Remove the toss

[greatwhiteshark]

Ricky Ponting and Michael holding think removing the toss in test cricket and giving the touring side the decision to bat or bowl will help test cricket and remove any chance of doctored wickets.

I cannot for the life of me think of a more stupid suggestion ever, yes it might remove wickets being prepared for the home side but all it will do is produce flat track highways the world over. Every test will be played on a batting paradise.
Fast bowlers over time will just stop being produced, batsman will plunder the bowling for 3-4 days with declarations everywhere and hoping the wicket will break up so a spinner can bowl you to victory.

What are your thoughts??

 

[Pugsley]

Let's break all the traditions. Punter, Swisse is killing your brain cells.

 

[Damon_3388]

I don't see how it would stop curators from preparing a pitch that favours whatever the home team's strengths are. Both teams have to bat and bowl on the thing, after all.

 

[Cleavy]

What are your thoughts??

one for the Unpopular cricket opinions thread

 

[Lethality]

Might be interesting if the team can get together with the curators and produce a pitch that looks great but has hidden demons or is engineered to crumble on day 4.

 

[JackOutback]

I don't necessarily endorse it but I don't think it's the worst idea ever. The home side already has an obvious advantage so this would be one way to even the odds a little. I do understand the concern in not producing wickets that obviously advantage the bowlers or batsmen.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Clarke won the toss at Edgbaston and had the choice what to do...
Didnt stop whingers claiming that pitch was doctored .

 

[Chuckie357]

That rug of Ricky's mut be depriving his brain of oxygen

 

[eddiesmith]

Possibly the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard, who let Punter loose in the media?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Maybe reduce the advantage of the toss by taking out the choice element - i.e. you win the toss = you bat first

I also don't mind the idea of having the toss in match #1 of the series, and then alternating for the rest of the matches.

Whether those things would stop favourable pitches being prepared for the home team I don't know...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How strong is the correlation between winning the toss and winning the game?

 

[DrVanNostrand]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Cricket is all about adjusting to different conditions. Why should you get gifted the decision just for being the touring team? Ridiculous.

 

[The Passenger]

How strong is the correlation between winning the toss and winning the game?

In the last 10 years, it's 154-153 (109 draws) to the team that has won the toss.

161-146 to the team that bats first.

What is more concerning is the advantage the home team has. 188 - 105 (103 draws) in that period. 79% advantage to the home team and that gap is widening to 85% in the last 5 years (91 - 49) and 122% in the last 3 years (60-27). The overall advantage the home team has had for test cricket is 53% (857 - 558, 2 ties, 732 draws) which is closer to where it should be.

The win-loss ratio for the home team has increased in just about every decade for a century now. 11% in the 30's, 30% (40's), 35% (50's), 42% (60's), 53% (70's), 55% (80's), 77% (90's), 61% (00's) and 70% (10's) and it's starting to look like it's going to explode again.

 

[sherb]

The wickets in England weren't doctored.

 

[Natho]

Saaaay what?!

 

[The_Reaper]

Still a better idea than the day-nighter in Adelaide this year

 

[big_e]

In the last 10 years, it's 154-153 (109 draws) to the team that has won the toss.

161-146 to the team that bats first.

What is more concerning is the advantage the home team has. 188 - 105 (103 draws) in that period. 79% advantage to the home team and that gap is widening to 85% in the last 5 years (91 - 49) and 122% in the last 3 years (60-27). The overall advantage the home team has had for test cricket is 53% (857 - 558, 2 ties, 732 draws) which is closer to where it should be.

The win-loss ratio for the home team has increased in just about every decade for a century now. 11% in the 30's, 30% (40's), 35% (50's), 42% (60's), 53% (70's), 55% (80's), 77% (90's), 61% (00's) and 70% (10's) and it's starting to look like it's going to explode again.

I reckon this has more to do with lack of preparation rather than doctored pitches.

Take the 89 Ashes as an example. The first tour match started in late April yet the first test was in the second week of June. Even as late as 1997 Australia spent more than a month in the UK before the first test, playing a mix of full county games, those semi-serious one or two day games, and a three match ODI series.

This year they had barely been there a week.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Away team bats first in baseball.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Away team bats first in baseball.

after the game of scissors paper rock to decide who bats first

 

[Moonwatcher]

Away team bats first in baseball.

Is it possible to doctor the conditions in baseball?

 

[KiwiRoo]

Away team bats first in baseball.

You're also allowed 3 strikes before you're out...Watto would love it !

 

[SriLankanCat]

IT gets a bit boring people whinging about doctored pitches. Isnt that challenge of playing in a foreign country?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Is it possible to doctor the conditions in baseball?

Some fields have more dirt than others.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

A pitch is prepared, then you decide who bats first with the toss of a coin. Sometimes it's a lucky toss to win, other times not so lucky. That's cricket. If the curator prepares a pitch to suit the home team, I can't see where batting first or second will alter their chances of winning.

I agree with the others ... Ricky, think about what you've suggested, then get back to us.

 

[dashing_man]

What will be even better is the captain with the biggest dick wins the toss