A mother has two squabbling young sons and a fresh, tasty chocolate cake that she needs to divide equally between them. The clever mother asks one son to cut it in two parts, and the other one to choose either part. This ensures neither son has any cause for complaint. (Academicians call this fair method 'divide-and-choose' and describe it as 'envy-free'.) This cake-dividing principle forms the basis of this proposal for improvement of the cricket toss rules.

Cricket is a singular game susceptible to weather, pitches, grass, condition of the ball, dew, light, and rollers. Any sport should test the skills of the competing teams. But a cricket match starts with the tossing of a coin that sometimes allows pure luck to overshadow skill. In the last few years, concerns have particularly grown about day-night matches, where the team winning the toss improves its probability of winning the match. If we accept that the conditions of the two innings are different (natural v artificial light, weather, dew), it is patently unfair that one team has the right to choose (based on pure luck) what it feels are the better conditions, while the other team can merely curse the coin. In the 2011 Natwest series against India, England's captain Alastair Cook won five tosses in a row - India didn't win any of the five matches (England 3-0, one tied, one abandoned). This is similar to Federer being allowed to serve five games in a row. I don't think Nadal or Djokovic facing him would be very happy about that.

The proposal : Using the cake-dividing principle, my proposal is to offer an "extra over" as an offsetting factor to the decision of choosing to bat or field. The captain winning the toss can opt to (a) choose to decide whether to bat or field first, or (b) get an extra over. The other captain takes what remains. For further clarification, if MS Dhoni wins the toss, he may opt to bat or field first, in which case AB de Villiers gets an extra over for South Africa. Alternatively, Dhoni can opt for the extra over (51 instead of 50), leaving de Villiers to decide whether South Africa will bat or field first. This way, at the time of the toss, not one but both sides receive some benefit.

Why an extra over : Giving bonus runs as compensation is also possible. However, the pitch and the conditions may dictate a par score of 100 or 400. Runs are not a good objective measure. An over of six legitimate deliveries, on the other hand, is very specific. Irrespective of conditions, it offers precisely a 2% bonus (one over in addition to 50).

Why not two or three overs? The objective of the proposal is to make the toss equitable and envy-free. Even in the case of cake-cutting, there is no guarantee the two halves of the cake are precisely equal. But by asking one to divide and other to choose, we take out the element of envy and regret. The psychological factor of offering a benefit is important. It is my feeling that one extra over (2%) is an appropriate compensating factor.

Who bowls that over : To make the compensation more interesting, I propose retaining the rule of a maximum 10 overs per bowler. Which means the captain must use at least six bowlers to bowl 51 overs. This is to make sure the extra over offers real benefit. You don't want someone like Malinga, capable of delivering six yorkers, to bowl 11 overs.

Fielding restrictions : The same as the last ten overs (currently five fielders outside the 30-yard circle).

Time : The side bowling the extra over is allowed four extra minutes for that over. (Worries about the match lengthening are unfounded. With no-balls and wide balls, far more than 50 overs are bowled per innings anyway.)

Duckworth-Lewis: I suggest the extra over is applicable as long as the match consists of at least 35 overs at the time of the toss. (In a match too short, the difference in conditions for the two innings is not so pronounced). Other than that, all D/L computations can be carried out exactly as they are for a match without an extra over.

Want to be featured on 'Inbox'? Send your articles to us here, with "Inbox" in the subject line.