Useless Tossers

My Dad cut out an article by The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford in the FT. When economics is mentioned in the same sentence as cricket, it usually suggests that the topic is the money sloshing around the IPL or sloshed out of Allen Stanford. But this time Harford looks at the toss and how its unfairness can be evened out by auctioning.

The toss is unfair. Calling correctly when the pitch is a greentop with clammy, cloudy conditions are overhead can effectively determine the match result in your favour - likewise in 37 degree heat and a flawless strip. By winning the toss, through sheer luck, a captain can give his team a considerable advantage. I think that the less luck involved in sport the better - ultimately the victorious team should be the better team, not the luckier (which, incidentally, is why I support giving umpires all the technology they need to make the right decision).

So how can we remove this element of chance? One way could be to 'take turns to enjoy the advantage' - Strauss won the toss at Cardiff, so Ponting chooses what he wants to do at Lord's, then Strauss at Edgbaston, etc. This way we would have a fair idea of who would be batting first in each match of the series, going on what teams have traditionally chosen to do at those grounds in the past. But this removes the fun, unpredictable aspect of the toss for the remaining games.

A way to maintain the unpredictability of the toss outcome and remove the luck was suggested in a letter to the Financial Times from Warren Edwardes in 1999. His idea was to replace the toss with an auction - the advantage (of choosing what to do) should go to the team that is willing to concede the most compensation to the other team. In other words, what is the maximum number of runs you would give to the opposition in order to have the privilege of choosing what to do first? Whoever offers the most, wins 'the toss' - the loser receives the compensation. An auction would reflect the value of the toss on match day, whereas the alternating-toss idea abive does not.

Such an auction would significantly increase the workload of a captain, although the coach, team and backroom staff could all help him decide on the upper limit - the decision can be collectively be made on the morning of a game. Judging a pitch is part of a cricket captain's repertoire and an auction would really allow his pitch evaluation skills to shine/bomb. The entertainment value of watching two captains outbid each other would be significant too, and would certainly spice up the mid-pitch interview with Athers/Sirian/Misc. Pundit at the beginning of every match.

The cons? A toss is quick and simple while an auction is not. Tosses are traditional. Perhaps too much time would be spent on deciding what to bid rather than practising technique. Maybe an auction would promote 'the toss' to a level of scrutiny that it doesn't deserve, exactly what the opposite of what it was meant to achieve. It may take some time before bids settle down and captains become aware of how much batting/bowling first is truly worth, meaning early games may be ruined thanks to bad bids from captains inexperienced with the system. Maybe people want a bit of luck in their cricket games anyway. An MCC sub-committee considered the auction proposal last year and 'found no enthusiasm' - just not cricket apparently.