no more coin toss

[Ken Gargett]

this strikes me as complete stupidity. all it will do is make it even more of a batsman's game. how does that help anything?

Coin Toss Retains Its Place in History, if Not in Cricket

By VICTOR MATHERNOV. 30, 2015

A coin toss before a cricket match last year between England and Australia. English county cricket will do away with prematch coin tosses next season. Credit Robert Cianflone/Getty Images

One of the oldest traditions in organized sport appears right at the top of cricket’s rule book from 1744: “The pitching the first wicket is to be determined by the toss of a piece of money.”

So was born the pregame coin toss.

But time moves on — though, in cricket, often slowly. After 272 years, English county cricket will do away with the coin toss in many games starting next season.

Coins are tossed in lots of sports, though the result is not usually crucial. In football, for example, the advantage of winning the pregame toss and receiving the ball first is mostly negated by the other team’s receiving the ball to start the second half. Still, a surprising amount of coin toss lore has built up over the years.

On Thanksgiving 1998, a Steelers-Lions game went to overtime, and the Pittsburgh captain, Jerome Bettis, seemed to call tails. But the referee, Phil Luckett, said the call was heads and awarded Detroit the ball. Three minutes later, the Lions kicked the winning field goal.

The blunder led to a change in procedure: Players began calling heads or tails before the coin was in the air. And the feeling that the result of the overtime toss was too important led to a new rule in 2010 that a field goal on the first overtime drive would not immediately end the game.

Photo

The coin toss before an Ashes cricket match in Australia in 1937. The practice is mentioned in a 1744 rule book. Credit Associated Press

On a snowy day in Philadelphia in 2013, the coin actually landed on an angle and had to be retossed.

Predraft coin tosses have changed the course of sports history. The Portland Trail Blazers’ call of tails in 1984 gave the first pick of the draft, Hakeem Olajuwon (then known as Akeem), to the Rockets.

A coin toss is also the tiebreaker of last resort in many competitions. At the 2000 women’s Gold Cup soccer tournament, the United States and Brazil wound up dead even, with each having two wins, one draw, 19 goals for and none against. The United States won the toss and was awarded first place in its group. In the men’s edition the same year, Canada needed a coin toss to qualify for the quarterfinals and then went on to win.

In cricket, more than most sports, the toss can be vital. The pitch, the grassy area where the ball is bowled, can change as the game goes along. And because the team batting second may not get its chance for a day or more, it can face drastically different conditions.

Photo

A coin toss before an N.F.L. game between the Saints and the Giants in November. Credit Jonathan Bachman/Associated Press

Even when a team wins the toss, the wrong decision by the captain can doom it almost before a ball is bowled. In the 2002 Ashes in Brisbane, Australia, the England captain, Nasser Hussain, won the toss but decided to bowl. Australia happily batted, scored 492 runs and won the match by 384.

The home team’s groundskeeper can also have a great effect on the pitch, preparing it to best suit his team’s bowlers. Cricket officials in England are concerned that home teams have fallen into the habit of setting up their pitches to favor certain bowlers, perhaps by making the grass damp.

In particular, counties seem to be setting up their pitches to favor garden-variety bowlers who bowl fast, but not too fast. These bowlers are known as medium pacers, or derisively as dibbly-dobbly bowlers.

“The pitches are a real problem,” Andy Flower, a former England cricket coach, told CricInfo. “Spin bowlers don’t develop because the medium pacers bowl their overs and batsmen are not exposed to quality spin.

“But when you get to international cricket, the pitches are completely different, and the qualities that proved successful in county cricket will be of little use. Dibbly-dobbly bowlers are not going to win you test matches.”

Under the new rules, the visiting team will always have the option to bowl first. Should it decline, there would still be a coin toss. Officials hope that will encourage home teams, knowing that the visitors can always choose to bowl first, to set up higher-quality pitches that favor batsmen more. They also think the change will help develop spin bowlers, who are crucial to the success of the England team in spin-friendly countries like India.

Another benefit will be giving a small edge to the visiting team that would reduce the fairly large home-field advantage in cricket.

Cricket traditionalists, who tend to be far more traditional than most, are upset. “Please don’t scrap the coin toss from cricket,” The Telegraph plaintively, and politely, urged before the decision was final.

Andrew Gale, the captain of Yorkshire, also disapproved. “So no coin toss next year if away team doesn’t want it?!” he posted on Twitter last week, adding that the change was “absolute madness.”

But the march of progress never stops. Perhaps cricket will soon be ready for another seismic change. Expect one by around 2288.

[Ken Gargett]

This is the important line.

Under the new rules, the visiting team will always have the option to bowl first. Should it decline, there would still be a coin toss.

so against a visiting Aussie test side there will always be a Toss

as no aussie captain ever has the Balls to Bowl First

perhaps we learnt from nasser at the gabba!

[Ken Gargett]

This is the important line.

Under the new rules, the visiting team will always have the option to bowl first. Should it decline, there would still be a coin toss.

so against a visiting Aussie test side there will always be a Toss

as no aussie captain ever has the Balls to Bowl First

your comment got me thinking and i did some checking.

in the past ten years back to the 05 ashes, england have never sent us in. not once. we have sent england in, just once. and narrowly lost. when mcgrath stood on the ball.

in test history, the side winning the toss has won the game 35% of the time. the side losing the toss has won 31% of the time. but in the last ten years, there is a much higher percentage of the team losing the toss winning the game. who knows if this is just an anomaly.

but with the trend to better and better batting pitches, why on earth would you ever send a side in?

[Ken Gargett]

didn't we send you in twice this year at Notts & the oval

think you are right. think my info might be from pre this series.

[JohnS]

but with the trend to better and better batting pitches, why on earth would you ever send a side in?

I can tell you that the game at the Junior Representative level (in Australia) follows this maxim down to the tee. No one evers bowls first! If they do, it's usually always viewed as a mistake.

[PapaDisco]

in test history, the side winning the toss has won the game 35% of the time. the side losing the toss has won 31% of the time. but in the last ten years, there is a much higher percentage of the team losing the toss winning the game.

Are there a lot of ties in Cricket? Why doesn't this sum to 100%?

[Ken Gargett]

Are there a lot of ties in Cricket? Why doesn't this sum to 100%?

a considerable number of draws but ties are very rare. only two in well over 2000 tests.

the first in brizzy at the gabba back in 1960/61. it has become a bit like woodstock, about 4000 people actually there at the end but about 100,000 claim it. my old man was there for several days, including on the final day, but left to go back to work and missed the finish.

[Ken Gargett]

to clarify, a tied test is where the game finishes with both sides dismissed twice for the same total. a draw is simply where the game runs out of time - tests are five days - before a result is achieved.

[JohnS]

And, to add further to what Ken has stated above, drawn tests are not bad for the game, in fact they are part of the process of achieving a series victory in a group of test matches between two opponents.

Some of the best games of test cricket have been draws. People cite the tied test of the 1960-61 Australia-West Indies test series, but the 4th test, when Lindsay Kline and Ken 'Slasher' Mackay defied the odds (I would say belief) to achieve a draw by maintaining an unbroken 10th wicket partnership, is still remembered as a great test from that series. So, even though Australia won 2-1 in that close series, the two games which did not produce definitive results were the best games of test cricket (in that particular series).

[Ken Gargett]

And, to add further to what Ken has stated above, drawn tests are not bad for the game, in fact they are part of the process of achieving a series victory in a group of test matches between two opponents.

Some of the best games of test cricket have been draws. People cite the tied test of the 1960-61 Australia-West Indies test series, but the 4th test, when Lindsay Kline and Ken 'Slasher' Mackay defied the odds (I would say belief) to achieve a draw by maintaining an unbroken 10th wicket partnership, is still remembered as a great test from that series. So, even though Australia won 2-1 in that close series, the two games which did not produce definitive results were the best games of test cricket (in that particular series).

john, not that i was around for it but everything you read and hear has that test as one of the greats. i completely agree re the draw. some wins/losses are duds. ditto some draws. and the reverse.

john, for what it is worth, the old man used to play with slasher. they were good mates.

[ayepatz]

I find it hard to believe that the rise in numbers of county medium pacers is a direct result of the coin toss.

Might it not have a little to do with coaching methods? Lack of great spinners means fewer great spinning coaches?

No? Silly me. Of course it's the coin.