THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
June 17, 2014

Time to dump the coin toss?

Stuart Wark
On the 2013 tour to India, Australia won all four tosses but lost 4-0  © BCCI
Enlarge

One of the most common utterances heard regularly in cricket is that if a captain wins the toss, they should always choose to bat first. The supposed original quotation, ascribed to WG Gracem was: "When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat." Similarly, Ian Chappell quotes his grandfather Victor Richardson as saying, "Nine times out of ten when you win the toss, bat first, and on the tenth occasion think about it, then bat."

There have been numerous statistical analysis arguing whether winning the toss actually makes any difference to the outcome of the match. However, the question no one seems to ask is: why do we toss a coin to decide which team bats and which team bowls? In fact, when did tossing a coin to choose between the two options first become standard practice?

References to the common usage of metal coins can be found as far back as the 7th century BC in the Greek islands and across middle Asia. In order to distinguish between the values, coins were imprinted with different images or text, and as early as 610 BC the "Lydian Lion" coin from Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) had two clearly defined sides - a lion's head on the obverse and a punch mark on the reverse that occurred during the minting process. At some point, and with humanity being what it is, probably very soon after the first coin was produced, two people decided to bet upon the outcome of throwing a coin up in the air and seeing which side finished facing the sky.

One of the first records of coin tossing can be found in early Roman times with reference to a betting game called "navia aut kaput", which translates roughly to "ship or head", which refers to the coins that carried the emperor's head and a ship image on their two faces. People in England and France played a similar game in the middle ages, called "Cross and Pile" (or "pile ou face" in French), when coins featured a cross on one side and a pillar on the other. This long history of tossing a coin with two clearly defined outcomes lent itself perfectly to situations whereby a random choice featuring two different options presented itself.

By the time the first laws of cricket were produced in 1744, tossing a coin to allocate the decision-making power to one team or the other had become commonplace*. What was particularly interesting about tossing the coin during these early fixtures was that the winner had two different choices to make: the still-standard option of whether to bat or bowl, but also of where to "pitch the stumps".

Before the introduction of established cricket grounds with permanent curators and defined "pitch" areas in the 1800s, matches tended to be played in open paddocks with the stumps seemingly arbitrarily placed onto the flattest section. However, depending upon the make-up and relative strengths of the teams, where the stumps were pitched could make a significant difference to the overall outcome. A side with considerable bowling expertise would opt for a different pitch location to that of a team with a strong batting line-up.

Cricket authorities should also abandon the "pretence" of ground staff being supposedly neutral, allowing the home side to legitimately and openly tell the curator to deliver whatever type of pitch the captain wishes

Over time, professional groundsmen started to become commonplace and cricket grounds featured permanent pitch "squares". This change negated the need for the dual function of tossing the coin, and by the time of the 1884 Code of the Laws, it was reduced to the current convention of just choosing whether to bat or bowl. Winning the toss was still a substantial advantage, as the pitch tended to start off in good (or at least reasonable) condition and then progressively deteriorate across the course of the match. WG Grace's original premise about always batting first makes considerable sense in this light. However, as the skills of the curators have improved over time, there is now no significant advantage to batting first in Test cricket (e.g. "Is batting first in Tests such an advantage?").

When reading through the live comments on ESPNcricinfo around the time of the toss in a Test match, there are two very interesting themes that emerge from the fan bases of the various countries. Firstly, there are common accusations of "pitch-fixing", whereby the home team is considered to have unfairly and unreasonably altered the state of the pitch to favour the perceived current strengths of the home side or weaknesses of the visitors.

This is not new, and no country is immune to this accusation; Australian fans would probably have broken the web with complaints about Old Trafford in 1956 or Headingley in 1972. Secondly, there is generally widespread gnashing of teeth following a "lost toss" and how this has substantially disadvantaged their team. Winning the toss is still seen by many fans as being a major step towards the overall winning of the game.

Perhaps it is time for cricket to move away from archaic, historically derived and now irrelevant conventions such as tossing the coin**. It is therefore proposed that the next update to the Laws of Cricket should instead read, "The visiting captain gets choice of innings, and must inform the umpires and opposition captain of this choice 30 minutes prior to the scheduled commencement". However, at the same time cricket authorities should also abandon the pretence of ground staff being supposedly neutral, allowing the home side to legitimately and openly tell the curator to deliver whatever type of pitch the captain wishes.

If the home side is strong in fast bowling, they can prepare a "spicy" pitch to favour their attack. However, they would do so knowing that the opposition will have the right to immediately insert them onto the greentop. Likewise, if they have greater strength in spin bowling, a dry and dusty turner can be presented, but the home captain knows that they will have to bat last on it. In recent times, both of these scenarios have played out and generally the better team has still won.

A great example is the India versus Australia Test series in 2013. Australia won all four tosses, and chose to bat first on turning tracks in all four matches. India still won every match as they were the superior team in those conditions. This series should act as a template for the future, with the home team preparing pitches that clearly favour their strengths, but the visiting team can develop their plans knowing that they can, at least initially, dictate the direction of the game.

* Currently, the Laws of Cricket note that the captains must toss to determine the choice of innings. This toss must take place in front of at least one of the nominated umpires and has to occur between 15 and 30 minutes prior to the scheduled commencement of play. The winning captain then needs to immediately inform both the umpire/s and the opposition of their decision. The precise wording regarding the toss and indeed the full laws can be read here.

** Yes, this is completely tongue-in-cheek. Please don't take it too seriously.

RELATED LINKS

Stuart Wark works at the University of New England as a research fellow

RSS Feeds: Stuart Wark

Keywords: Laws/Rules

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by kiwicricketnut on (June 19, 2014, 22:58 GMT)

completely agree, it just evens the contest out but if they persist with the coin toss then just allow teams to finalise their playing xi after the toss so they can properly adjust to the game situation, they should do this straight away it just makes sense, take luck out and replace it with proper preperation

Posted by nafzak on (June 19, 2014, 21:28 GMT)

I love tradition and I hate it when captains go out for the coin toss without their jacket. Yes, it's English and I am West Indian, but somthings should never change. There is a certain grace and charm in some traditions like the coin toss that makes cricket different than baseball or most other sports.

Posted by   on (June 19, 2014, 15:10 GMT)

completely agree with armughan. this is a baseball idea and doesnt suit cricket

Posted by   on (June 19, 2014, 10:16 GMT)

I completely agree. In fact, I had given such suggestions in the past. For an neutral venue match, we may still need the toss, but in that case, I suggest that we allow the team losing toss to be able to make 1 change to the playing 11, so that they can adjust the team according to the situation they find themselves in.

Posted by Sigismund on (June 19, 2014, 9:50 GMT)

I have long thought the same; although (as others have suggested) perhaps the choice should alternate, with the visitors going first. Groundsmen should be free to prepare the best pitch as they see it. It is very annoying how many people seem to think that a groundsman can prepare any pitch he wants, just like that. There are rather significant environmental factors which mean that, in general, you get English pitches in England, and Indian pitches in India. Why should anyone think this is 'doctoring'?

Posted by suriaero on (June 19, 2014, 8:05 GMT)

The element of surprise is lost here if we say good bye to toss. Instead let allow the captain to select / announce his team after the toss. This will bring in more flexibility to the tactics of the captain who have lost the toss.

Another way to improve the test cricket is by allowing a player replacement if he gets injured during the play. Now a days bowlers are injury prone due to the amount of cricket they play and they are bound to get injured. Replacement is essential.

Bring in 12 players with 11 allowed to play, With an option of replacing one player in first innings and another replacement in second innings. Suppose if the team needs 2 wickets and they require extra bowler with which they can rattle the opposition in no time while the other team can have an option of choosing batsman to stay in the match.

Each continent should have its own nature of pitch. But do make result oriented pitch rather than flat bed track. Hope this brings in more entertainment to the game

Posted by   on (June 19, 2014, 7:23 GMT)

With a low cloud cover for sure you're going to want to bowl first to exploit the swing. This massively unfair advantage can only be negated by the toss which is about as fair as it gets, especially in one dayers.

Posted by   on (June 19, 2014, 7:09 GMT)

I guess whilst some matches are so obviously weighted by the toss this discussion will always occur - but surely over time it balances out??

Posted by parvez_asad on (June 19, 2014, 6:45 GMT)

What will happen in case of tri-series, world cup or champions League

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stuart Wark
Stuart Wark grew up watching cricket with his three older brothers, as he had no choice in the matter. However, over time he came to love both the game and its rich history. He played cricket (very poorly, it must be said) for many years across country New South Wales until failing eyesight caused his early retirement. When cricket-viewing permits, Stuart is employed at the University of New England as a research fellow with the School of Rural Medicine.

All articles by this writer