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

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

As we are seeing in India at the moment, England are all over the Indians and the "superpower" that seemed to be rising up a month ago now looks to be crumbling faster then a New Zealand tail.

The key here is the coin toss.

It is no coincidence that our win in Sri Lanka 3-0 also happened to take place with Australian winning the toss and batting first in all 3 test matchs.

In India in 2004 the games that we won we won the toss and batted, the game we lost was played on a shocking pitch but we also lost the toss there.

In India just gone the game we were on top on was the only game where we won the toss and batted.

Those who follow my posting would know how mach emphasis i place on the coin toss. In the subcontinent i strongly believe that it is nearly impossible to win in those conditions batting second. The reason being is that India, Sri Lanka pack there teams with spinners and as such batting second it is very hard to put yourself in a position where you can win the game simply because of runs on the board.

Batting first almost assures you a score of 350+ on these wickets which start to provide assistance to the spinners as early as day 2. Batting second means you come in, often with in the negative by the tune of 400+ runs, when the pitch is starting to break up.

Nice to see India realising that they are not the unstoppable force they were proclaiming themselves to be.

 

[Blue Dimension]

No doubt that it is a massive factor. In India losing the toss 3 times in the last 3 games really hurt Australia and imo aided in the series result. Yes India played very good cricket but winning the toss was a massive factor in their success.

Tbh i found the Indian Test matches boring for a lot of the time. I love cricket and it's always entertaining to see Aus and India go at it, but the pitch factor massively ruined my interest and excitement in the Tests.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Yeah, the problem is that the pitch is very flat for the first 2 days, and starts to provide meaningful assistance to the spinners day 3 onwards. Sure the wicket is still good to bat on but its very hard up against a first innings total of 400+.

As the wicket is flat for 2 days the team batting first will rack up 450+ on a lifeless deck and then the team batting second comes out, often on the last hour before stumps on day 2, batsmen are tired and as such early wickets are lost and the wheel is set in motion.

As such these matchs are almost decided by a coin toss.

Traditionally, the way to negate this was to have a wicket that offered assistance to the seamers until an hour after lunch which then flattened out for days 2 and 3 before offering variable bounce, cracks and spin for days 4 and 5.

As such the advantage of winning the toss and batting first was countered by having a seaming wicket for the first 1 and a half sessions.

Anyone who knows cricket will know how hard it is to score runs agaisnt decent spinners batting second.

Is the coin toss obsolete? Should we move to a system where teams alternate between choosing what to do? Obviously this may lead to a situation where pitchs are doctored. FOr example, if India get to choose what to do in the first match the curator may make a road, and then a dustbowl for the second match.

 

[Furn]

This is just another disguised Australia excuse thread.

Australia won 3-0 in Sri lanka because they were twice as good a team back then than they are now.

They could have won every toss in India and they still wouldn't have won a test match. Why ? because they didnt have the bowlers to worry India in those conditions.

Are you saying India Collapsed under the pressure of Englands massive 316?

Or could it be that England brought a better attack and actually played 2 spinners and 3 proper seamers, not a 20/20 batsman that throws down the odd leggy.

Did Australia wilt because of England winning the toss and making 550 in Adelaide 2 years ago? No, they dealt with it and won because McGrath,Gilchrist, Warne and a younger Ponting were good enough to do it.

The toss is a slight factor. If you look up the history of cricket the team winning the toss does about as well as the team losing it.

up until 2007 the team winning the toss won 34% of the time compared to 30% for the team losing it.

So its about a 4% greater chance of winning.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

This is just another disguised Australia excuse thread.

Australia won 3-0 in Sri lanka because they were twice as good a team back then than they are now.

They could have won every toss in India and they still wouldn't have won a test match. Why ? because they didnt have the bowlers to worry India in those conditions.

Are you saying India Collapsed under the pressure of Englands massive 316?

Or could it be that England brought a better attack and actually played 2 spinners and 3 proper seamers, not a 20/20 batsman that throws down the odd leggy.

Did Australia wilt because of England winning the toss and making 550 in Adelaide 2 years ago? No, they dealt with it and won because McGrath,Gilchrist, Warne and a younger Ponting were good enough to do it.

The toss is a slight factor. If you look up the history of cricket the team winning the toss does about as well as the team losing it.

up until 2007 the team winning the toss won 34% of the time compared to 30% for the team losing it.

So its about a 4% greater chance of winning.

I apologize for the thread title. I didnt word it very well, i should have included "in Indian conditions or Subcontinental".

We had the bowlers to worry India in those conditions, in the first test we had them on the rack. You cant tell me that the likes of Monty Panesar, Flintoff, Harmison and Anderson are going to seriously worry that batting lineup.

Flintoff is a quality bowler but the rest are par for the course.

Picking up the odd game to suit your argument isnt smart mate especially when it doesnt address my original point.

The Adelaide wickets stays a road the entire game where as the Indian wickets really only stay a "true" road for 2 days before the spinners can get to work on a wicket.

As such, you win the toss and get first use of a lifeless track before declaring /getting bowled out late on day 2 to send the other team in an hour before stumps just as the wicket starts to play some tricks. Totally different to the Adelaide wicket as such.

My point still stands. Batting second against spinners on a wearing wicket up against a first innings score of 400+ is very tough. The fact we were able to draw the 3rd test was a credit to our batsmen.

England in 2005 would bat first and get a target and then put back a deep point and deep square leg to cut down on boundaries and still attack with 2 slips and a short cover and what not. The idea was to cut our run-rate and attack with runs on the board.

I've always been a suscriber to the theory that it is different settinging a target rather then chasing one. A different mentality, different pressures and in certain conditions i believe the toss can make a big difference.

Looking at stats proves my point IMO. Do i think we would have won in India in 2004 if we batted second, probably not.

 

[CrazyQ]

This is just another disguised Australia excuse thread.

Australia won 3-0 in Sri lanka because they were twice as good a team back then than they are now.

They could have won every toss in India and they still wouldn't have won a test match. Why ? because they didnt have the bowlers to worry India in those conditions.

Are you saying India Collapsed under the pressure of Englands massive 316?

Or could it be that England brought a better attack and actually played 2 spinners and 3 proper seamers, not a 20/20 batsman that throws down the odd leggy.

Did Australia wilt because of England winning the toss and making 550 in Adelaide 2 years ago? No, they dealt with it and won because McGrath,Gilchrist, Warne and a younger Ponting were good enough to do it.

The toss is a slight factor. If you look up the history of cricket the team winning the toss does about as well as the team losing it.

up until 2007 the team winning the toss won 34% of the time compared to 30% for the team losing it.

So its about a 4% greater chance of winning.

/thread.

 

[Furn]

I apologize for the thread title. I didnt word it very well, i should have included "in Indian conditions or Subcontinental".

We had the bowlers to worry India in those conditions, in the first test we had them on the rack. You cant tell me that the likes of Monty Panesar, Flintoff, Harmison and Anderson are going to seriously worry that batting lineup.

Flintoff is a quality bowler but the rest are par for the course.

Picking up the odd game to suit your argument isnt smart mate especially when it doesnt address my original point.

The Adelaide wickets stays a road the entire game where as the Indian wickets really only stay a "true" road for 2 days before the spinners can get to work on a wicket.

As such, you win the toss and get first use of a lifeless track before declaring /getting bowled out late on day 2 to send the other team in an hour before stumps just as the wicket starts to play some tricks. Totally different to the Adelaide wicket as such.

My point still stands. Batting second against spinners on a wearing wicket up against a first innings score of 400+ is very tough. The fact we were able to draw the 3rd test was a credit to our batsmen.

England in 2005 would bat first and get a target and then put back a deep point and deep square leg to cut down on boundaries and still attack with 2 slips and a short cover and what not. The idea was to cut our run-rate and attack with runs on the board.

I've always been a suscriber to the theory that it is different settinging a target rather then chasing one. A different mentality, different pressures and in certain conditions i believe the toss can make a big difference.

Looking at stats proves my point IMO. Do i think we would have won in India in 2004 if we batted second, probably not.

None of this explains how England knocked off India for 230 odd. Less than Aus could in 8 attempts. I guess the pitch went bad just after England batted and then flattened out just after India were all out cos England seem to be going alright in the second innings.

Couldn't be that they have a real spinner whos in the top 10 bowlers in the world.

Also doesn't explain why India did well in every second innings they batted in. Yet Australia struggled in most of there first innings. Once again i guess the pitch came good for a brief period between innnings 2 and 4.

 

[Grimwood]

You cant tell me that the likes of Monty Panesar, Flintoff, Harmison and Anderson are going to seriously worry that batting lineup.

Jimmy Anderson's stats against India are pretty decent...

21 at 28.80

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

None of this explains how England knocked off India for 230 odd. Less than Aus could in 8 attempts. I guess the pitch went bad just after England batted and then flattened out just after India were all out cos England seem to be going alright in the second innings.

Couldn't be that they have a real spinner whos in the top 10 bowlers in the world.

Also doesn't explain why India did well in every second innings they batted in. Yet Australia struggled in most of there first innings. Once again i guess the pitch came good for a brief period between innnings 2 and 4.

A real spinner?

Swann?, Monty?.

Give me a break. They are honest bowlers but you'd back that Indian lineup to belt them to every corner of the ground as well as the sidestreets outside the stadium.

What you are saying is not actually adressing my points at all. Im saying that there is a distinct difference between setting a target and trying to chase a target down. A difference which IMO is quite profound in the subcontinent and one which can make teams look better then they actually are.

Everyone lauded India as some superpower that had emerged and would blitz world cricket for the next 10 years. Journos such as Mike Coward were proclaiming the beginning of a new era. I was less convinced and i said so at the time, id back my cricket knowledge over everyone on these boards and 95% of journos.

However, as i said in my OP, batting first allows you to be in the game for longer periods of time, which therefore allows you more chance of victory. For example, if you bat first and get bowled out for 270 then you still have a chance of defending that score and batting second to set a target.

If you bowl first and conceed 450 then the game is all but gone. You cant win, bar the odd miracle such as Adelaide in 2003 and 2006. Your out of the game, the best you can home for is a draw and i have always felt that if your openers are going out up against a first innings target of 450 then even if its a road your going to find it tough. You have been in the field for the best part of 2 days and often you go into bat about an hour before stumps so you cant do much at all except lose 2 or 3 wickets.

ITs the reason why Pontings head went down when he lost the toss in the 3rd test against India, even knew that at that moment any realistic chance of winning had gone out the window.

Do i think think England would have bowled out India for 230 if India batted first. Probably not. India would have pushed on to 400.

Australia hasnt lost a game batting first since 2003 (touch wood) when India chased down 200 odd in Adelaide. Interesting stat which i feel backs my point.

 

[DT_fanatic]

This is just another disguised Australia excuse thread.

Australia won 3-0 in Sri lanka because they were twice as good a team back then than they are now.

They could have won every toss in India and they still wouldn't have won a test match. Why ? because they didnt have the bowlers to worry India in those conditions.

Are you saying India Collapsed under the pressure of Englands massive 316?

Or could it be that England brought a better attack and actually played 2 spinners and 3 proper seamers, not a 20/20 batsman that throws down the odd leggy.

Did Australia wilt because of England winning the toss and making 550 in Adelaide 2 years ago? No, they dealt with it and won because McGrath,Gilchrist, Warne and a younger Ponting were good enough to do it.

The toss is a slight factor. If you look up the history of cricket the team winning the toss does about as well as the team losing it.

up until 2007 the team winning the toss won 34% of the time compared to 30% for the team losing it.

So its about a 4% greater chance of winning.

Nothing else needs to be said.

Try and downplay your loss as much as you want LtD but it's not going to change anything. Bet you wouldn't have said the same thing about the 2004 tour.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

WTF, i am saying the same thing about the 2004 tour?

I am basically saying we would not have beaten India in 2004 if it wasnt for the luxury of winning 3 out 4 coin tosses.

I am trying to discuss a point here but obviously it is beyond some people to discuss something without typing jibes about downplaying losses and what not.

If your a bit narky that India are getting pumped DT fanatic then dont come on here and post, this is a legitmate topic and one that i was keen to get other peoples opinions on.

 

[natty]

Nothing else needs to be said.

Try and downplay your loss as much as you want LtD but it's not going to change anything. Bet you wouldn't have said the same thing about the 2004 tour.

Excellent comment, well said !

The fact is batting last on any pitch in a test match is always challenging regardless of where it is in the world ! It explains why there is only a handful of successful run chases in excess of 400.

Using some of the strange logic in here you would think that teams have scored well over 400 regularly in Australia in the 4th innings.

Seems to me some sour grapes.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Excellent comment, well said !

The fact is batting last on any pitch in a test match is always challenging regardless of where it is in the world ! It explains why there is only a handful of successful run chases in excess of 400.

Using some of the strange logic in here you would think that teams have scored well over 400 regularly in Australia in the 4th innings.

Seems to me some sour grapes.

Sour grapes, what a load of crap.

Its not sour grapes, we got absolutely smashed in India , destroyed whatever you want.

Im simply putting forward a point that has been backed up with reasoning. Most people are attacking the poster rather then addressing the point being made.

Since 2000 (in matchs where there has been a result) Australia has WON THE TOSS and BATTED on 30 occasions. They have won 26 of those games and lost 4. A winning percentage of 86.6%.

Those 4 games they lost were as follows:

The 2nd and 3rd test in India in 2001, however, the 2nd test was when India followed on and had that magnificent partnership.

The next loss was agaisnt the West Indies in 2003 when they chased down 400+ in the greatest 4th innings run chase of all time.

The next loss was against India in Adelaide in 2003.

Interesting stats.

 

[YOTC]

Using Australian stats?

Now show us how many games since 2000 Australia have lost the toss and won the match.

 

[beatnik]

the direction this thread is taking is disappointing...

it stands to reason that LtD's ackowledgement that Australia would have struggled to win in 2004 without winning 3 of 4 tosses disqualifies suggestions of sour grapes over the recent series

it's an interesting point about the nature of wickets on the subcontinent and it's a shame that it didn't attract some discerning comment instead of heckles from the cheap seats

 

[YOTC]

For Arguments sake.

Australias winning percentage (in matches where there was a result) when they lost the toss (in the 2000s) is......... 84.1%

Just before the Indian tour it would have been... 87.5%

Yes the toss is slightly more important on the sub continent due to the nature of the pitches. However for it to have any influence the teams would have to be fairly even.

 

[beatnik]

Using Australian stats?

Now show us how many games since 2000 Australia have lost the toss and won the match.

not sure how you managed to miss it but this thread is referring to subcontinent pitches

obviously matches against minnows aren't relevant, only matches against nations of competitive stature in that time period, hence the references to Sri Linka and India*

(* if the truth be told, India have been the equal of Australia in almost every measure except the 'games won' column since 2000)

 

[YOTC]

Since 2000 (in matchs where there has been a result) Australia has WON THE TOSS and BATTED on 30 occasions. They have won 26 of those games and lost 4. A winning percentage of 86.6%.

Interesting stats.

Using Australian stats?

Now show us how many games since 2000 Australia have lost the toss and won the match.

For Arguments sake.

Australias winning percentage (in matches where there was a result) when they lost the toss (in the 2000s) is......... 84.1%

Just before the Indian tour it would have been... 87.5%

Yes the toss is slightly more important on the sub continent due to the nature of the pitches. However for it to have any influence the teams would have to be fairly even.

not sure how you managed to miss it but this thread is referring to subcontinent pitches

obviously matches against minnows aren't relevant, only matches against nations of competitive stature in that time period, hence the references to Sri Linka and India*

(* if the truth be told, India have been the equal of Australia in almost every measure except the 'games won' column since 2000)

I only argued a point that was addressed by the OP.

I don't know why he mentioned it, i assume it was to skew our perception on the coin toss to get on his side. I just showed the other side of the stats that he had conveniently left out.

The Sri Lankan series was a bit 50/50.

1st test - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64071.html

2nd test - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64072.html

3rd test - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64073.html

First 2 tests we failed quite badly in the first innings, however if we had lost the toss and Sri Lanka were batting first I would have had no doubts we would have dismissed them equally as badly. And I have no doubts we would have pilled on more runs in our first innings too. It was only some great batting in the 3rd innings of the match, marto especially. that put us in control of these matches.

With todays current team I'd say batting first was more important, however with that team I think no matter what happened they would have won (the first 2 tests mainly)

 

[natty]

With todays current team I'd say batting first was more important, however with that team I think no matter what happened they would have won (the first 2 tests mainly)

Your right YOTC.

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 !

 

[natty]

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 !

 

[alfy!]

Winning or losing the toss has a profound effect on the outcome of the match when playing in places like India, Sri Lanka etc.

 

[natty]

Winning or losing the toss has a profound effect on the outcome of the match when playing in places like India, Sri Lanka etc.

lol priceless, comment of the thread !

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

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 !

No not at all.

I dont care what happened in 1978 when Sri Lanka played India on a dustbowl and each team played 5 spinners.

I only look at recent results and stats and form my opinions based on my own knowledge of the game.

I've taken the games we've played on subcontinental pitchs against quality oppostion since the year 2000.

Here is the break down.

We played Pakistan in 2002 on subcontinental wickets.

Won 3 games. Batted first twice and bowled once. THe quality of opposition is questionable considering in one test Pakistan failed to reach triple figures. So well leave that one in there even though it negatively effects my hypothesis.

Test 1 V Pakistan 2002 (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

Test 2 V Pakistan 2002 (Lost Toss - Fielded) WON GAME

Test 3 v Pakistan 2002 (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

Sri Lanka 2004.

Test 1 V Sri Lanka (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

Test 2 V Sri Lanka (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

Test 3 V Sri Lanka (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

India 2001.

Test 1 V India (Won Toss - Fielded) WON GAME

Test 2 V Indai (Won Toss - Batted) Lost Game

Test 3 V India (Won Toss - Batted) Lost Game

India 2004

Test 1 V India (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

Test 2 V India (Won Toss - Batted) Draw

Test 3 V India (Won Toss - Batted) WON GAME

Test 4 V India (Lost Toss - Fielded) Lost game

India 2008

Test 1 V India (Won Toss - Batted) Draw

Test 2 V India (Lost Toss - Fielded) Lost Game

Test 3 V India (Lost Toss - Fielded) Draw

Test 4 V India (Lost Toss - Fielded) Lost Game

Won the toss 13 times for 9 wins, 2 losses and 2 draws.

Lost the toss 5 times for 1 win, 3 losses and 1 draw.

Looking at the 2 losses from winning the toss, one of those was when India followed on which was the only way they were going to get back into the game and they did on the back of a 300 run stand.

India were on fire after that and nothing could stop them in the 3rd test, however, they only just chased down a modest 150 odd in the last test.

That was 8 years ago and the team was markedly different back then.

From those results one could make an hypothesis that winning the toss has a significant impact on the result of the game when Australia is involved on the subcontinent.

Whether that trend would be mirrored in Englads record or South Africas is another matter. Im dealing with teams that dont play on the subcontinent regularly.

I feel those stats show a trend that is undeniable.

Most here would rather slag me off on a personal level rather then deal with the information im putting across.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

the direction this thread is taking is disappointing...

it stands to reason that LtD's ackowledgement that Australia would have struggled to win in 2004 without winning 3 of 4 tosses disqualifies suggestions of sour grapes over the recent series

it's an interesting point about the nature of wickets on the subcontinent and it's a shame that it didn't attract some discerning comment instead of heckles from the cheap seats

 

[natty]

sour grapes lol priceless.

I have never mentioned you LtD, till now ! lol

Australia beat India 2-1 in Australia, no surprise Australia won the toss twice and batted and won, India won the toss and won, and the curators produced a nice dead pitch for Australia not to lose the 4th match of the series lol. IMO I thought India was the better team, but Australia won and thats that !

Australia have been a great team but have been pegged back a little. But still number 1 for now. But geez talk about sour grapes. lol 2-0 accept it and move on !