Is home advantage a thing of the past?

The Nagpur Test between South Africa and India produced a result not many would have predicted. South Africa have historically been one of the best touring teams in India and have won at least a Test in three out of four series before this one, but even that record wouldn't have prepared many for what transpired earlier in the week. Not only did South Africa put aside their internal controversies, they also beat an Indian side which had a formidable recent record coming into the match: they'd won five Test series in a row, and in the last 15 Tests at home had lost only once.

None of that mattered in Nagpur, though India were admittedly hurt by injuries to two key batsmen. The result prompted Jacques Kallis to say that teams were more used to Indian conditions thanks to the IPL, which leads to a larger question: is home advantage disappearing because teams tour more frequently today than in the past?

A first look at the numbers suggests no such thing is happening. Over the last two decades, home teams have been winning more often than they used to earlier: in the 1980s, for example, home teams won 87 Tests and lost 56, a ratio of 1.55. West Indies were clearly the best team of that era, winning 25 Tests and losing seven when playing away from home during this period - they were the only side with a win ratio of more than one. Sri Lanka were, quite understandably, laggards during this period, losing 11 overseas Tests, but even excluding them, the win-loss ratio for the decade was 1.45.

In the 1990s and the 2000s, however, the ratio increased substantially, to more than 1.8 (in Tests excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh; including them, the ratio drops to 1.60). In the 1990s, Australia had the best overseas record, but they were nowhere near as dominant as West Indies had been in the previous decade. Pakistan and South Africa were the other teams with a win-loss ratio of 1 or more. In the 2000s (and including the five Tests so far in 2010), Australia have an excellent win-loss ratio of 2.23, but none of the other sides manage a ratio of one.

Contrary to what you might expect, given the frequency of tours, the dominance of home teams has actually risen over the last five years. Since the beginning of 2005, home teams have won more than twice the number of Tests they've lost, which hadn't happened in of the three previous five-year periods. In percentage terms, the increase in home win ratio in the second half of the 2000s is 43% over the first half, a huge difference.

The table below attempts to explain this difference. Australia were almost equally dominant in both halves of the decade, but the big difference was in the results of Sri Lanka and Pakistan. In the first half of the 2000s, both Sri Lanka and Pakistan had fairly ordinary home records - Sri Lanka lost home series against Pakistan, England and Australia (though they had a six-out-of-six win record against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). In the second half of the decade, though, they won series against Pakistan, India, South Africa, New Zealand, England and West Indies.

The story is similar for Pakistan: in the first half of the 2000s, they were beaten in home series by Sri Lanka, India and England. However, they hit back later in the decade with wins against England, India and West Indies, and lost only a solitary Test to South Africa.

The stocks of India and England rose too in home Tests in the second half of the decade, but one team whose record was dented was South Africa. In the first part of the 2000s, they had a healthy 14-4 win-loss record, with only Australia managing a series win. However, in the second part of the decade they suffered 10 defeats, including a 0-3 whitewash against Australia. Even in the series they won, South Africa lost Tests, with even West Indies getting a victory in Port Elizabeth.

The result in Nagpur was also unexpected for the margin of South Africa's win - it was only India's third innings defeat in the last 25 years. All of these have come at the hands of South Africa, and all since 2000. In fact, teams losing by an innings at home isn't a very common phenomenon - in 366 Tests in the 2000s among the top eight sides, it's only happened 15 times. One team has accounted for 40% of those results - England have suffered innings defeats six times at home since 2000, thrice against Australia, and once each against West Indies, India and South Africa. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, haven't suffered this ignominy at all this decade.

Australia lost only once by an innings in the 1990s, against a West Indies team led by Curtly Ambrose and Ian Bishop, but New Zealand suffered that fate five times, losing twice to England and once each to Australia, Pakistan and West Indies. In all, in 307 Tests between the top teams in the 1990s, there were 15 innings wins for the home team, which is exactly as many as in the 2000s (and the five Tests in 2010). That means the percentage of such results has dropped - from 4.88% to 4.09%. Some of that, though, could be due to the reluctance of teams to enforce the follow-on. I'll leave that analysis, though, for another day.