Does Anyone Give a Toss

I think it's going too far for all tests in a series. The underlying issue is, of course, that away sides aren't winning very many matches and, in many cases, surfaces are being prepared to suit the strengths of the home side - although I think it's also the case that modern day teams don't seem to rise to the challenge and adapt as in times passed. One thing I hate though is when a track starts to crumble late Day3 onwards. Some of the commentators refer to these as 'result tracks' and seem to think this is OK - they seem more of a lottery to me. The 'Bakerloo line' ball at pace is almost impossible to defend.

My initial thinking is that they should toss on the 1st match and alternate thereafter -  e.g. the venues will be set so the type of tracks should be known/appreciated, so it becomes a tactical judgement, rather than seeing a team lose a series effectively on calls of the coin.  For a 5 match series (I think rare nowadays?), I would give the away team the 5th call.

The strange thing is how neglected the longer forms of the game are becoming by those who purport to run the sport.

Most cricket fans I know all look forward to Test Matches as the ultimate sporting challenge in the game. Yet the ECB rarely discuss it, curtail opportunities for County cricketers to play longer games and arrange tours where the lack of preparation is so rudimentary the players struggle from the first session.

Abandoning the toss is just ridiculous and another symptom of the deep malaise around the game.

The number of tosses I give about cricket could be counted on no fingers. I literally have zero tosses to give. A stupid sport, and at the professional level, full of overpaid, entitled cheaters.

winkyincanada posted:

The number of tosses I give about cricket could be counted on no fingers. I literally have zero tosses to give. A stupid sport, and at the professional level, full of overpaid, entitled cheaters.

Adding your tosses to mine still results in the same number!

I say! Those Winky and Clive chappies are clearly not gentlemen and should be banned from the members' pavilion. Tut tut. 

winkyincanada posted:

The number of tosses I give about cricket could be counted on no fingers. I literally have zero tosses to give. A stupid sport, and at the professional level, full of overpaid, entitled cheaters.

Winky - that's what I think about baseball, or rounders as we could call it in the UK. There are goods and bads (or baddies!) in any sport, let's not just confine things to cricket - and I suspect not many national governing bodies would have acted so strenuously against their captain and VC, as the Aussies did with Smith and Warner.  

The prize money for elite sport, be it tennis, golf, even footballer wages in the UK & elsewhere, does look to have lost contact with reality for many. I suppose it's all symptoms of an increasingly media driven world. The rewards for most professional cricket players are relatively low compared to other sports.

Back to the cricket and the OP's query, it seems it now doesn't matter if the away side wins or loses the toss against England - the result will be an away win by some margin, sadly. 

I've met several Aussies through my work before and after the ball tampering (which to a man they thought was fair game) and all of them say that the pitches in Australia are tuned for the home bowlers .

winkyincanada posted:

The number of tosses I give about cricket could be counted on no fingers. I literally have zero tosses to give. A stupid sport, and at the professional level, full of overpaid, entitled cheaters.

Back in the 19th century, cricket was used as a way of civilising the colonies. Unfortunately, those countries that adopted the game quickly became better at it than the imperial mother country. Obviously, Canada didn't take cricket to their bosom: perhaps it was too cold there or maybe other sports were already entrenched, such as that one where they try to clean a bass broom on ice which by the way I don't give a flying for.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

Back in the 19th century, cricket was used as a way of civilising the colonies.

I'd always figured India Pale Ale was the civilizing agent.

joerand posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Back in the 19th century, cricket was used as a way of civilising the colonies.

I'd always figured India Pale Ale was the civilizing agent.

or opium. 

I like cricket because for me its so English, may involve a lot of internal politics.  As to the game itself fractionally more exciting than golf not so bad as watching paint dry.

Aggers reporting that the idea has been dropped...

https://twitter.com/Aggerscric.../1001787395140878336

Coming to this late but I'm unclear exactly what problem this change was meant to solve.

Home advantage is significant in cricket because of the degree to which local climate/pitch etc conditions are peculiar to that country. Is that wrong? Cricket gains a huge amount of interest from these variations, and the skills etc required to exploit them. Winning an away series is meant to be tough.

I think in County Cricket it was meant to encourage better wicket preparation. Not sure it has worked or not.

I'll be at Headingley this weekend and expect it to be sold out and jumping. Sadly test cricket rarely gets these crowds away from UK and Australia. Far more deep seated changes behind these falling attendances and also the lack of youngsters joining clubs (I still play regular league cricket). I point a major finger of blame at the loss of free-to-view TV coverage myself.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

I believe the proposal was to give the away team choice as a way of preventing groundsman from preparing pitches favourable to the home team.

Aggers did a good piece on why it wouldn't work. Typically, the ECCB were in  favour.

Anyway, enjoy Headingley and I hope you see some great cricket. I'm going to Edgbaston in August to see the first test against India.

Ray

FFS we got beat by Scotland with our supposed world-beating one day team.

BAYLISS please GO.

A poor bowling performance by England.  I guess a one-off loss on a game that only meant something to the opposition shouldn't be  cause to ring alarm bells. A much more reliable indicator is coming with the one-day matches against the Aussies.  England won't under-estimate them.     

'Normal service' resumed today. Thank goodness

And the England women's team also turned things around against SA, having batted poorly in the first ODI.

Such a shame the Aussie team is without the likes of Smith & Warner purely from a sporting POV - plus they have 3 quick bowlers missing in Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. 

MDS posted:

'Normal service' resumed today. Thank goodness

I was at that game at the Oval. England were OK - and the Morgan/Root partnership was very good, some of the England bowling was excellent but generally the Aussies weren't great (some of their fielding was comical), and England conceded too many rather soft wickets when the opposition got their bowling tactics right.

As a side note, much sandpaper was evident in the stands.

'As a side note, much sandpaper was evident in the stands. '....sounds like the Aussies are having a rough time of it.

Eng 481-6 after 50 overs at Trent Bridge. Sounds like utter carnage. Highest ever ODI score

Makes you feel sorry for the Aussies going out to bat now...not!

Bruce

And the Aussies 5 wickets down with half the overs gone. Only need just over 300 from the remaining 50 

...and a win by 242 runs in a ODI is a thrashing by any standard. 3-0 and the five-game series won. 

It's a shame the boundary on one side was so small - which invalidates England's headline score IMV - but the batting was mightily impressive. You know when Jason Roy is hitting glorious cover drives he's in good nick. Just such a shame we're playing what is not far off an an Aussie 2nd XI. I understand Smith & Warner will be eligible for the ODI WC in c.12m's time and it will be interesting, subject to form, whether they will be considered for selection. The Aussies appear to have problems in their top order without them. 

The cricket purist in me wants to see a better contest between the batters and bowlers. I don't understand why they cannot use a white ball which has similar qualities to a red Duke/Reader or somesuch, noting they are now using 2 white balls per ODI innings.  

And another thrashing. Easy-peasy, lemon squeezie! Oh, how nice it is to stuff the Aussies at cricket