Who gives a toss?
Likely, South Africa, more so than Australia. But who really knows and does anyone care is the question...
Nobody in England—apologies for addressing the headline question—it's football, football, and more football for the masses of Old Blighty from now on. No more pesky cricket interfering—honestly, it looked like most of England’s squad felt the same way.
Back to the legitimate ponderable—Who gives a toss?
If we assume conventional wisdom is followed, then both Australian and South African think tanks should plan to bat first if successful at the coin toss, meaning one team will not play the game in the order they prefer.
Really, how important is it—to bat first, or second?
SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.
There are most definitely teams acutely predisposed to not playing the game in their preferred order, and then there are those who are overtly laissez-faire when it comes to the coin toss. The 1980s West Indies come to mind.
Most teams in that era chose to bowl first against the Windies, mainly trying to avoid their fast bowling juggernaut in the first instance. Then, when Clive Lloyd did win the toss, he enjoyed the luxury of making a decision based on conditions, not statistics and probability, or more accurately, fear.
To me, it seems Australia is less likely to be derailed if the coin lands against them.
Thanks to a SpeakingNick reader, we have some stats to support the “Who gives a toss” argument—that’s that the toss outcome is relatively inconsequential when predicting results.
Of the 46 games played in this World Cup, 18 have been won by the team winning the toss. (I’m assuming you are across that the team that wins the toss gets to choose between batting first or bowling.)
Actually, there was a time in the 19th century when there were two tosses: one to decide where to pitch the wickets, and the second to decide on the bat first or bowl conundrum.
So, a 39% win rate for the team that wins the toss is nothing to write home about. India, who are undefeated (10 wins) and already through to Sunday’s final, have won three tosses for a 100% conversion rate.
Whereas, South Africa has six wins from nine games and only won the toss once in those six wins, against lowly Bangladesh. (apologies Red.)
Australia have seven wins from their nine games, with just two coming from a successful coin toss.
Also factor in this—if you like! Rain is forecast Thursday in Kolkata.
And, Kolkata has not been a profitable bowl-first ground.
Only twice in its last 11 ODIs has the side who bats second won.
Clearly, there is only a marginal correlation between winning the toss and then winning the game. A more prudent focus would be both sides records in previous World Cups, specifically in the elimination phases.
An Australian victory tonight will see them playing in their eight final from 13 starts, a 61% strike rate—not at all shabby. If South Africa prevail, they will play their first final—It should be said; the opportunity of competing prior to 1992 was not afforded to them, however, it’s still a 0% strike rate.
It’s amazing how judgements can be clouded by whimsical speculation—mine included.
South Africa has been very good so far. The batting is powerful and two-paced; this is a real asset in 50-over cricket. Their quicks bowl fast, and they have an all-rounder who bowls anywhere in the bowling innings. Keshav Maharaj is both accurate and spinny (if that’s a word), and they have a dangerous finisher in David Miller. In writing this brief summary, it is apparent that they should be equally equipped to bat first or second.
As Miller has said, “It might be because our big wins come batting first and the bad losses come when we bat second.” So a picture is formed of them being reliant on the coin toss.
Historically, Australia has always preferred to bat first: take the initiative, runs on the board, and make best use of the wicket. You’ve heard all the cliches before. They too have a trio of match-hardened quicks, easily able to take advantage of whatever the conditions offer. Their all-rounder comes in the form of Glenn Maxwell, an underrated finger spinner, outstanding fielder, and devastating batter. Adam Zampa provides wrist-spin, and Pat Cummins delivers balanced leadership.
So, all that being said, tonight an ICC match referee will toss a coin, with either Pat Cummins or Temba Bavuma calling correctly or not. One team will bat, and the other will simply have to bat after they’ve bowled.
May the best team progress.
And, circling back to the two countries World Cup records, I wonder if there is any mention—in either dressing room—of the 1999 semi-final when Steve Waugh offered some words of consolation to Herschelle Gibbs after he dropped Waugh, and potentially a first World Cup for South Africa.
As always, thank you for being here.