Home advantage in ODI's

This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.
CF Debutant
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:33 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Home advantage in ODI's

Postby youlesy15 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:37 pm

As part of my dissertation thesis I'm looking at cricket fans perceptions of what causes a home advantage in ODI's matches. Please could you fill out short online survey (link posted below) which should take no longer than 5 minutes to complete. Just copy and past the link into your web browser. Any questions feel free to reply to this post. Thanks for your help.

https://nupsych.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/ ... 0oRv8hH2Lz

User avatar
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Home advantage in ODI's

Postby Paddles » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:07 pm

While I don't doubt there is a home advantage in cricket, especially in national boards having influence over pitch types, and training net facilities for touring teams being provided and to what degree of similarity to true pitch conditions, reserve players readily currently playing in home seasons, a big factor is that for home games the best possible teams are rolled out by the host as it is not only where they are under the greatest media and fan scrutiny which is far less during the football season winter tours, it is by hosting that their revenue is collected and the domestic fan base is established and sealed. Due to a busy full year calendar for many countries, top established players are often given breaks and do not tour or only partially tour. For instance, England starts its Southern hemisphere Ashes tour in November, and leaves NZ for home in April. That is a very long time on the road for players with young families. How likely is say, Stuart Broad for instance to play the entire tour of odis, t20s as well as his beloved test matches? If Ben Stokes (unlikely as he is keen to tour NZ), Chris Woakes or Joe Root ask for a break, outside of the Ashes tests, will the EWCB give them one?

For example, NZ just beat Aus in a Chappel - Hadlee at home where Australia did not send David Warner nor Steve Smith. NZ played its best side, Australia rested its most important two batsmen. I have doubts as to how successful Warner would be in NZ (as he is targeted personally, extensively and relentlessly by NZ crowds (and media)), but Smith being rested for niggles so as to be ready for his Indian winter, was a big blow to Australia's hopes of winning. In recent times, NZ has sent touring odi teams without 4 of its 5 best and most important players; B McCullum, Tim Southee, Trent Boult and Ross Taylor. Only KW, a young batting stalwart has been an extensive tourist. I don't expect to see injury prone but highly talented Corey Anderson bowling on any unimportant tours any time soon.

Home crowds are known to pressure football codes for favorable decisions, and while cricket due to its nature and now modern independent umpires is seen as more immune than football codes from this (a far cry from the 1980s in world cricket), and the television and DRS review system helps no end here, last years Chappel Hadlee was influenced in no small part by a local and partisan big screen operator who displayed a 6th ball dismissal on the big screen in the change of overs confirming Mitch Marsh had not hit a bump ball after NZ had unsuccessfully appealed, which sparked the crowd, which the NZ team then sought to have given out, and the umpires obliged. So the mere fact of playing at home, meant that an big screen operator ensured the right decision was made as to a touring wicket falling. This is in addition to the Australian team not preparing for Ish Sodhi to play, who was rolled out as somewhat of a surprise during their tour.

While the unlimited playing resources of the home team is a known factor, as are hostile crowds and media targeting overseas players, and the big screen operators is becoming known, and pitch control is as old and established as any, as well the grind of long tour wearing down tourists, questionable training conditions being provided or not provided at all, to the famous "Delhi Belly" for western tourists of Asian countries, all this before familarity of ground shapes and local dynamics (counter not enjoying foreign dynamics or disadvantaged due to unfamilarity, eg reading the pitch or dew/weather effects;; the mere fact that boards are far more likely to play their best xi at home than away is NOT a home advantage but a qualitative fact of diminished peak potential performance, which results in giving teams the best chances to win at home and not away. This is becomming such the norm, that NZ will tour Ireland in ODI cricket next month to play Ireland (and Bangladesh) without its best batsmen in KW and Martin Guptil, and without allrounders CDG and Corey Anderson, and without its bowling stars; Trent Boult, Tim Southee, Mitch McClenehan, Matt Henry, Lockie Fergusion and Adam Milne. (I may have missed some out.) Why? IPL players are excused from the tour. This leaves Taylor and Santner as the only 2 regular fixture players touring who have not been dropped nor called up recently.

ICC events are now the best indicators of best elevens playing each other in tournament play; and these also reveal - for NZ and arguably India anyway, a stark increase in successful results in front of home domestic crowds. But there have been many catastrophic home tournament sides all over the globe throughout ICC history. So make of it what you will. The impact of home crowds themselves can almost be measured by following India in ODI tours outside Asia, where they often dominate the crowds with partisan migrated fans causing a sea of pale blue in the stands.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.