[ALL1N]

In one day cricket, the team to bat first makes their total in 50 overs, and the other team tries to reach it without losing 10 wickets (one innings each). The team batting second has a clear information advantage in knowing what sort of score they are aiming for (much like having positional advantage in poker).

The first team opens the batting behind a veil of ignorance (of how well they'll do), and thus must take a moderate approach in terms of aggression. Say they get off to a good start by losing only 1 wicket in the first 25 overs, they can then change their strategy and try and post a big total by taking more risks. However, a team batting second has a better chance of making a big total if they know the target from the start.

However, not once have I heard a commentator, captain, or coach speak of this - all that is discussed in considering whether the captain who wins the toss should bat first or second is the condition of the pitch, the weather, and the intimidation factor of a big total! And incidentally, teams will choose to bat first the majority of the time.

...

Similar information advantage applies to the follow-on in test matches (rejecting the follow-on defies logic IMO).

And one last thing that annoys me is the persistent talk of batsmen down the order having higher batting averages because they get a lot of not-outs.