Rob Steen
Rob Steen Rob SteenRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Why crowd support matters

A factor in improved away records in recent years, particularly in ODIs, is the presence of fans from the diaspora cheering for visiting teams

Rob Steen

September 3, 2014

Comments: 7 | Text size: A | A

Indian fans turn in up in droves for ODIs featuring their side in England, which surely factors into the team's results © AFP

The penny dropped during Saturday's grotesquely one-sided ODI at Trent Bridge, the catalyst a velvety drive from Ajinkya Rahane even more mellifluous than his sing-song name. To MS Dhoni's ears in particular, the shrieks and roars and oohs and aahs that escorted it to the boundary must have sounded, simultaneously, as soothing as Ludwig Van's Pastoral Symphony and as rousing as "Smells Like Teen Spirit".

Why, this past week, have India have been playing more like champions than chumpions? Not just because their players are better at the shorter formats or their temperaments suit them better; not just because they are hell-bent on avenging that humiliating reversal in the Test series; not just because of the changes in personnel; nor even just because so many of those conquerors seem less motivated and more witless when it comes to the game's populist variants.

Instead, I'm inclined to believe an equally, if not more telling cause, amounts to nothing more complex than this: more than any other national or regional XI, Dhoni and Co crave approval and love. To them more than any rival, because they are under the microscope like no other, vocal encouragement matters. And whereas only a smattering of the Indian diaspora attended the Tests, doubtless on account of low expectations as much as tiresome alternatives such as jobs, they are turning up in droves for the rowdier occasions that promise so much more. And nowhere on the team's travels do those supporters congregate so readily and fervently as they do here.

Let's take a step back. One of spectator sport's foremost attractions is the way it compels us to contemplate the difference between favourable and unfavourable environments, between cosy and hostile terrain, between "home" and "away". Local conditions can be critical, but it is the sheer volume of onlookers, in terms of both numbers and wattage, that purportedly exerts the keenest influence. All too typical was the BBC commentator Andrew Castle's assertion, as Andy Murray rallied to take the third set of his 2013 Wimbledon semi-final against Jerzy Janowicz, that the Scot-Brit was "feeding off the crowd".

Naturally, it works both ways. Paul Ackford, the policeman turned England rugby union player turned journalist, recalled playing a match in Cardiff in the 1980s, when Anglo-Welsh hostilities were at their peak and the red rose never bloomed: the England team returned to their changing room to find their blazers "peppered with globules of spit provided by Wales supporters, standing either side of the tunnel, who weren't too impressed with anything English".

Notable academics, nonetheless, have researched all the evidence of home advantage, and one such, David Runciman, a political scientist at Cambridge University, is convinced it's pure tosh, arguing that players, fans and media alike "have merely bought into a myth of their own relative power or powerlessness, one that fits what they want to believe". The ingredients that count, he insists, are the usual suspects: "skill, luck and changes of circumstance".

Hence, perhaps, the consistency of the figures littering Scorecasting, a 2001 book by Tobias Moskowitz, a University of Chicago behavioural economist, and Sports Illustrated's L Jon Wertheim. By the outset of the new millennium, according to their rummagings, home teams, historically, had won 54% of Major League Baseball games, nearly 58% of NFL games, 59% in the NHL and 63% in the NBA; in 43 professional leagues in 24 countries covering more than 66,000 games spanning Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, Australia and the US, the share was 62.4%; for international rugby union it was 58%.

 
 
Dhoni and Co crave approval and love. To them more than any rival, because they are under the microscope like no other, vocal encouragement matters
 

"As radically as sports have changed through the years… the home field advantage is eerily constant through time," claim Moskowitz and Wertheim. In more than 100 baseball seasons, they discovered, not once had visiting teams collectively won more games than the hosts. The lowest success rate home teams had ever registered in a baseball season was 50.7% - in 1923; the highest was 58.1% eight years later. Just once, freakishly, in 1968, had away teams held the whip hand in the NFL; the NBA, NHL and the international soccer leagues had not yet witnessed this phenomenon.

In cricket this truism is writ larger - witness Australia's Harare humbling on Sunday. Varying climates and soils mean that terra familiar has long supplied a bigger headstart than in other ball games. Notwithstanding the sport's matchless penchant for draws, among the eight senior ICC members, to take the most glaring example, only New Zealand and South Africa do not boast a win-loss home record in Tests of 1.5 (60%) or better; Australia and Pakistan have won comfortably more than twice as many as they have lost. In the 2000s, no fewer than five nations emulated them. Change, nonetheless, appears to be brewing: of the 31 Test encounters staged by the seven (eligible) senior combatants over the past 12 months, just under 60% have been won by the home side.

Overall, Australia are alone in garnering more wins than defeats in overseas Tests: no surprise there. Still, prospects improve as the significance of time and pitch recedes. Australia and South Africa both have profitable away records in ODIs; ditto India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka in T20s, the last winning six times as many as they've lost.

Over the past five years, furthermore, the sands have shifted. While losing Tests abroad has remained the habitual fate for the other six senior teams, England have tasted victory as often as defeat (nine apiece), while in 17 matches South Africa have won nine and lost only one. More radically, Sri Lanka have won their first series in England, South Africa their first in Australia, and England their first in India in a quarter of a century. Having won 11 and lost 20 of their previous 39 Test rubbers against senior rivals, South Africa have not surrendered one of their past 12, winning eight. Plainly, the quality gap has much to do with this, likewise the mild-mannered pitches encouraged by chief executives and broadcasters, but dare we neglect the greater sense of ease and comfort fostered by more frequent tours?


Paul Nixon dives into the Barmy Army as he savours England's victory, Australia v England, CB Series, 2nd final, Sydney, February 11, 2007
How much of a role has the support England get from the Barmy Army played in their wins away? © Getty Images
Enlarge

If we accept that the audience are a leading actor in this drama, it seems logical to attribute this mini-revolution, in good part, to the shrinking of Test attendances and the diminishing of biased support. Yet the results of contests that attract substantial gates suggest that this is no longer terribly pertinent. In ODIs, Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka have all compiled winning away records over the past five years; in T20s, all bar Australia, England and West Indies have done so. Since the days of evenly distributed acclaim and all-round good hosthood appear long gone, this feels all the more laudable.

The IPL echoes this swing. In the first three instalments held in India, home teams collectively won 15 more games than they lost; in 2012, they won eight fewer. In IPL 7, King's XI Punjab, the outstanding outfit in the group stage, suffered two of their three losses at home, while Chennai Super Kings won an eliminator in Mumbai. Three of the four highest stands (by wicket) in IPL annals (and four of the top six) have been achieved by non-Indian players; three of the top four bowling returns in India have been recorded by a visiting bowler, five of the ten highest scores by a visiting batsman.

Which brings us back, confusingly if not quite perplexingly, to the national XI. Despite the general upswing in away fortunes, no country's Test results in the recent past have been quite so polarised. Since bowing to South Africa at the dawn of the century India have won 15, drawn five and lost just two of their home series against their leading seven rivals; away, the respective figures are five, four and 13.

Travelling support can help, and on that score England are economically and uniquely blessed. Graeme Swann has hailed the Barmy Army, who so often outnumber locals, as "the very heartbeat" of his Test tours: who are we to doubt such an expression of debt? From 1972 to 1995, England won just six and drew five of their 27 overseas series (of more than one Test), but matters improved royally once the Barmies began invading en masse (the maiden chorus comprised three mates on the 1994-95 Ashes tour): prior to last winter's mauling down under, their previous 27 such assignments had produced 10 wins and five draws. The ECB can bang on all it likes about the impact of central contracts and a two-tier Championship, but to ignore Bill Cooper's trumpet and those endless renditions of "Jerusalem" would be the height of ingratitude.

Just as West Indies once thrived on the lusty horns and drums of the Anglo-Caribbean community, who are now priced out of the stands, Dhoni and company do not depend on travelling support so much as Diaspora Aid, donated handsomely by the Bharat Army since 1999. The troops were barely visible at this summer's Tests, much less audible; they had snapped up their ODI allocation when there were still tickets aplenty unsold for the Lord's Test.

The Trent Bridge ODI drew squadrons from Leicester, Luton, Southampton, Birmingham, Coventry and London. When I checked on Sunday, the Army's Twitter feed had 2002 followers. Outnumbered they may have been in Nottingham by England fans, but it sure didn't sound like it.

What, then, can we conclude from this morass of conjecture, contradictions and clichés? Only the blindingly obvious. While the elements that determine the outcome of sporting contests remain myriad, diverse and often intangible, the benefits of applause persist.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton. His book Floodlights and Touchlines: A History of Spectator Sport is out now

RSS Feeds: Rob Steen

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by ntalgeri on (September 3, 2014, 22:49 GMT)

I think the crowd factor is exaggerated. The difference between ODIs and Test Matches is not so much the crowd, but the mindset of the Indian players when approaching the 2 formats. The Indian team is , naturally adept at attacking batting, and not at "biding time" or "surviving" as India's theme has been under Fletcher. That being said, the reason why Indian/Pakistani/Lankan cricket teams are better travelers now than their predecessors from the 80s/90s is the gradual softening of culture shock. A Ranji cricketer in the 1980s was used to staying in cheap hotels in satellite towns and when he was transported to England/Australia/NZ, it probably took him 8 weeks to just get over the culture shock (hotels, people, language, food). The "Americanization" of these countries in recent times means the Rayudus, Samsons and Bhuvaneshwars are better prepared than what a Ghavri or a Madan Lal ever were on their first tours.

Posted by sweetspot on (September 3, 2014, 11:23 GMT)

The results in the NBA tend to be even more exaggerated because the home side is full of partisan support in which the crowds even carry devices to sit behind the basket and wave, to disturb the free thrower's concentration etc. Sure enough, American automatons invariably wave them, in eerily coordinated moves. But good teams do win away from home.

In this case of India beating England in the ODIs, you could have had fire spitting dragons cheering England and threatening all the Indians and India would still have won.

Indian expat crowds turn up for a bit of fun, and if the format is fun, India will play well. It's just what this generation is aware of - to be entertainers as well as players. Indian crowds to cheer for other teams as well in places like Chennai.

Indian teams and sportspersons have the advantage of this sort of support in most nations in the world. But they support them because they are mostly likely to win in this format! Don't forget they're world champs!

Posted by Kingzzzz on (September 3, 2014, 9:47 GMT)

The countries with the best crowds are India, England, Bangladesh, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka not just in terms of crowd numbers especially for limited overs but the atmosphere in general as well. The worst is New Zealand that always has massive gaps of empty seats for their limited overs game and barely a 100 people for its test games.

Posted by Rilsrinsh on (September 3, 2014, 8:00 GMT)

electric_loco_WAP4 just same as india did in VB series of 2007-2008 and insha allah will be 2014-2015.With this kind of form it will be cake walk for india to beat aussies.

Posted by android_user on (September 3, 2014, 7:29 GMT)

@electric i don't remember the aussiev side thrashing is in india either in odi or in tests even in their peak.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (September 3, 2014, 6:26 GMT)

Strictly speaking from pov of ODIs, there was 1 team that was immune to said crowd support, conditions or opposition. None other than the greatest ODI team ever by a long way ,mighty Aussies of past. Just a case in point is their recd. vs Ind in India in a no, of bilateral series played between those 2. The Ind home crowd is among most partisan,hostile and 1 sided in world. But Aussies kept thrashing Ind in front of their home crowd series after series.They had nothing much to shout about. Just shows if a team is that good, or for the great sides these things don't matter.

Posted by android_user on (September 3, 2014, 5:23 GMT)

It is fascinating to learn the effects of crowd support. I agree that India thrive off this, but most teams do. The Ashes this past Aussie summer is a perfect example. Over 90000 at the MCG and Australia pulled a magical victory out of the hat. Best wishes to India for their future endeavors against England.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Rob SteenClose
Rob Steen Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton, whose books include biographies of Desmond Haynes and David Gower (Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and 500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His investigation for the Wisden Cricketer, "Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?", won the UK section of the 2005 EU Journalism Award "For diversity, against discrimination"
Related Links
Series/Tournaments: India tour of England
Teams: England | India

    It's not the plan, stupid

Ed Smith: Good performances make all plans look good. The better team on the day always wins, irrespective of what was strategised in the dressing room

    Original hits

ESPNcricinfo XI: A look at some of cricket's most memorable strokes - and their makers

    What is Rohit Sharma's role?

Should India have practised slip catching in the nets? Who will play at the G?

    'I'd like to have faced the West Indies quicks'

Northamptonshire's David Willey picks his ideal partner for a jungle expedition, and talks about his famous dad

The charm of the Boxing Day Test

Jonathan Wilson: It's special not just for the cricket, but also because it satisfies one of the tenets of Christmas - bringing people together

News | Features Last 7 days

What ails Rohit and Watson?

Both batsmen seemingly have buckets of talent at their disposal and the backing of their captains, but soft dismissals relentlessly follow both around the Test arena

Hazlewood completes quartet of promise

Josh Hazlewood has been on Australian cricket's radar since he was a teenager. The player that made a Test debut at the Gabba was a much-improved version of the tearaway from 2010

Vijay 144, Ganguly 144

Stats highlights from the first day of the second Test between Australia and India in Brisbane

Vijay unburnt by Brisbane furnace

Brisbane was hot and humid and the insides of the Gabba even more so. M Vijay battled the hostile conditions and a testing attack to make a memorable hundred

'Forget about no-balls. Just bowl fast'

When Wasim Akram swung Pakistan to their first global title

News | Features Last 7 days