Batting second is better...

[fab]

Cricket batting myth hit for six
Anna Salleh

The common wisdom that it's better to bat first if you win the toss in test cricket has been debunked by a new statistical analysis by Australian researchers

Article

[Rubu]

it only counted matches of four years. 1997 to 2001, whereas test cricket has history of above 100 years. choosing a different time frame can very likely be change the outcome of the stats. i think the myth of batting first is true. it would be interesting to see what the total stat is, instead of a time frame. anyone interested to do that? go to this Complete List of Test Matches and randomly choose about 200 of them and see what the stat is. according to the rule of stat, if u choose it randomly, it should represents the entire picture.

[Tintin]

"In the old days they used to have uncovered wickets and so the wickets would get weather on them,"

This obviously has evened out the difference between batting first and last but ...

"[The second-batting advantage] could be because it just so happened that the better teams always batted second,"

I guess this is also significant. There are too many teams with poor bowling lineups these days. A team like India or WI - with good batting lineups, but bad bowlers - will rarely choose to bowl first. The presence of bad bowlers will also mean that such teams win fewer games.

In the case of stronger teams, which usually have good pace attacks like SAF or Australia, they bowl first more often than India or WI, and would also win more tests. This might have swayed the results in the recent seasons.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by Tintin]

[FaltuRidwanBhai]

well i will never say that batting second is always the best choice or batting first is always the best choice. it all depends on the pitch and the weather. it also depends i think what team you are playing against.

[Shehwar]

For me....In a pressure game one shud always look to bat first.....U know...put the runs on the board and ask the opposition to get em......Specially in cup finals....cheers....

[AsifTheManRahman]

i don't think the views in the article are properly backed up with sufficient logic. like agent said, a 150 year trend doesn't change in 4 years.

[couger]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
it only counted matches of four years. 1997 to 2001, whereas test cricket has history of above 100 years. choosing a different time frame can very likely be change the outcome of the stats.

Right, I didn't think this was a comprehensive study.

[James90]

That's useless, I'm sure if they really investigated all the factors over a long period of time batting first would be the best. Chasing in one-dayers however can have its advantages