Sachin's Suggestion

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

27th September 2009

The Champions Trophy brought the focus back on audience participation in a 'long' 100-over affair and opinions on how to tinker with it. Master Blaster Tendulkar has not been shy over the last three years in expressing his opinion on various matters. This one was no exception and from his larger suggestion of breaking it up into a two-innings-of 20-overs-each affair, he probably was keener on 'off-setting' the toss advantage.


Batting where the ball really 'comes on'

Coming to yesterday's lost game to Pakistan where the arch rivals played to a deserved victory, pundits will tend to attribute it to the toss. Negating the toss is favourable this this critic, indeed even dichotomous as a solution. Ordinarily, the word 'negate' means the disadvantaged side will be equally favoured. However, not many think of it as an equal fillip for the toss winning side.

Would a critic, say a Pakistani in this instance actually feel the sheen in the victory has been taken away because anyway the toss gave the advantage? Would this critic rather that the men in green be given credit for the way they played or would have played in a more 'equal' scenario?

There was no doubt the toss winner yesterday would bat first as even the pitch analysts and commentators were saying. Younis Khan's 'bowling' side preferred to 'bat.' The ball really came on and their batters were advantaged. You might argue that the advantage can also 'pass on' to the side batting second (the toss-losing side) how many times have we seen a pitch remain consistent? It's usually broken up or played different. In any case, at the time of the toss, nobody can be sure. This doesn't end here.

In an era when cricket represents psychological battles, the side batting second truly comes under 'true' pressure from the start thus starting the whispers in the crowd of 'unfair disadvantage.' As a case in point, as the innings progresses, many newspapers write so called analytical articles with headlines like "Dravid, Raina exploits fail to match Mohammed Yousuf and Shoaib Malik's" but of course forget that the former two are playing a different role. They're chasing (under pressure) while Yousuf and Malik were picking the loose ball with abandon but didn't need to head to a specific target. Not to mention a 'different surface.' Now, purely as a devil's advocate, I say, "Can this battle be made any more unfair?"

'True victory'
If toss-advantage negation as a theory advances, take the 'triumph' for the winning side. Sachin's suggestion, while maintaining the spectator's interest might bring in the element of a 'true triumph' if the toss-winning side were to win the match.

I think the 'toss' method is really a hangover of an older era when its winning would give a 'marginal' advantage. With cricket teams as grooved as today and an ever present spectator expectation, thought needs to be given to even out advantages that don't represent playing 'on the same surface.' Cricket bigwigs must not be shy to take Sachin's suggestion or for that matter any that represent this end.

Another revolutionary solution, which does away with the toss entirely is to award the 'choosing rights' (of batting or bowling first) based on immediate previous performances. It sounds better than to have 'luck' favour a captain when the coin is tossed up.