'Wrong to eliminate toss in U-23 matches': Dilip Vengsarkar urges BCCI to restore it

In May 2026, the BCCI decided to eliminate the toss in the Col CK Nayudu Trophy — the men's U-23 domestic competition in Indian cricket. Under this new provision, the visiting team now has the right to choose whether to bat or bowl first. The objective was clear: to prevent home teams from preparing spin-friendly pitches on their own ground and gaining an advantage over opponents. Dilip Vengsarkar, former India captain, has recently criticized this decision and urged the BCCI to restore the toss. His view is that eliminating the toss could be detrimental to the development of U-23 players, as it reduces their experience in adapting to different pitch conditions and toss outcomes. My perspective views this debate as a geometric problem. When we remove the toss, we are not solving the complexities of pitch preparation; we are merely changing a procedure. Home teams can still retain influence over pitch preparation — a fact often overlooked in this discussion. Vengsarkar's argument is not just the opinion of a former player; it is a development-focused approach. U-23 competitions aim to give young players experience in traditional competitive conditions, including winning or losing the toss. As a captain, the decision after the toss — whether to bat or bowl first — is a strategic skill that needs to be developed. I have a line in my notebook: 'The toss is not just a coin flip; it is a strategic test.' When two teams play against each other, the toss decision is made considering pitch conditions, weather, and the likelihood of pitch deterioration. Removing this process could deprive young captains of an important learning opportunity. Vengsarkar has rightly said that a balanced team — with both batting and bowling resources — should be less concerned about the toss. But this balance exists only in theory, and in real competition, every team must work with its strengths and weaknesses. The BCCI's argument is also valid. Home teams often prepare pitches to exploit their home advantage, and this is a long-standing problem. Preparing spin-friendly pitches can be a strategic choice, but when it becomes excessive, it can undermine competitive fairness. However, eliminating the toss is not a solution to this problem. It is merely a procedural change that does not remove the home team's ability to prepare pitches. My assessment is that if the BCCI is genuinely concerned about pitch-related inequalities, it should implement stricter monitoring and transparent criteria for spin-friendly pitch preparation, rather than simply eliminating the toss. England's County Championship experimented with eliminating the toss from 2026 to 2026, and eventually restored it in 2026. This is an important example of how a domestic cricket board can experiment with traditional match structures, but it does not guarantee that experimentation is always successful. England's experience shows that eliminating the toss does not always improve competitive balance, and it can affect the development of young players. The BCCI should consider this example and evaluate its own experiment. Another important aspect is that the U-23 competition is an integral part of India's talent pipeline. Young players who play at this level prepare for senior domestic and international cricket in the future. If they are deprived of the traditional toss system, they will not gain experience in the strategic decisions they will face in larger matches. In my view, Vengsarkar's appeal is not just the opinion of a former player; it is a development-focused approach that is crucial for young players. The BCCI should take this debate seriously. If it wishes to restore the toss, it should combine it with improved pitch monitoring. A balanced approach could be: restore the toss, but implement strict rules on pitch preparation, and ensure through independent monitoring that home teams prepare fair pitches. This will not only maintain competitive fairness but also give young players experience in traditional competition. A strong argument in Vengsarkar's criticism is that eliminating the toss reduces young captains' opportunities to make strategic decisions. As a captain, the decision after the toss — whether to bat or bowl first — is a crucial strategic skill. This decision depends on pitch conditions, weather, and the team's strengths and weaknesses. Removing this process could deprive young captains of an important learning opportunity. In my view, this debate is not just about a procedure; it is about the development and competitive fairness of Indian domestic cricket. The BCCI should consider Vengsarkar's appeal, while also keeping its original objective — preventing home teams from exploiting pitch preparation — in mind. A balanced solution is possible, and it will be important for the future of the U-23 competition. The way forward is for the BCCI to evaluate its experiment, and if it wishes to restore the toss, it should combine it with improved pitch monitoring. This will not only maintain competitive fairness but also give young players experience in traditional competition. Ultimately, this debate is about the development and competitive fairness of Indian cricket, and the BCCI should take it seriously.