SA Footy

Ive thought for a very long time that the toss of a coin is unfair.
A side through no SKILL but by LUCK can win a toss and have an advantage.
We are currently seeing a consderable disproportunate amount of teams
batting first in the Champions trophy winning[an advantage batting first]
Test matches are consideredly favoured to sides batting first.
When I played cricket finals in hard wicket comps, the sides batting first invariably
won the games, even after posting low targets.
I can apply the same logic in football as the sides winning the toss, particularly
on windy days, seem to win more often then not.[WWT an example this yearin g/f]

My opinion is LUCK should not be an overiding factor, SKILL, application etc should be
the prerequisite to winning games of sport.

Instead of tossing a coin for cricket, a more SKILLED way to determine the right
to bat or bowl first would be to have a competition an hour before the game starts.
We could have players throwing at the stumps from a distance[most hits wins toss]
Anything skill orientated would be a better alternative.

Also the composition of the teams 11 can be disadvantaged by the toss.
Sides should toss and then name the X1.
For example Australia might name Warnnnney + Macgill in the X1 and lose the toss
and bowl first...once again LUCK determines an issue.
By naming the side after the toss Australia could name say Bracken not Macgill.....

Sport, Business,Governments etc need to re-invent themselves in life, so should the toss

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The chance however is the same for each team .. But I agree it's time to replace the Toss, and I hereby submit "Paper, Scissors, Rock" as a more entertaining method

Some interesting thoughts, MAL. If these changes happen would we see specialist throwers in a side to try to win the toss(right to bat first)? would batting first on a deck like the SCG be worth sacrificing a specialist batsman/bowler?
Can see some benefit of some of these changes, the best side should always win - would make punting alot better!!!

Oh cmon mal,your a punter mate,and you know,any one with a 50/50 chance of winning is right in it.The only thing I would suggest is the best of three,or as CP stated,rock-paper-scissors.

mal wrote:
Instead of tossing a coin for cricket, a more SKILLED way to determine the right
to bat or bowl first would be to have a competition an hour before the game starts.
We could have players throwing at the stumps from a distance[most hits wins toss]
Anything skill orientated would be a better alternative.

Would you toss a coin to see who went first???

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:

mal wrote:
Instead of tossing a coin for cricket, a more SKILLED way to determine the right
to bat or bowl first would be to have a competition an hour before the game starts.
We could have players throwing at the stumps from a distance[most hits wins toss]
Anything skill orientated would be a better alternative.

Would you toss a coin to see who went first???

HA HA,now that's funny in any one's book.

MAL

you mentioned that teams batting first in the CHAMPIONS TROPHY have a good winning record, if that is the case then why have some captains won the toss and elected to bowl if there is an advantage in batting

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:MAL

you mentioned that teams batting first in the CHAMPIONS TROPHY have a good winning record, if that is the case then why have some captains won the toss and elected to bowl if there is an advantage in batting

By winning the toss the captain thought there was an advantage batting 2nd ?

Classic example
o/d final last year Adelaide oval SA V NS
NSW win the toss put SA in at 9-00 in the morning[or whatever ungodly time it was]
The pitch was spicy and SA were out for 150 odd
NSW batted and got up by 1 wkt being 9 wickets down on a pitch that had settled down.
DARREN LEHMANN MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT STARTING GAMES AT THE TIME WAS BAD,
AND SAID THAT IT WAS FOR TV RATINGS.[and mentioned the then sponsors as well]
LUCK not SKILL hampered SA wining the cup, just ask a very animated Lehmann!
History shows that sides who bat first in morning started games LOSE quite often.

Whether we throw spears, whos got the biggest willie or whatever, its better than a toss.
And yea scissors/paper/rock would be a more skillful alternative.

Constance_Perm wrote:The chance however is the same for each team .. But I agree it's time to replace the Toss, and I hereby submit "Paper, Scissors, Rock" as a more entertaining method

I like it



but mal its not the toss of a coin that needs to change its what the skipper does afterwards. Take my team this week after we fielded 86 overs and conceded 387 runs I then discover that we won the bloody toss and SENT THEM IN any tips fellas on how we should go about chasing this score

HEATER31

you should see out the new ball and play every ball on its merits and then do the GEORGE BUSH and ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks MT 79 will pass this info on to the openers and the No.8 will be practicing his twenty20 skills tonight

H31

doesn't the skip ask for the players opinion on whether they like to bat or bowl

mal wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:MAL

you mentioned that teams batting first in the CHAMPIONS TROPHY have a good winning record, if that is the case then why have some captains won the toss and elected to bowl if there is an advantage in batting

By winning the toss the captain thought there was an advantage batting 2nd ?

Classic example
o/d final last year Adelaide oval SA V NS
NSW win the toss put SA in at 9-00 in the morning[or whatever ungodly time it was]
The pitch was spicy and SA were out for 150 odd
NSW batted and got up by 1 wkt being 9 wickets down on a pitch that had settled down.
DARREN LEHMANN MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT STARTING GAMES AT THE TIME WAS BAD,
AND SAID THAT IT WAS FOR TV RATINGS.[and mentioned the then sponsors as well]
LUCK not SKILL hampered SA wining the cup, just ask a very animated Lehmann!
History shows that sides who bat first in morning started games LOSE quite often.

Whether we throw spears, whos got the biggest willie or whatever, its better than a toss.
And yea scissors/paper/rock would be a more skillful alternative.

If it was a day/night match the result might have been different and both teams and the fans that went wouldn't have had to get there at 8 in the morning to see the game.

just to rub salt into the wound for you mal, can you remember the 1981 prelim final we played norwood won the toss & had the breeze, the breeze then switched & we ended up having it for three quarters

but seriously it is not the toss its the starting times of cricket matches & if you recall i asked a couple of weeks ago which betting agencies i could get on early in the morning for games after i knew who was batting first as it seems that there is too much moisture in the pitch for batsmen too handle i'm waiting for saturdays game in tassie

as for footy when the wind is very strong ( 5-6 goal breeze) at footy park i back the side kicking with it i back both a goal & point & get an average of about 7/10 for the bet, the last time we did this was this years gf (we=mal & i) we backed wwt first term then cd then wwt & at 3/4 time we stayed out as it was cd's turn but they didn't look like scoring & those bets helped get something out of the wreck along with punks bet with me, infact if you notice curlys' board at footy park it now says 'until toss is made' or something similar but i still manage to get on (regular)

ps mal has been making money out of cricket & footy like this for years as have i

I was there for that 1981 final Glenelg V Norwood.
Glenelg won the toss and kicked with a 6 goal breeze.
At qtr time GL led about 7-6 to about 0-0.
It pissed down with rain just before qtr time[or very early 2nd qtr] and
Glenelg had the breeze AGAIN.
Glenelg had the breeze 3 times
Glenelg won about 13 goals to 4.

Had Norwood won the toss they would have most likely reversed the result.
That game was virtually won with the LUCK of the toss.
Glenelg did play very well that day.
Thanks for reminding me BAYMAN.

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

I think it can be more of an issue with footy actually, when a team kicks with a 5 goal breeze, then it starts pouring down with rain in the second quarter and the other side doesn't get "their turn" with the breeze.

What next mal, tennis rallies to start by a "serving machine", one hand/one bounce to be brought into 20/20 games, rugby league to incorporate foward passes, seconds innings runs in cricket to be worth double (I'm sure you'd think that would improve S Waugh's record ). I think you're being a bit MALodramatic

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

I think it can be more of an issue with footy actually, when a team kicks with a 5 goal breeze, then it starts pouring down with rain in the second quarter and the other side doesn't get "their turn" with the breeze.

What next mal, tennis rallies to start by a "serving machine", one hand/one bounce to be brought into 20/20 games, rugby league to incorporate foward passes, seconds innings runs in cricket to be worth double (I'm sure you'd think that would improve S Waugh's record ). I think you're being a bit MALodramatic

If you check the results in the 9-00 start domestic one day games there is
a significant advantage to bat second and WIN.

If tosses are 50/50 and no advantage why do sides win the toss in
the test matches and nearly ALWAYS bat first
Just a coincidence
And why do teams who win the toss at footy nearly ALWAYS kick with the breeze
Just a coincidence

When I punt 90% of the time I bet after I know who won the toss
BAYMAN also uses that philosphy, and its a good way to punt.
In England last years ashes the side that batted first, from memory
won a majority of the test matches.

PS Steve Waugh was lucky Australia won the toss and batted first[I think 60% batting first]
One day I will reopen that thread and startle you

mal wrote:

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

I think it can be more of an issue with footy actually, when a team kicks with a 5 goal breeze, then it starts pouring down with rain in the second quarter and the other side doesn't get "their turn" with the breeze.

What next mal, tennis rallies to start by a "serving machine", one hand/one bounce to be brought into 20/20 games, rugby league to incorporate foward passes, seconds innings runs in cricket to be worth double (I'm sure you'd think that would improve S Waugh's record ). I think you're being a bit MALodramatic

If you check the results in the 9-00 start domestic one day games there is
a significant advantage to bat second and WIN.

If tosses are 50/50 and no advantage why do sides win the toss in
the test matches and nearly ALWAYS bat first
Just a coincidence
And why do teams who win the toss at footy nearly ALWAYS kick with the breeze
Just a coincidence

When I punt 90% of the time I bet after I know who won the toss
BAYMAN also uses that philosphy, and its a good way to punt.
In England last years ashes the side that batted first, from memory
won a majority of the test matches.

PS Steve Waugh was lucky Australia won the toss and batted first[I think 60% batting first]
One day I will reopen that thread and startle you

No what i meant Mal was that both teams have a chance of winning the toss, 50% chance for each captain.

GWW wrote:

mal wrote:

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

I think it can be more of an issue with footy actually, when a team kicks with a 5 goal breeze, then it starts pouring down with rain in the second quarter and the other side doesn't get "their turn" with the breeze.

What next mal, tennis rallies to start by a "serving machine", one hand/one bounce to be brought into 20/20 games, rugby league to incorporate foward passes, seconds innings runs in cricket to be worth double (I'm sure you'd think that would improve S Waugh's record ). I think you're being a bit MALodramatic

If you check the results in the 9-00 start domestic one day games there is
a significant advantage to bat second and WIN.

If tosses are 50/50 and no advantage why do sides win the toss in
the test matches and nearly ALWAYS bat first
Just a coincidence
And why do teams who win the toss at footy nearly ALWAYS kick with the breeze
Just a coincidence

When I punt 90% of the time I bet after I know who won the toss
BAYMAN also uses that philosphy, and its a good way to punt.
In England last years ashes the side that batted first, from memory
won a majority of the test matches.

PS Steve Waugh was lucky Australia won the toss and batted first[I think 60% batting first]
One day I will reopen that thread and startle you

No what i meant Mal was that both teams have a chance of winning the toss, 50% chance for each captain.

oh, oops, ok