pepper the pig
Active Member
Yes that's correct however both teams didn't win the toss.2/3 grand finals yesterday were won by the team chasing.
Win the toss (especially in a GF) and you bat.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes that's correct however both teams didn't win the toss.2/3 grand finals yesterday were won by the team chasing.
Heidelberg & Hurstbridge both won the toss and batted - and LOSTYes that's correct however both teams didn't win the toss.
Win the toss (especially in a GF) and you bat.
Always believed in our cricket runs on the board is always better. Don’t believe it’s a massive factor though."Bat first" was more of a turf cricket motto back in the days when cricket was played on uncovered wickets. Makes little difference to our comp.
So going back the last 15 years of GF results between BS and MS, I count, batting first;
BS - 9 losses, 5 wins, 1 no result
MS - 6 losses, 8 wins, 1 no result
15 losses, 13 wins and 2 no result grand finals in recent history between them for teams that bat first. I'm calling that difference between results insignificant, thus it does not matter if you bat or bowl first.
Win the toss and bat.
Yes we don't live in a perfect world and it doesn't always go to plan and get taken advantage of.
In footy, would you win the toss and kick with the wind or kick into it?
For me it brings a weak mindset. Rather win the toss, bat and lose than win the toss, bowl and lose.
Still irrelevant. Of the 28 times a team has won the toss and batted in the last 15 years, its 13 wins and 13 losses with 2 no results. 2 times a team has won the loss and fielded they have lost.
Oddly enough you might be a slight favourite if you actually lose the toss.