Removing the Toss from U-23 Cricket Is Wrong: Dilip Vengsarkar Urges BCCI to Restore Traditional Rule

A decision by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has triggered a debate about sporting tradition, competitive fairness and the development of young cricketers. Former India captain Dilip Vengsarkar has criticised the board's decision to eliminate the conventional toss in the men's Under-23 Col CK Nayudu Trophy. He has urged the BCCI to restore the traditional arrangement, arguing that young cricketers should learn to adapt to different conditions and make tactical decisions themselves.

The controversy goes beyond deciding which team bats first. It raises a broader question about domestic cricket governance: should administrators change traditional match procedures to reduce home advantage, or should young players be prepared to deal with the conditions they encounter?

Why the BCCI removed the toss

In May 2026, the BCCI announced the removal of the toss for the 2026-25 men's Col CK Nayudu Trophy season. Under the arrangement announced by then BCCI secretary Jay Shah, the visiting team received the right to choose whether to bat or bowl first. Under conventional playing arrangements, that decision belongs to the captain who wins the toss.

The stated objective was to discourage home teams from preparing spin-friendly pitches that could exploit their familiarity with local conditions. Home teams generally have greater knowledge of their grounds, the behaviour of their surfaces and the influence of local weather. When that familiarity is combined with the opportunity to choose the innings order, the home side may gain an additional strategic advantage.

Giving the visiting team the choice changes the distribution of that initial decision. However, eliminating the toss does not remove the home team's influence over pitch preparation. Grass coverage, moisture, rolling and other aspects of surface preparation can still determine how a match develops.

The BCCI therefore addressed a legitimate competitive-balance concern through a procedural change. Yet the intention behind a policy and its measurable effectiveness are separate questions. The available information does not provide comparative statistics proving that the reform reduced home-team advantages.

Vengsarkar's argument: Young players must learn to adapt

Vengsarkar has described the removal of the toss as wrong and called for its reinstatement. His argument centres on the developmental purpose of Under-23 cricket. Players at this level are preparing to progress into senior domestic cricket. Their development requires technical ability, but it also involves reading match conditions, developing strategies and making decisions under pressure.

The conventional toss is part of that education. A captain must assess the pitch, weather, possible moisture, bowling resources and batting depth before deciding whether to bat or bowl. Winning the toss does not guarantee a successful decision. Equally, losing it requires a captain to adjust the team's approach to the opposition's choice.

The opportunity to manage these situations should remain part of the learning environment rather than disappear from the competition.

In my years of observing cricket, one consistent feature of domestic matches has been the influence of changing conditions. Batting in the first innings and batting in the fourth innings on the same surface can present very different challenges. Spin, the new ball and the gradual deterioration of a pitch can make the captain's initial decision strategically important.

Vengsarkar also argues that a balanced team should be able to handle different conditions. A side with sufficient batting depth, pace options and effective spin resources should not become excessively dependent on the result of a toss. This places greater emphasis on team selection and tactical preparation.

Competitive fairness versus practical cricket education

The toss and home advantage must be examined separately. The toss provides an initial strategic opportunity, but home advantage has several components. Familiarity with local conditions, knowledge of the surface, weather patterns and experience at a particular venue can all benefit the home side.

Removing the toss changes only one part of this equation. If a surface is prepared to assist spin bowling, the visiting captain's right to choose the innings order does not remove the challenge of playing on that pitch. Consequently, a change in match procedure cannot replace proper monitoring of pitch preparation.

At the same time, the BCCI's original concern should not be dismissed. If home teams receive an unfair advantage through deliberately manipulated conditions, the credibility of the competition can suffer. This is particularly important in age-group cricket, where players' performances should be assessed under reasonably fair competitive conditions.

There is an important distinction between equal conditions and fair conditions. Cricket naturally involves different grounds, surfaces and weather. Competitive fairness does not require every venue to be identical. It requires administrators to ensure that teams do not obtain an improper advantage through the misuse of conditions or regulations.

England's experiment offers a relevant precedent

England's County Championship provides an international comparison. The England and Wales Cricket Board experimented with removing the toss between 2026 and 2026. Under that arrangement, the visiting team received the right to choose whether to bat or bowl first. The traditional toss was restored in 2026.

The English experience demonstrates that domestic cricket authorities can experiment with established match procedures in an attempt to improve competitive balance. It also shows that an experimental regulation does not necessarily become permanent. Such decisions should be assessed through their stated objectives and actual consequences on the field.

However, the English experiment and the Indian Under-23 competition should not be treated as identical cases without examining their respective conditions, formats and available results. The supplied analysis does not include detailed statistical findings from England. It would therefore be premature to attribute the restoration of the toss to any single competitive problem.

The BCCI's real challenge: Change the rules or improve pitch monitoring?

The BCCI has two responsibilities. The first is to provide participating teams with a fair competitive environment. The second is to prepare Under-23 players for the tactical demands of senior cricket. These objectives do not necessarily conflict.

One possible solution would be to restore the conventional toss while introducing independent pitch-monitoring procedures. Grounds could be assessed before and after matches, with records maintained on surface characteristics, unusual behaviour and potential home-team advantages. This would allow administrators to base decisions on documented evidence rather than complaints or individual opinions.

The second step should involve publishing comparative performance data. Home-win percentages, first-innings scores, fourth-innings batting difficulty, the effectiveness of spin and pace bowling, and match outcomes could be compared across seasons before and after the policy change. Administrators should also record how visiting teams used their right to choose the innings order.

Without these figures, it is difficult to establish whether the policy improved competitive balance or simply transferred control over the opening decision. Feedback from young captains and coaches would also be important. Vengsarkar's criticism should form part of a wider consultation involving players, coaching staff and domestic cricket administrators.

The future of Under-23 cricket and player development

The importance of the Col CK Nayudu Trophy extends beyond immediate match results. The competition provides young players with experience as they move towards senior domestic cricket. Captaincy, tactical adjustments and the ability to understand different phases of a match are important parts of that progression.

Captains face different responsibilities whether they win or lose the toss. A team choosing to bat first must take advantage of the initial conditions, while a side choosing to bowl must convert early opportunities into sustained control. A team that loses the toss must adjust its plans to the opposition's decision. These experiences can become useful preparation for senior cricket.

Vengsarkar's demand is therefore about more than preserving tradition. It also reflects a concern about preparing young players for genuine competitive situations. The BCCI, meanwhile, wants to prevent home conditions from creating an excessive advantage. Both concerns can be addressed through evidence-based policy and stronger administrative oversight.

There is no confirmed official BCCI decision responding to Vengsarkar's criticism or announcing the restoration of the toss in the information available for this report. It would therefore be premature to suggest that a reversal is imminent.

The most important indicators in the next domestic season will be the evidence behind the BCCI's eventual decision. Will the board establish regular records of pitch quality? Will young captains retain sufficient opportunities to make conventional tactical decisions? Will publicly available data help administrators measure competitive fairness?

Understanding and adapting to conditions is an essential part of high-level cricket preparation. Ensuring that those conditions remain fair is the responsibility of administrators. The BCCI's challenge is to balance both responsibilities without compromising the development of young players or the credibility of domestic cricket.