A proposal to modify coin toss rules for bilateral cricket series

Let’s examine this proposal through some hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario 1 – A 4-match ODI series between India and Sri Lanka – MS Dhoni wins the tosses for the first and second ODI. At this point, Angelo Mathews will automatically be allowed to decide to bat or field first for the third and fourth ODIs.

Scenario 1a – If Dhoni wins the first toss, Mathews the second and Dhoni the third, Mathews will be allowed to decide or bat or field first for the final ODI, as MS Dhoni has already won 50% of all available tosses going into the final ODI.

Scenario 2 – A 5-match Ashes test series. Michael Clarke wins the first three tosses. At this point, he has won >50% of available tosses. At this point, Alastair Cook “wins” the tosses for the remaining two games.

Scenario 2a – Let’s say Clarke wins the 1^st toss, Cook the 2^nd, Clarke the 3^rd and Cook the 4^th – at this point it’s 50-50 so far and fair game for a series with an odd number of matches. Therefore, the toss goes on as usual for the 5^th and deciding test match.

Discussion

One obvious highlight of this proposed change is that the coin toss has not been completely done away with. This is a good thing, because we must accept that luck will always play some part in deciding the outcome of professional sporting encounters, and this adds an exciting element of unpredictability that is good for the game.

Picture a situation where Team A wins the first three tosses of a 5-match series, but weren’t able to take much advantage of the tosses because the pitches were flat and lifeless. Now imagine that the pitches for the final two games are marble-hard green tops or subcontinental dustbowls.

In such a situation, Team B may only “win” two tosses but this has actually worked in its favour, since it commands the batting/fielding decision for the matches where the decision can actually make a difference.

The influence of luck and unpredictability is retained, but the overall influence of the luck-based coin toss on the outcome is reduced, and therein lies the key.

The proposal outlined above retains the excitement of the coin toss and the influence it can have on the flow of a game, while also respecting the fact that cricket – particularly test cricket – is extremely physically and mentally demanding for the players, and their efforts should have a bigger impact on the result than the toss of a coin that takes place before the game even begins.

Note that these proposals make no mention of non-bilateral series such as tri-lateral series and multi-nation tournaments. This is obviously due to the fact that the 50% and >50% rules wouldn’t be applicable to such tournaments. Just as importantly however, bilateral series (which are more often than not pointless particularly in the limited overs arena) may represent the perfect testing grounds to assess whether evolved coin toss rules can improve the game of cricket.

It’s worth a try.