Should the ICC abolish the toss in Test cricket? Three charts make a strong case for it

In December 2006, two Australian television channels, Seven and Ten, flipped a coin to decide who would get the chance to broadcast the Australian Football League’s Grand Final next year in September. Channel Ten won and this became the most impactful outcome of a coin toss in the history of the Australian Football League.

A couple of weeks ago, the English cricket team lost the toss against India in Visakhapatnam and with it (according to many) lost the match half an hour before start of play on the first day. But then, earlier this week in Mohali during the third Test when everyone was declaring that the toss would again be paramount, England won the toss – and still lost the match with a day to spare.

Unlike the AFL, the toss in a cricket match is considered very important. Yet, depending on whom you ask, it can either outright win you the game or, seemingly, not matter one bit.

I decided to take a look at the data from the history of Test cricket to determine if an unbiased coin toss was biasing results.

The toss has been a part of the sport since the very first Test match in 1877 between England and Australia. Since then, 2235 Test matches have been played. Over all these matches, the side winning the toss has had all three results almost equally. They have won 35% of the matches, lost 31% and drew the remaining 34%.

Is an unbiased toss biasing results?

If we look at the numbers decade wise (Figure 1), there are some interesting observations. Since 2010, winning the toss has resulted in a win 42% of the time. The decade in which the toss had the greatest impact was way back in the 1890s, standing at a relatively high 47%. But only 32 matches were played in that decade. It is worth noting that in both these decades, the odds of a loss has not been reduced (from the reference point of being equally likely). There have just been fewer draws, i.e. matches have been more decisive.

The 1990s and the 1950s were the decades of all three results with the numbers being highly similar to the all-time numbers.

But what happens if you win the toss while playing at home? Do you stand a better chance to win? The answer is yes. Overwhelmingly. But then, you have a high chance of winning, even if you lose the toss. That’s what the numbers show for matches since the ‘90s. The two orange lines are almost neck and neck (Figure 2). It does not matter if you win the toss or not. If you are playing at home, you stand to win at least 45% of the times.

Losing the toss reduces the home team’s chances of victory

However, from the ‘60s to the ‘80s, and in the ‘30s, losing the toss reduced the chances of the home teams’ victory by up to 18%. However, from the overall data, we see that these periods coincide with an increase in the proportion of draws. The home team was more likely to draw the match and not lose, after losing the toss.

Regardless of the outcomes of the toss, home teams have lost less than 30% of the matches even if you go back all the way till the ‘30s.

So what do all these numbers signify?

Home advantage is the ruling factor in the outcome of matches. It has far more impact on the outcome of a match (in favour of the home team, of course) than the toss does. But what the toss does is enhance the home teams’ advantage. It explains why the overall numbers with respect to the toss are so evenly distributed. Visiting teams have tough tours with more losses than wins but turn the tables when their hosts come visiting. There were some teams, like the Australians of the 2000s, who were so dominant that they won more than 50% of the matches even after losing the toss while on tour. But against them, we have the West Indies who have been in much of a decline over the same period and have won just 21% of their matches at home despite winning the toss. So, overall, the numbers even out.

A step towards parity

This continues to be the dominant trend in international cricket. With teams across the world demanding tailor-made pitches that suit their strengths, tours continue to be prolonged trials for the visiting teams (barring a few exceptions). While this makes for varied Test cricket, it also means that teams (and matches) get typecast.

The England and Wales Cricket Board has been thinking along these lines. At the start of the last first class season, the ECB announced that visiting teams will have the option to bowl first. It is a breakaway from a centuries old tradition which cricket is not known for. The ECB’s argument is that this will encourage spin bowling more as host teams will not have the incentive to prepare greentop wickets and hope to bowl first. That season saw two spinners finish on top of the wickets tally. Arguably, the opposite will apply in the sub-continent and curators will throw up tracks which do not turn square on the first day if the Asian teams have to bat second.

Maybe the Board of Control for Cricket in India should try it at the Ranji level and see what comes of it.