ICC have to do something about the coin toss format.
Of the nine matches played between England, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and India (ie not the dregs), eight out of nine were won by the team who won the toss.
It always irks me that the MOM always has to come from the winning side. Marsh gets it for 77 off 50 whereas Williamson scores 84 off 48 especially as batting was that bit harder in the first innings
Well the timing of the games has meant I have watched 90% of the tournament- half watched in many cases. It’s been like Groundhog Day - win the toss, bat second, win. Everything blurs into a mash of slogs, fireworks and the unremitting awfulness of the PA announcers. I am so done with T20 & every form of franchise crap - it’s boring. To think they are throwing red ball cricket under the bus for this never ending forced shite is horrific.
Compare it to our blast & it was awful! A World Cup where the coin toss was the winner 🙄
How about the team that bats first, has 10 overs, then the second team has the full 20 overs, for the other team then completes its other 10 overs?
Something like this was mooted years ago before T20 came into play, although I think it was 10 overs, change innings, 10 overs, change innings etc etc. and when it first came in I thought that was the format because I distinctly remember Beefy talking about it.
With quite a few of our first team missing, taking NZ to the 19th over doesn’t look like the worst loss now.
I still think its not the toss per se but batting last. Too many teams battling first are too cautious. Imo England were in their semi final & NZ were today. Finishing 20 overs only 4 or 5 down is criminal imo.
How about the team that bats first, has 10 overs, then the second team has the full 20 overs, for the other team then completes its other 10 overs?
Something like this was mooted years ago before T20 came into play, although I think it was 10 overs, change innings, 10 overs, change innings etc etc. and when it first came in I thought that was the format because I distinctly remember Beefy talking about it.
Not sure how that would make things any different to be honest as chasing teams often kick on in the last 7-8 overs anyway, sometimes even later. So having 10 overs to get what you're chasing won't necessarily change the mindset.
How about the team that bats first, has 10 overs, then the second team has the full 20 overs, for the other team then completes its other 10 overs?
Something like this was mooted years ago before T20 came into play, although I think it was 10 overs, change innings, 10 overs, change innings etc etc. and when it first came in I thought that was the format because I distinctly remember Beefy talking about it.
Something has to be done because the result is too predictable. The issue with split innings is the fact that when T20 originally came in the idea was that it would all be finished inside three hours. Not only are there going to be two breaks instead of one but the team that bowls first will need to warm up again before they go out for the second time because, having sat around for 80 minutes or so, they cannot be expected to bowl without doing so. As a result there will be even longer delays.
With quite a few of our first team missing, taking NZ to the 19th over doesn’t look like the worst loss now.
I still think its not the toss per se but batting last. Too many teams battling first are too cautious. Imo England were in their semi final & NZ were today. Finishing 20 overs only 4 or 5 down is criminal imo.
As is losing your best two or three batsmen in the Power Play because you haven't assessed the pace and bounce of the track. They aren't playing on roads where you can trust that the ball will do exactly what you expect it to do. In any event, getting another 15 runs probably wouldn't have been enough because Australia still had Stoinis and Wade to bat and there were another 7 balls to be bowled.
The point is that, as in all forms of cricket, you need to see both sides batting before you can assess what a good score is on any given wicket. However, batting second will give you an indication of what pace you need to go out which is a massive advantage.
ICC have to do something about the coin toss format.
Of the nine matches played between England, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and India (ie not the dregs), eight out of nine were won by the team who won the toss.
The one that wasn’t was England v South Africa.
And the only reason England didn't win is because SA took a hatrick in the last over, i.e. you need a rare and extraordinary piece of bowling in order to win the game.
How about the team that bats first, has 10 overs, then the second team has the full 20 overs, for the other team then completes its other 10 overs?
Something like this was mooted years ago before T20 came into play, although I think it was 10 overs, change innings, 10 overs, change innings etc etc. and when it first came in I thought that was the format because I distinctly remember Beefy talking about it.
Something has to be done because the result is too predictable. The issue with split innings is the fact that when T20 originally came in the idea was that it would all be finished inside three hours. Not only are there going to be two breaks instead of one but the team that bowls first will need to warm up again before they go out for the second time because, having sat around for 80 minutes or so, they cannot be expected to bowl without doing so. As a result there will be even longer delays.
Sorry if I missed them but what are the stats regarding coin tosses for T20i in general before this world cup? Seems the timing and venue were particularly relevant
Sorry if I missed them but what are the stats regarding coin tosses for T20i in general before this world cup? Seems the timing and venue were particularly relevant
Not so much the winning of the toss but more who gets the opportunity to bat second. Finch won the toss on six out of seven occasions and elected to insert the opposition on each occasion. The one time Australia did have to bat first they were stuffed by England.
Generally, the win rate for teams batting second in Asia at night or during the day hovers at just over 50 per cent but, for various reasons, was much higher in this WC.
Sorry if I missed them but what are the stats regarding coin tosses for T20i in general before this world cup? Seems the timing and venue were particularly relevant
Not so much the winning of the toss but more who gets the opportunity to bat second. Finch won the toss on six out of seven occasions and elected to insert the opposition on each occasion. The one time Australia did have to bat first they were stuffed by England.
Generally, the win rate for teams batting second in Asia at night or during the day hovers at just over 50 per cent but, for various reasons, was much higher in this WC.
Cheers, yes, batting second synonymous with winning the toss if you had any sense about you! It rather ruined the tournament knowing how unlikely you were to win having batted first
Sorry if I missed them but what are the stats regarding coin tosses for T20i in general before this world cup? Seems the timing and venue were particularly relevant
Not so much the winning of the toss but more who gets the opportunity to bat second. Finch won the toss on six out of seven occasions and elected to insert the opposition on each occasion. The one time Australia did have to bat first they were stuffed by England.
Generally, the win rate for teams batting second in Asia at night or during the day hovers at just over 50 per cent but, for various reasons, was much higher in this WC.
Cheers, yes, batting second synonymous with winning the toss if you had any sense about you! It rather ruined the tournament knowing how unlikely you were to win having batted first
It did because it was so predictable but despite this being obvious, it was only raised as an issue by commentators and captains in the final stages. That said, the opportunities were there to make a few bob from the outset of the comp.
I like that. In effect, the 'unlucky Captain' gets the chance to buy the toss with some runs. It has the advantage of being excruciatingly complex for those who like to analyse, decipher, predict and criticise and extremely simple to follow for everyone else.
do me a favour .. I'd rather see the captains have a ruck, winner getting the choice to bat or bowl .. or a team all in brawl, last man standing gets the call .. might be difficult for the ever expanding medical teams to get them fit to play straight after though
Comments
Of the nine matches played between England, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and India (ie not the dregs), eight out of nine were won by the team who won the toss.
The one that wasn’t was England v South Africa.
A World Cup where the coin toss was the winner 🙄
The point is that, as in all forms of cricket, you need to see both sides batting before you can assess what a good score is on any given wicket. However, batting second will give you an indication of what pace you need to go out which is a massive advantage.
Generally, the win rate for teams batting second in Asia at night or during the day hovers at just over 50 per cent but, for various reasons, was much higher in this WC.