Are day-night games fair?

Last week, the MCC announced plans to spend £200m upgrading Lords', with some of the money used for floodlights. However, a new paper suggests the latter might not be money well spent.
This is because day-night games are a poor competition. The authors looked at the 649 one-day day-night internationals played between 1979 and 2005, and found that the toss is massively important in such games.
They estimate that in a match between two sides of equal ability, the team winning the toss and batting first has a 57% chance of winning the match, a probability that rises to 69% if it also has home advantage.
By contrast, other research suggests that in day-only games, batting first is a disadvantage.
This suggests that batting in deteriorating light, even under floodlights, is a serious handicap.
And it means day-night games are unsatisfactory as their outcome is (partly) known before a ball is bowled.
One solution to this might be to have split innings, with teams batting for 25 overs alternately.

Comments

[Mark]

I'm surprised you don't go for a more market-based approach, Chris. Why not have a bidding system for who bats first? Whichever captain is prepared to forfeit more runs for the privilege gets to decide the order in which the teams bat. The advatage is evened out and an element of skill is introduced.

[reason]

Yep,
Split innings is the way to go. Now for my push for 100 overs games over two days. (Not one innings either. The winner is determined in a second innings by the team with the higher score when wickets lost was last equal. Think about it. It means bowling teams may choose to attack, and batting teams may choose to defend. Much more variety on the second day.)

[Peter Briffa]

It appears that Twenty20 is overtaking 50 games anyway, so the problem won't apply.

[Chris]

I'd like to second Mark's proposal for a market solution - I've been boring my mates on this subject for years. Home captain states a number of runs, which will be added on to the total of the team batting second. Away captain either accepts (and bats second) or rejects (and bats first, ceding the bonus runs to the home team). Works for test matches too. Commentators can spend hours and column inches before the game debating whether this is a "50-run pitch" or a "100-run pitch". Bonus runs might be negative in the case of Headingley on a muggy Thursday.

It's the old cake problem: you cut, I choose.

[jameshigham]

I like the split innings idea, as in baseball. Why not a double 20-20?

[Christopher]

Skill is more involved then anything. Period.

[chris y]

If the issue is deteriorating light, split innings only works on the basis of ABBA. The side batting first would need to have 25 overs in daylight (max. advantage), then the other lot would get to bat 50 in deteriorating light (mean conditions), and the first side would then have 25 overs in the worst possible conditions to finish (max. disadvantage).

[Mark Harrison]

I like the cake problem.

I'm also wondering whether anyone has researched whether the day-night statistics are adequately incorporated into bookie's odds.

If not, I've found an arbitrage niche that could make watching cricket a business activity :-)

[Cricket Kits Online]

Maybe the twilight is a problem. But players seem to adjust very well.