The Value of Winning The Toss - How much influence does it have?

Remove this Banner Ad

Mate i have accepted it. Im not sure what you are trying to say LOL. India smashed us in the recent tour, they were the deserved winners and I hail them. I have praised them as much as i can.

Im not trying to offer any excuses for the Australians.

Im just pointing out a interesting trend.

You can either take it and discuss it or ignore it and not post in the thread.

This isnt about Australia and why we lost, this is about the influence of the coin toss on proceeding.

Thats all LOL.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Great effort by India.

In saying that it was clearly a great match and these happen.

Still no doubt in my mind that winning the toss and batting first is advantageous in the subcontinet.

One fanatistic performance by one of the greatest batsmen of all time isnt going to sway my opinion.
 
Your right YOTC. :thumbsu:

Here is a little fact from 1898 tests played in cricket.

Only 15 teams have scored 400 or more in a 4th innings. So it goes to say that if your chasing a score of 400 or more you have less than 5% chance of winning that test given history !

So batting first is crucial in most circumstances !
But then again, those stats are ruined by the fact that the teams which are capable of chasing 400 in the last innings usually don't fall that far behind. I'd say recent Australian teams could give 400-ish scores a fair shake in the last innings, but due to usually being better than the opposition, they rarely let the target get that big.
 
But then again, those stats are ruined by the fact that the teams which are capable of chasing 400 in the last innings usually don't fall that far behind. I'd say recent Australian teams could give 400-ish scores a fair shake in the last innings, but due to usually being better than the opposition, they rarely let the target get that big.

You also have all the teams that were quite capable of making the runs but didn't have enough time and finished up at 1/150 in a drawn match.
 
I had a look at cricinfo at stats of batting first in Asia and interestingly enough that you are more likely to win a test batting second in Asia then you are if you bat first !

Throws the argument out the door doesnt it !? ;)

Sour grapes lol !

Yes, however some of the Cricketing Sides in Asia are of a questionable quality.
Take Pakistan and Bangladesh. Teams can easily score when batting second against them.
However, when playing Sri Lanka, of reasonable ability, or India, of great ability, Teams seem to struggle if they bat second.
This has been evident in many previous matches played in Sri Lanka and India.
Good point, mate, but it is perhaps weighed down by the Cricketing Ability of half of the Asian sides. As I said, when you are playing decent Asian sides in their respective Countries, such as Sri Lanka and India, it is extremely hard to Bat Second.
 
Yes, however some of the Cricketing Sides in Asia are of a questionable quality.
Take Pakistan and Bangladesh. Teams can easily score when batting second against them.
However, when playing Sri Lanka, of reasonable ability, or India, of great ability, Teams seem to struggle if they bat second.
This has been evident in many previous matches played in Sri Lanka and India.
Good point, mate, but it is perhaps weighed down by the Cricketing Ability of half of the Asian sides. As I said, when you are playing decent Asian sides in their respective Countries, such as Sri Lanka and India, it is extremely hard to Bat Second.

I dunno about Pakistan. They have had a better bowling attack than India up until atleast 2006. Since then people like Asif and Shoaib have been running into troubles and there has barely been a test played in Pakistan.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Value of Winning The Toss - How much influence does it have?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top