Cricket toss, unfair

[Ecky]

I believe Mal makes a valid point and his idea has merit. In any sport, you want to see SKILL determine the result of a game and not LUCK. There is no doubt that the coin toss is a luck factor which can strongly influence the result of the game, so why not investigate ways based on skill to determine which team bats first?

Its a 50/50 chance for both sides, i dont see a big deal with the toss with cricket, its just the way it goes.

Take this example... Why should football teams swap ends at the end of each quarter? You could argue that each team has a 50/50 chance of winning the toss so they both have an equal chance of getting this advantage on windy days! The swapping ends rule exists to reduce the luck factor from winning the toss, to increase the chance that skill determines the winner of the game.

We've already seen with with the super sub what can happen when they stuff around with Cricket rules.

The super-sub was a ridiculous rule that obviously introduced far too much luck into the game. The administrators who introduced it should be ashamed of themselves - it was obvious to anyone with common sense that it was deeply flawed. But that doesn't mean that other ideas (especially those designed to reduce the luck factor) should not be seriously considered.

[Jimmy]

ummm, no.

[bayman]

that super-sub rule was so easy to change to make it fair, simply name the s.subs after the toss another big game that comes to mind is the 1979 port v south gf port won the toss kicked with the strong breeze & got about 7 goals up & then the rain came but i can see no alternative than having the toss its the only 'fair' way to see who does what first