To bat first or not to bat first

Piss Mint, let's put this to bed shall we

There is no "Golden Rule" to bat first in cricket tests.

The tendency back in the day was to bat first on a possibly deteriorating pitch, but captains.... unlike some posters here.... are debunking that theory completely, and they changed with the times, as well as the game unlike some posters on here.

Almost all sides would normally bat first on a horrible wicket, that is common sense but that has also changed in the last few decades, unlike some posters here who remain fixated on the early times in this game where batting first was paramount, which it was..... but again, games change, players change...... one only has to look at what they score in tests and ODI games now in one day's play compared to a few decades ago  

Of the 274 games played up until the 1930's teams batting first won 117 and lost 81

From then till the 1970's it was much the same, 867 tests were played and the side batting first won 309 tests and lost only 236.

From the 1980's till now however, the game has changed significantly.  Sides batting first won 390 times, but lost 443 times, and more games than ever were won within the first four days, which took the 5th day out of the equation regarding a 5th day result in many of these wins when the wicket was normally at it's worst

Between 1984 and 1986 alone teams batting first won 15 tests and lost an incredible 37 tests.

Australia - Won 1 Lost 10

England - Won 2 - Lost 11

Since 2000, teams fielding first have won 88 games and lost only 69, and those who batted first won 148 games, but lost 162.

In the 80's again the win percentage increased when captains put their opponents in to bat first, with a win / loss ratio of 43-23.

Since 2000 up until November 2013 all countries combined had only won 16 tests batting first out of 31 tests.

You need to adapt to any game..... as a captain, a player, or a coach, and if you steadfastly live by the mantra from some great from the 1800's, then you would have lost far more in the last 36 years alone, than you would have won.

There is no "Golden Rule" in cricket..... there are clearly great benefits to batting first or second in any particular game, depending on the wicket and conditions you are playing under at that specific time and place, and these stats prove that.

Imagine Piss Mint encouraging his little boys on the cricket pitch.

"C'mon boys, you all know the Golden Rule I live by"

"I know we are currently 27/7 but the tides will turn for us, I swear............. promise you okes"

"We will win one day soon guys, just trust me please", "I'm related to an international rugby player, I tell people that all the time in case they disagree with me, so I know my stuff guys.... really I do....... "Jirre okes, just please trust me"......I know my sport.... it errrr...  "runs" in the family"

"Now come on boys, chins up...... We can still chase this 487 down.... just have faith in me like I have faith in this 140 year old  WG Grace rule of always batting first"

Don't thank me, I live to give...... Drink

Fixed

Some nice points there Plum

Some stats below for England which defied some of the latest trends stats wise, and below that, India.

We also need to take take into account the quality of the side batting first vs the quality of the opponents fielding at the time, and vice versa.

I mean, Warnie, Glen, Gillespie, Lee, Mitchell, Gilchrist, Ponting, in one side......

Anyway, you asked, so here is what I managed to find

From ESPN: 2000 - Nov 2013

England:

"Surprisingly, the country where teams batting first have won the most is England, where the record is 41-34 in favour of the team batting first. In no other country has the team batting first won more matches than they've lost".

India:

During the recording of Match Point, ESPNcricinfo's live show over the India-West Indies Test series, Sanjay Manjrekar, one of the experts on the show, made an interesting observation: he pointed out that the advantages of winning the toss and batting first was over-rated, especially in India. Explaining further, he said that the early moisture on Indian pitches help bowlers - both fast and spin - take a few early wickets before flattening out into a batting surface. The teams batting first thus tend to recover from the early setbacks to post reasonable, but not daunting, totals. The teams batting second play when the pitch is at its best, post huge totals, and the lead is usually enough to take the fourth-innings dangers out of the equation.

From 2000 - 2013 India is right at the bottom of the list: teams batting first have won only 16 Tests and lost 31 during this period. India have done better - they have a 11-6 record - but most of the other teams have struggled. (That's also partially a reflection of how dominant India have generally been at home during this period - their win-loss ratio of 3.27 has been bettered only by Australia at home.)

Venues:

The two grounds with the lowest averages are both venues where the quality of the host nation has significantly affected the numbers. At the Bangabandhu Stadium in Dhaka, Bangladesh have batted first in seven out of nine Tests that have been played there since 2000. That, to a large extent, explains a runs-per-wicket average of less than 21. It's a similar story in Bulawayo, where Zimbabwe have batted first eight times out of 11, and Bangladesh twice. Among other venues, New Zealand's Eden Park in Auckland has been the most difficult for teams batting first, with Kandy a close second. In six Tests at Eden Park since 2000, the team batting first has been bowled out for less than 300 five times (though on three of those occasions they've gone on to win the match). Kandy has been similarly difficult, with four sub-200 totals and only one 400-plus score in 13 matches.

The rest of the top 10 has a couple of venues from India, where you'd expect the conditions to be relatively favourable to the team batting first. In Mumbai, the average runs per wicket is only 26.34, while Chennai has averaged 28.68, with the team batting first not winning a single Test out of the last six. However, there are no venues from England or Australia in the top 10, despite the commonly held notion that some of the venues in those countries are pretty difficult for teams batting first. (The lowest for England is Trent Bridge, with an average of 30.88, while Australia's lowest is Sydney, where the first-innings average is 35.88.) Australia's relatively high numbers are also because of their exceptional batting line-up over the last decade

Some very interesting points from all sides, but this definitely still proves that there is no "Golden Rulë" to bat first when winning the toss.

I also believed this, but have since changed my opinion on it

The stats don't necessarily prove this theory, although it is the most accepted opinion

Hi Denny

I did follow the series but never got to see the Pitch Scan....

I fully agree with your comments on this, there are just too many variables to determine any given game, on any particular surface, with the current weather conditions around, and your current team mix and confidence leading up to that game.

Too many things can either go right or very wrong.

For instance, if you want to see how something can go so wrong, so quickly, just look in the cricket section at Piss Mint's "Enforcing the follow on" thread. 

LMFAO

True true.......

You won't be disappointed you came, still a beaut of a place, we can discuss when you are down.

I see moz was here recently and enjoyed his time in CT I think

Good to see you chaps coming to visit our shores

I also believed this, but have since changed my opinion on it

The stats don't necessarily prove this theory, although it is the most accepted opinion

Batting First resulted in - 390 Wins - 443 Defeats

Taking the overall total score of batting first to 699 wins - 679 losses.

I have no idea what that new stat is now.

You would be that kind of captain that wants to still play 1906 cricket where they scored maybe 150 in a day.

Get with the times

It depends on so many different criteria these days on whether to bat first or bowl, and not one of them is history'

Indeed Cera

That's always been one of my gripes when it comes to cricket. The all important 50/50 right at the start of the match. Obviously there ain't much to do about it but it does niggles away at me.

 Plum

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 996 RE: To bat first or not to bat first
January 04, 2017, 17:22:03

I'm not too phased by it. The won/lost ratio in the results, over time, is close enough to 50/50 for my liking. It would have been a worry if the team winning the toss won 60%+ of the matches. It is less than 55% in all four diffrerent scenarios, giving the team winning the toss only a slight advantage.

And that is why I mentioned earlier that my opinion on this has changed now that I have seen these stats

Very interesting indeed