot of pitch doctoring.
> That still does not resolve the issue of some pitches in the series
> being heavily loaded in favor of teams batting/bowling first - in
> other words it could still be a lottery. The objective is to take away
> the element of toss luck form individual games.
It might be done by a home team that MUST win this Test. They make a greentop and hope to win the toss. But if they lose it, my goodness they're in trouble.
Same goes for a turner.
The worst issue with pitch doctoring is the road. The home team just needs a draw to win the series, so we get the flatest wicket in history.
I understand that winning the toss can help. I don't mind this, as I like the element of luck/randomness. Having to deal with bad luck is also a nice application of skill.
What I don't like is a dominant team winning 5 tosses in a row during an Ashes.
If any change does happen, it CAN'T involve letting the home team know in advance that either that they will win the toss, or knowing who will be batting first. This will allow genuine pitch doctoring.
Andrew Dunford
Mar 26, 2012, 7:57:38 PM3/26/12
to
news:9f0437ab-8d7d-4707...@vy8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
There are occasions in Test cricket on which the toss has an undue effect on
proceedings: that match at Centurion may well be one of them. However I
suggest they are relatively few and caused more by poor pitches (in the
sense that e.g. conditions for batting ease more than they should from day
one to day two) than any 'unfairness' of the toss system. Even then, I'm
not very familiar with the Centurion match but would still have to question
whether the pitch really changed as much as the scores might indicate.
Even then, I would take the glorious uncertainty of the toss any day of the
week compared with a handicapping system. Anything that messes with the
scoring of the game just goes straight in the bin for me.
Andrew
proceedings: that match at Centurion may well be one of them. However I
suggest they are relatively few and caused more by poor pitches (in the
sense that e.g. conditions for batting ease more than they should from day
one to day two) than any 'unfairness' of the toss system. Even then, I'm
not very familiar with the Centurion match but would still have to question
whether the pitch really changed as much as the scores might indicate.
Even then, I would take the glorious uncertainty of the toss any day of the
week compared with a handicapping system. Anything that messes with the
scoring of the game just goes straight in the bin for me.
Andrew
Chan
Mar 26, 2012, 8:26:02 PM3/26/12
to
innings score. How many times have you heard commentators say after
the first innings in an ODI : "If [team captain] had been offered 275
on this wicket at the start of play he would have taken it". Clearly
such people would not be averse to the entire first innings being
decided by the rival captains bidding until an agreement is reached.
Only one actual innings would then have to be played. But why stop
there? The captains could bid on some agreed score for X overs of the
reply. Then they would only have to play 50-X overs. The only rule
would be that X must be less than 50. It could go as high as 49.5.
The above exercise might seem frivolous but not only would it probably
appeal to people like Howzat, but it actually has some practical value
as an alternative to the D/L method. It also brings a captain's
strategic and negotiating qualities to the forefront. The Cronjes and
Butts of the world would probably be quite good at it.
Imagine turning on your tv during a rain stoppage and, instead of
watching old reruns, you get to see Strauss and Jayawardene
negotiating runs and overs! If it were structured properly I think it
could be quite exciting ..
- Chan
jzfredricks
Mar 26, 2012, 8:46:31 PM3/26/12
to
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:26:02 AM UTC+10, Chan wrote:
> Imagine turning on your tv during a rain stoppage and, instead of
> watching old reruns, you get to see Strauss and Jayawardene
> negotiating runs and overs! If it were structured properly I think it
> could be quite exciting ..
Anything short of a pit with crocodiles/pointy things and I'd not watch it.
> Imagine turning on your tv during a rain stoppage and, instead of
> watching old reruns, you get to see Strauss and Jayawardene
> negotiating runs and overs! If it were structured properly I think it
> could be quite exciting ..
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 10:50:55 PM3/26/12
to
between captains or multiple bids. All I am suggesting is that
captains submit a sealed bid to the match referee before the game,
indicating how much they value the toss (in terms of # of runs). What
does it have to do with the first innings or the D/L system? This is
just trying to circumvent the luck factor associated with the toss.
And what exactly did you mean by "people like Howzat"?
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 10:57:50 PM3/26/12
to
batting first. Why should the team who won a toss get to have the
advantage of 100+ runs even before a ball has been bowled?
Even then, I'm
> not very familiar with the Centurion match but would still have to question
> whether the pitch really changed as much as the scores might indicate.
it was a clear case of whoever bats first wouldn't last two sessions.
It was a flat centurion wicket otherwise, as the later score in the
match indicate.
>
> Even then, I would take the glorious uncertainty of the toss any day of the
> week compared with a handicapping system. Anything that messes with the
> scoring of the game just goes straight in the bin for me.
>
the toss is not a glorious uncertainty. It is sheer stupidity.
jzfredricks
Mar 26, 2012, 11:41:27 PM3/26/12
to
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:57:50 PM UTC+10, Howzzat wrote:
> 9/10 pitches in the subcontinent are loaded in favor of the team
> batting first. Why should the team who won a toss get to have the
> advantage of 100+ runs even before a ball has been bowled?
Speaking of Tests (in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka);
> 9/10 pitches in the subcontinent are loaded in favor of the team
> batting first. Why should the team who won a toss get to have the
> advantage of 100+ runs even before a ball has been bowled?
Win Toss and Bat First == 401 Matches, 110 Wins, 109 Lost, 180 Draws
Win Toss and Bowl First == 88 Matches, 33 Wins, 18 Lost, 37 Draws
If you win the toss and bat first you have the same chance to win as you do to lose.
Howzzat
Mar 27, 2012, 1:18:23 AM3/27/12
to
winning the toss chose to bat first. So that's 8/10, not 9/10 as I had
guessed. That tells you that on most occasions there was a perceived
benefit associated with batting first - why should you get that
benefit for free (as in by winning a toss which has nothing to do with
skill)?
Winning the toss in the subcontinent does not guarantee a win (you
still have to play well and all that) but it does put you at a
significant advantage before a ball has been bowled. How can that be
OK?
Andrew Dunford
Mar 27, 2012, 1:23:49 AM3/27/12
to
news:6390189.3.1332819687423.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcwi10...
In my experience the better team usually wins...
Andrew
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
Mar 27, 2012, 1:43:26 AM3/27/12
to
news:8c7e6340-c5bb-4a59...@x5g2000pbl.googlegroups.com...
But the results listed above (which I haven't checked) indicate the side
batting second wins more matches than that batting first. Is this advantage
real or merely perceived?
Andrew
batting second wins more matches than that batting first. Is this advantage
real or merely perceived?
Andrew
Howzzat
Mar 27, 2012, 2:34:30 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "Howzzat" <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Problem with drawing conclusions from the results is that you assume
that everything else (but the toss) is equal - the teams are equally
strong, have quality spinners to exploit the conditions etc. If you
have followed cricket in the subcontinent you will know how it goes -
the pitch is a road on days 1 and 2, starts to turn day 3, becomes
difficult to bat on day 4 and approaches a minefield on day 5. Of
course there are exceptions, but that's the general script. Who
wouldn't give their right arm (or say a 100 runs) to bat first?
Anyway, for someone to bowl first in the subcontinent (which happens
on 1/4 occasions per the figures above) must mean that conditions were
*really* favorable for bowling, because no-one would like to bat last
otherwise. That might explain the higher percentage of wins bowling
first.
A good stat to dig up would be the difference between the average
first and fourth innings scores in the subcontinent vs. elsewhere. I
would hypothesize that the difference is much larger in the
subcontinent as batting in the 4th innings becomes really hard (vs.
really easy in the first innings). You only have to look at the list
of successful 4th innings chases - until India's recent efforts it was
pretty ordinary.
> "Howzzat" <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
that everything else (but the toss) is equal - the teams are equally
strong, have quality spinners to exploit the conditions etc. If you
have followed cricket in the subcontinent you will know how it goes -
the pitch is a road on days 1 and 2, starts to turn day 3, becomes
difficult to bat on day 4 and approaches a minefield on day 5. Of
course there are exceptions, but that's the general script. Who
wouldn't give their right arm (or say a 100 runs) to bat first?
Anyway, for someone to bowl first in the subcontinent (which happens
on 1/4 occasions per the figures above) must mean that conditions were
*really* favorable for bowling, because no-one would like to bat last
otherwise. That might explain the higher percentage of wins bowling
first.
A good stat to dig up would be the difference between the average
first and fourth innings scores in the subcontinent vs. elsewhere. I
would hypothesize that the difference is much larger in the
subcontinent as batting in the 4th innings becomes really hard (vs.
really easy in the first innings). You only have to look at the list
of successful 4th innings chases - until India's recent efforts it was
pretty ordinary.
jzfredricks
Mar 28, 2012, 1:31:27 AM3/28/12
to
I'd happily give SL another 150 runs if it would shut Tony Greig up...
He's going on like a real pork chop
He's going on like a real pork chop
Bob Dubery
Mar 29, 2012, 1:35:07 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 26, 6:59 pm, Howzzat <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
This supposes that the captains can correctly anticipate the
> Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
conditions. They can't always. Mike Brearley wrote about some tosses
being good to lose because you get out there, you look at the pitch,
you ask the experts in your team for an opinion. You haven't a clue,
or it's a ground where accepted wisdom is to bat first but your team
is saying "bowl", or half say bat and half say bowl...
And what if neither captain wants to enter a bid? How do you break the
deadlock? Toss a coin?
> Surely the toss is one of the most flawed things in the game, and
> easily fixable (in a good sense)?
that it's the worst possible system - until you consider the
alternatives.
Oh... how do you decide who bids first?
jzfredricks
Mar 29, 2012, 2:01:26 AM3/29/12
to
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:35:07 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> Oh... how do you decide who bids first?
Blind bids, in a sealed envelope.
> Oh... how do you decide who bids first?
You could ask to also write down 2nd and 3rd bids too, in case of tie.
Eventually someone would win.
(although I don't like this system at all)
Vijay Sharma
Mar 29, 2012, 3:08:40 AM3/29/12
to
Since 1877, 489 games played. Team batting first won - 128, Batting second won - 142...so much for the battign first advantage!
Since 1 jan 2000, total games - 153, team batting first won - 45, batting second won - 59. Oh damn what happened to the batting first logic?
>
> Even then, I'm
> > not very familiar with the Centurion match but would still have to question
> > whether the pitch really changed as much as the scores might indicate.
>
> Oh yes. On the morning of the game before the toss (after the rains),
> it was a clear case of whoever bats first wouldn't last two sessions.
> It was a flat centurion wicket otherwise, as the later score in the
> match indicate.
>
> >
> > Even then, I would take the glorious uncertainty of the toss any day of the
> > week compared with a handicapping system. Anything that messes with the
> > scoring of the game just goes straight in the bin for me.
> >
>
> My system may not be ideal (and there may be better alternatives), but
> the toss is not a glorious uncertainty. It is sheer stupidity.
I totally agree with Chan on your bidding system - it is ripe for match fixing
Vijay Sharma
Mar 29, 2012, 3:09:48 AM3/29/12
to
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:48:23 AM UTC+5:30, Howzzat wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:41 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:57:50 PM UTC+10, Howzzat wrote:
> > > 9/10 pitches in the subcontinent are loaded in favor of the team
> > > batting first. Why should the team who won a toss get to have the
> > > advantage of 100+ runs even before a ball has been bowled?
> >
> > Speaking of Tests (in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka);
> >
> > Win Toss and Bat First == 401 Matches, 110 Wins, 109 Lost, 180 Draws
> > Win Toss and Bowl First == 88 Matches, 33 Wins, 18 Lost, 37 Draws
> >
> > If you win the toss and bat first you have the same chance to win as you do to lose.
>
> The more relevant point is that on 401 out 489 occasions the captain
> winning the toss chose to bat first. So that's 8/10, not 9/10 as I had
> guessed. That tells you that on most occasions there was a perceived
> benefit associated with batting first - why should you get that
> benefit for free (as in by winning a toss which has nothing to do with
> skill)?
Perceived benefit IS NOT EQUAL to actual benefit
> On Mar 26, 8:41 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:57:50 PM UTC+10, Howzzat wrote:
> > > 9/10 pitches in the subcontinent are loaded in favor of the team
> > > batting first. Why should the team who won a toss get to have the
> > > advantage of 100+ runs even before a ball has been bowled?
> >
> > Speaking of Tests (in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka);
> >
> > Win Toss and Bat First == 401 Matches, 110 Wins, 109 Lost, 180 Draws
> > Win Toss and Bowl First == 88 Matches, 33 Wins, 18 Lost, 37 Draws
> >
> > If you win the toss and bat first you have the same chance to win as you do to lose.
>
> The more relevant point is that on 401 out 489 occasions the captain
> winning the toss chose to bat first. So that's 8/10, not 9/10 as I had
> guessed. That tells you that on most occasions there was a perceived
> benefit associated with batting first - why should you get that
> benefit for free (as in by winning a toss which has nothing to do with
> skill)?
Vijay Sharma
Mar 29, 2012, 2:55:41 AM3/29/12
to
Since 1877, 489 matches have been played in Ind/Pak/SL out of which the team winning the toss has won 143 times and the team losing the toss has won 127 times. Hardly farcical.
Since 2000, 153 matches have been played in Ind/Pak/SL out of which the team winning the toss has won 51 games and the toss-loser has won 53 games. Again hardly farcical
Howzzat
Mar 29, 2012, 11:49:30 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't help it if you are looking at the wrong facts. As I explained
elsewhere, you can't draw conclusions on actual results. Most non-
subcontinental teams visiting the subcontinent have a hard time
winning there (after batting first) because they usually don't have
the quality spinners to exploit the conditions later. Or good enough
batsmen against spin. The relevant stat is how many captains choose to
bat first in the subcontinent. And the "facts" are that it's 8/10. Why
would that be?
If you don't think that batting first in the subcontinent is a huge
advantage, I can't help you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Even then, I'm
> > > not very familiar with the Centurion match but would still have to question
> > > whether the pitch really changed as much as the scores might indicate.
>
> > Oh yes. On the morning of the game before the toss (after the rains),
> > it was a clear case of whoever bats first wouldn't last two sessions.
> > It was a flat centurion wicket otherwise, as the later score in the
> > match indicate.
>
> > > Even then, I would take the glorious uncertainty of the toss any day of the
> > > week compared with a handicapping system. Anything that messes with the
> > > scoring of the game just goes straight in the bin for me.
>
> > My system may not be ideal (and there may be better alternatives), but
> > the toss is not a glorious uncertainty. It is sheer stupidity.
>
> I don't think there is anything wrong with the toss in Test cricket. I'd rather prefer that element of little luck because it makes the game more interesting.
>
> I totally agree with Chan on your bidding system - it is ripe for match fixing
Anything can be rigged - who says the tosses aren't? Have you ever
seen the camera zoom in to the coin when the referee picks it up? How
do you know he is just not making up heads or tails?
I don't see how a sealed bid to thematch referee 30 minutes before
the start of match can be fixed - at least any more than what happens
today in other aspects of the game.
wrote:
elsewhere, you can't draw conclusions on actual results. Most non-
subcontinental teams visiting the subcontinent have a hard time
winning there (after batting first) because they usually don't have
the quality spinners to exploit the conditions later. Or good enough
batsmen against spin. The relevant stat is how many captains choose to
bat first in the subcontinent. And the "facts" are that it's 8/10. Why
would that be?
If you don't think that batting first in the subcontinent is a huge
advantage, I can't help you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Even then, I'm
> > > not very familiar with the Centurion match but would still have to question
> > > whether the pitch really changed as much as the scores might indicate.
>
> > Oh yes. On the morning of the game before the toss (after the rains),
> > it was a clear case of whoever bats first wouldn't last two sessions.
> > It was a flat centurion wicket otherwise, as the later score in the
> > match indicate.
>
> > > Even then, I would take the glorious uncertainty of the toss any day of the
> > > week compared with a handicapping system. Anything that messes with the
> > > scoring of the game just goes straight in the bin for me.
>
> > My system may not be ideal (and there may be better alternatives), but
> > the toss is not a glorious uncertainty. It is sheer stupidity.
>
> I don't think there is anything wrong with the toss in Test cricket. I'd rather prefer that element of little luck because it makes the game more interesting.
>
> I totally agree with Chan on your bidding system - it is ripe for match fixing
seen the camera zoom in to the coin when the referee picks it up? How
do you know he is just not making up heads or tails?
I don't see how a sealed bid to thematch referee 30 minutes before
the start of match can be fixed - at least any more than what happens
today in other aspects of the game.
Howzzat
Mar 29, 2012, 11:50:55 AM3/29/12
to
are tied (say at 50 runs), just toss the coin and select a winner.
Winner gets to choose whether to bat or bowl first, but still concedes
the 50 runs. Win win all around.
Howzzat
Mar 29, 2012, 11:53:45 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 28, 10:35 pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:59 pm, Howzzat <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> > bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> > bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> > then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> > would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> > score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> > the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> > same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> > "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
>
> This supposes that the captains can correctly anticipate the
> conditions. They can't always. Mike Brearley wrote about some tosses
> being good to lose because you get out there, you look at the pitch,
> you ask the experts in your team for an opinion. You haven't a clue,
> or it's a ground where accepted wisdom is to bat first but your team
> is saying "bowl", or half say bat and half say bowl...
In this situation (where you can't read the conditions), just bid 0
> On Mar 26, 6:59 pm, Howzzat <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not just get rid of the toss? Instead, captains can be asked to
> > bid runs to the match referee for the right to determine whether they
> > bat or field first. So if captain A bids 50 runs and captain B 60,
> > then captain B gets to decide whether he bats/bowls first, and 60 runs
> > would be deducted from their team score (or added to the opposition
> > score). This way you take out the luck factor associated with winning
> > the toss and make things more fair. In case the two captains bid the
> > same number of runs, just do the damn toss (as a tiebreaker), but the
> > "winning" captain still concedes the runs bid.
>
> This supposes that the captains can correctly anticipate the
> conditions. They can't always. Mike Brearley wrote about some tosses
> being good to lose because you get out there, you look at the pitch,
> you ask the experts in your team for an opinion. You haven't a clue,
> or it's a ground where accepted wisdom is to bat first but your team
> is saying "bowl", or half say bat and half say bowl...
runs. If both captains do the same, we are back to the toss. Simple.
>
> And what if neither captain wants to enter a bid? How do you break the
> deadlock? Toss a coin?
conditions a team doesn't start the match playing catch-up already.
>
> > Surely the toss is one of the most flawed things in the game, and
> > easily fixable (in a good sense)?
>
> I suspect it's rather like democracy. You see all the flaws and decide
> that it's the worst possible system - until you consider the
> alternatives.
>
> Oh... how do you decide who bids first?
toss time, if you will). Just like team sheets.
Vijay Sharma
Mar 30, 2012, 2:58:54 AM3/30/12
to
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:19:30 PM UTC+5:30, Howzzat wrote:
<snipped earlier>
> > Again, get your facts right before making such claims.
> >
> > Since 1877, 489 games played. Team batting first won - 128, Batting second won - 142...so much for the battign first advantage!
> >
> > Since 1 jan 2000, total games - 153, team batting first won - 45, batting second won - 59. Oh damn what happened to the batting first logic?
>
> I can't help it if you are looking at the wrong facts. As I explained
> elsewhere, you can't draw conclusions on actual results. Most non-
> subcontinental teams visiting the subcontinent have a hard time
> winning there (after batting first) because they usually don't have
> the quality spinners to exploit the conditions later. Or good enough
> batsmen against spin.
How is the above related to advantage coz of toss? If visiting teams cannot win even if they bat first (because of lack of quality spinners) then that is surely not the problem of the toss. The problem lies elsewhere - it lies in teams having quality spinners. (I'd wanna see how Aus and SL did in India when they had Warne and Murali)
The relevant stat is how many captains choose to
> bat first in the subcontinent. And the "facts" are that it's 8/10. Why
> would that be?
As I mentioned in another post, perception NOT EQUAL TO reality. The captains may feel that batting first is their best option, however reality is that batting first or second does not seem to have a significant impact on the results
<snipped earlier>
> > I totally agree with Chan on your bidding system - it is ripe for match fixing
>
> Anything can be rigged - who says the tosses aren't? Have you ever
> seen the camera zoom in to the coin when the referee picks it up? How
> do you know he is just not making up heads or tails?
Why are you claiming such things? You are opening yourself up for some embarrassing probing now - how many tosses are you aware of that have been rigged? (I know of the match fixing days Prabhakar claimed one toss was rigged. But that wasn't actually rigged...it was only that Azza/Kapil allegedly told his boys he lost the toss. For the toss to have been rigged the MR shoulda been involved innit?). So how many MRs are in the rigging game?
>
> I don't see how a sealed bid to thematch referee 30 minutes before
> the start of match can be fixed - at least any more than what happens
> today in other aspects of the game.
You have a right to your opinion
<snipped earlier>
> > Again, get your facts right before making such claims.
> >
> > Since 1877, 489 games played. Team batting first won - 128, Batting second won - 142...so much for the battign first advantage!
> >
> > Since 1 jan 2000, total games - 153, team batting first won - 45, batting second won - 59. Oh damn what happened to the batting first logic?
>
> I can't help it if you are looking at the wrong facts. As I explained
> elsewhere, you can't draw conclusions on actual results. Most non-
> subcontinental teams visiting the subcontinent have a hard time
> winning there (after batting first) because they usually don't have
> the quality spinners to exploit the conditions later. Or good enough
> batsmen against spin.
The relevant stat is how many captains choose to
> bat first in the subcontinent. And the "facts" are that it's 8/10. Why
> would that be?
>
> If you don't think that batting first in the subcontinent is a huge
> advantage, I can't help you.
Not just sub-continent but on any wicket, as a thumb rule, batting first is the way to go if u ask the experts (this despite results not backing up that belief). Like Boycott would say in commentary, 9 out of 10 times you choose to bat and on the 10th time you think and then choose to bat.
> If you don't think that batting first in the subcontinent is a huge
> advantage, I can't help you.
<snipped earlier>
> > I totally agree with Chan on your bidding system - it is ripe for match fixing
>
> Anything can be rigged - who says the tosses aren't? Have you ever
> seen the camera zoom in to the coin when the referee picks it up? How
> do you know he is just not making up heads or tails?
>
> I don't see how a sealed bid to thematch referee 30 minutes before
> the start of match can be fixed - at least any more than what happens
> today in other aspects of the game.
M
Apr 2, 2012, 4:36:17 PM4/2/12
to
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:34:30 -0700, Howzzat wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>> "Howzzat" <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8c7e6340-
c5bb-4a59-8e8...@x5g2000pbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>> "Howzzat" <shgupt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8c7e6340-
the supposed thing to do?
Bob Dubery
Apr 3, 2012, 2:21:36 AM4/3/12
to
On Apr 2, 10:36 pm, M <M...@kaveri.com> wrote:
> Some of the decisions to bat first may have been simply done as that is
> the supposed thing to do?
Well yes. Was it CB Fry? Anyway somebody said "If I win the toss I
> Some of the decisions to bat first may have been simply done as that is
> the supposed thing to do?
might think of bowling first, but I always bat."
Brearley observed that a captain who bowls first and sees the
opposition get 400 gets a far harder time from the press and public
than a captain who bats first and sees his team go all out for 200.
Winning the toss and bowling, in a test, always raises eyebrows. It's
perceived as the riskier approach. Captains seldom have to justify a
decision to bat first.
0 new messages