Absence of home crowd making a difference for away teams?

[Technics 1210]

Recently, we have witnessed what I would describe as improbable wins in Test cricket.

1. West Indies chase down a mammoth total in the final day of a Test vs. Bangladesh, in Bangladesh.

2. India winning the series vs. Australia, in Australia.

3. England winning the first Test vs. India, in India.

Of course talent and skill aside, but how much of a difference does a lack of home crowd make? A packed stadium is considered the 12th man; but with no home crowd, are away teams finding it easier to concentrate, thus perform better?

 

[JaDed]

Australia had crowd..

 

[Mamoon]

Australia had crowd..

OP didn’t double-check in his haste to discredit India’s win in Australia.

He is just bluffing with the England and West Indies examples. The intention is to discredit India’s win in Australia.

Now he will take a U-turn and claim that the stadiums were not full capacity.

 

[HappyWarsFan]

In cricket doesn't really matter, it's all about pitch and conditions.

 

[badsha001]

OP didn’t double-check in his haste to discredit India’s win in Australia.

He is just bluffing with the England and West Indies examples. The intention is to discredit India’s win in Australia.

Now he will take a U-turn and claim that the stadiums were not full capacity.

You don't seem to disappoint. When i read the op I just wanted to see your comment which I knew would be there.

 

[JaDed]

You don't seem to disappoint. When i read the op I just wanted to see your comment which I knew would be there.

On this one he is actually not wrong , check out other posts of the op that has termed a test series win of India as a fluke.

 

[Artaxerxes]

The difference between teams is not very big.Cricket is a game of luck.The following have a bearing on the result:
1.Toss 2.Pitch 3.Umpiring.4.Weather 5.Fielding(there is skill involved but a lot of luck as well).
Football is all skill.The best team win league championships.

 

[Technics 1210]

OP didn’t double-check in his haste to discredit India’s win in Australia.

He is just bluffing with the England and West Indies examples. The intention is to discredit India’s win in Australia.

Now he will take a U-turn and claim that the stadiums were not full capacity.

You got nothing substantive in response? I get you are half Indian, but I could've stooped to your level and claimed every win by your home nation India is a fluke. I'm not full of hate like you. Some of my favourite players are Indian - but I didn't stopp to youe level. Please get over the England loss.

Now come back to me when you have something worth responding to in detail. As an Arsenal supporter, you should know, the importance of the '12th man' in Football. Talk to me about the freak results in the EPL of late where crowds are minimal/absent

Laters

 

[A.A.Z]

The crowd in Australia was mostly Indian and the Indian crowd knows how to pump up their players when momentum is shifting away from them, it is a sight to behold.

I'm not sure if the Indian crowds were always like this or maybe the IPL is responsible for this fascinating spectacle.

i've never seen a match in India but the Indian diaspora definitely knows how to get behind their team and get their players out of a rut when they look to be in a spot of bother.

The way they break into a bhangra in unison after every boundary or wicket, with tens of thousands of people in sync is a fascinating experience that transcends the human body and you can see that positive energy galvanise the Indian players.

Even in football games I haven't seen that effect on players apart from the Kop at Anfield. But you need to be in a stadium to truly experience the Indian crowd it's an out of body experience if you're amongst the right crowd.

As a Pakistan fan it can be a little traumatic getting stuck amongst them when it's not going our way which it usually isn't. But the Indian crowd has taught me how to behave at a match without being as obnoxious and rude as some of them can be.

But the day of the Champions Trophy final I really gave it back to them, celebrated my heart out and had the jingoistic one's running away from my friends and I but a few Indian gentlemen stuck around till the end and applauded how passionately my friends and I backed the team every single ball. Special mention to the Pakistani crowd in the UK which is the best Pakistani crowd by far I wish we played all our cricket there.

 

[Saj]

This is having an impact on football too.

I'm sure I heard a stat the other day which confirmed that this season there have been the most away wins ever in the English Premier League.

 

[usman2321]

Good Observation, recently the 4th innings scores have been very high for all teams.
The crowd plays a big role in the added pressure of the 4th innings chase,

 

[Mamoon]

You got nothing substantive in response? I get you are half Indian, but I could've stooped to your level and claimed every win by your home nation India is a fluke. I'm not full of hate like you. Some of my favourite players are Indian - but I didn't stopp to youe level. Please get over the England loss.

Now come back to me when you have something worth responding to in detail. As an Arsenal supporter, you should know, the importance of the '12th man' in Football. Talk to me about the freak results in the EPL of late where crowds are minimal/absent

Laters

My responsive was substantive enough. I rightly called out the intention of your thread. You keep trying to invent reasons to discredit India beating full-strength Australia in Australia with their reserve players, but these reasons continue to fall flat.

First it was because Australian players play IPL and the Indians are familiar with them, and now it is because the stands were empty when they actually weren’t and you didn’t have a clue. )

I’m not half-Indian, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating greatness. This Indian team is incredible, and what they achieved in Australia was incredible.

Trying to invent new ways to discredit India’s performance in Australia doesn’t hurt India, but it says a lot about you.

You may not know this, but crowds in Test cricket do not work like crowds in football, they don’t have the same level of impact and influence.

In football, crowds are the 12th man because outside the performance of the 11 players on the field, the atmosphere created by the crowd has the biggest influence on the result.

Thus, we have seen the impact in the PL this season where Liverpool keep losing at Anfield and other teams including Arsenal have lost multiple home matches.

In Test cricket, the 12th man is usually the pitch. If it is heavily geared towards one particular team, they will have a huge advantage.

You can have a full Australian crowd, but if the pitch is a rank-turner, India will thrash Australia.

Similarly, you can have a full Indian crowd at Old Trafford, but if it is overcast and the pitch is green, England will beat India.

The pitches for India’s tour of Australia were neutral, they did not favor any particular team. There was no 12th man advantage for either side, but India showed remarkable skill and resilience to beat Australia with their reserve squad especially after the capitulation at Adelaide that got you all excited because you didn’t anticipate the fight back in your wildest dreams.

 

[Technics 1210]

My responsive was substantive enough. I rightly called out the intention of your thread. You keep trying to invent reasons to discredit India beating full-strength Australia in Australia with their reserve players, but these reasons continue to fall flat.

First it was because Australian players play IPL and the Indians are familiar with them, and now it is because the stands were empty when they actually weren’t and you didn’t have a clue. )

I’m not half-Indian, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating greatness. This Indian team is incredible, and what they achieved in Australia was incredible.

Trying to invent new ways to discredit India’s performance in Australia doesn’t hurt India, but it says a lot about you.

You may not know this, but crowds in Test cricket do not work like crowds in football, they don’t have the same level of impact and influence.

In football, crowds are the 12th man because outside the performance of the 11 players on the field, the atmosphere created by the crowd has the biggest influence on the result.

Thus, we have seen the impact in the PL this season where Liverpool keep losing at Anfield and other teams including Arsenal have lost multiple home matches.

In Test cricket, the 12th man is usually the pitch. If it is heavily geared towards one particular team, they will have a huge advantage.

You can have a full Australian crowd, but if the pitch is a rank-turner, India will thrash Australia.

Similarly, you can have a full Indian crowd at Old Trafford, but if it is overcast and the pitch is green, England will beat India.

The pitches for India’s tour of Australia were neutral, they did not favor any particular team. There was no 12th man advantage for either side, but India showed remarkable skill and resilience to beat Australia with their reserve squad especially after the capitulation at Adelaide that got you all excited because you didn’t anticipate the fight back in your wildest dreams.

Nothing substantive.

Old trafford? IPL? Pitches? What a hoot. Relevance to the OP? I am talking about lack of home crowd, not the pitch.

As a half Indian, don't teach me about the 12th man in the EPL. I was watching footy before the EPL was incepted and before you were born.

You have not addressed my point in the OP. 12th man is the pitch? Just like 36 all out is not all out because 9 wickets fell? If 12th man was the pitch, why didn't India beat Australia consistently? Why didn't England beat India consistently?

Remember, there are other teams mentioned in the OP other than your beloved India.

 

[Mamoon]

Nothing substantive.

Old trafford? IPL? Pitches? What a hoot. Relevance to the OP? I am talking about lack of home crowd, not the pitch.

As a half Indian, don't teach me about the 12th man in the EPL. I was watching footy before the EPL was incepted and before you were born.

You have not addressed my point in the OP. 12th man is the pitch? Just like 36 all out is not all out because 9 wickets fell? If 12th man was the pitch, why didn't India beat Australia consistently? Why didn't England beat India consistently?

Remember, there are other teams mentioned in the OP other than your beloved India.

The fact that you call football “footy” sums up your maturity level. You might be 85 years old for all I know, but mentally you are still a teenager.

I did address your point and you do not have one. In Test cricket, the crowd factor is not significant enough. You don’t even get full packed stadiums in Asia, and you are mentioning the BD vs WI and IND vs ENG matches.

Again, don’t blame me for seeing through your act here. This thread is not about BD vs WI or IND vs ENG; it is about inventing new ways to downplay India’s triumph in Australia after the IPL theory flopped harder than Blade Runner 2049.

England cannot beat India consistently in India because they are not going to get overcast conditions and green-tops regularly in India.

The Chennai Test did not offer any advantage to either team; it was a standard flat wicket that broke later, and the team that batted first had the advantage.

England won the toss and ran with the game because they posted a mammoth total led by their captain who is in sublime form.

Had India won the toss and scored 500+, they would probably have won the match.

India have won the last two tours of Australia in spite of Australia having their full-strength attack.

It shows that India is a better team than Australia, and the problem for Australia is that their conditions do not offer them home advantage against India, because Indian batsmen play pace and bounce well.

Their weakness is lateral movement, and hence they don’t do as well In England, New Zealand and South Africa as they do in Australia.

Once again - in Test cricket, the pitch is the “12th man”; the equivalent of home crowd in football.

Pakistan whitewashed South Africa at home, but the same South Africa will return the favor tomorrow if they play in Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, even if the crowd is full of Pakistani supporters.

 

[Technics 1210]

The fact that you call football “footy” sums up your maturity level. You might be 85 years old for all I know, but mentally you are still a teenager.

I did address your point and you do not have one. In Test cricket, the crowd factor is not significant enough. You don’t even get full packed stadiums in Asia, and you are mentioning the BD vs WI and IND vs ENG matches.

Again, don’t blame me for seeing through your act here. This thread is not about BD vs WI or IND vs ENG; it is about inventing new ways to downplay India’s triumph in Australia after the IPL theory flopped harder than Blade Runner 2049.

England cannot beat India consistently in India because they are not going to get overcast conditions and green-tops regularly in India.

The Chennai Test did not offer any advantage to either team; it was a standard flat wicket that broke later, and the team that batted first had the advantage.

England won the toss and ran with the game because they posted a mammoth total led by their captain who is in sublime form.

Had India won the toss and scored 500+, they would probably have won the match.

India have won the last two tours of Australia in spite of Australia having their full-strength attack.

It shows that India is a better team than Australia, and the problem for Australia is that their conditions do not offer them home advantage against India, because Indian batsmen play pace and bounce well.

Their weakness is lateral movement, and hence they don’t do as well In England, New Zealand and South Africa as they do in Australia.

Once again - in Test cricket, the pitch is the “12th man”; the equivalent of home crowd in football.

Pakistan whitewashed South Africa at home, but the same South Africa will return the favor tomorrow if they play in Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, even if the crowd is full of Pakistani supporters.

The fact you believe the crowd is not a factor tells me you are still in your nappies, as you were in the 90s.

In your words, the improbable results in the OP were a fluke.

Lol. You went from pitches to overcast conditions.

 

[Technics 1210]

An away batsman standing in the middle of Chennai, Eden gardens, cricket ground, surrounded by near 100000 home supporters is not pressure?

Compare to blissful silence, minimal pressure, and the capacity to concentrate.

Lets not pretend the lack of a home crowd doesn't make a difference. It does. Even for the home team. Precisly why it's one of the reasons an away win is valued higher; pressure of the 12th man.

Pitch and conditions are expected and can be prepared for since test matches are played at regular times of the year. What you cannot prepare for is the home crowd and their reactions.

The crowd is the 12th man and affects players, both home and away, subconsciously.

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

An away batsman standing in the middle of Chennai, Eden gardens, cricket ground, surrounded by near 100000 home supporters is not pressure?

Compare to blissful silence, minimal pressure, and the capacity to concentrate.

Lets not pretend the lack of a home crowd doesn't make a difference. It does. Even for the home team. Precisly why it's one of the reasons an away win is valued higher; pressure of the 12th man.

Pitch and conditions are expected and can be prepared for since test matches are played at regular times of the year. What you cannot prepare for is the home crowd and their reactions.

The crowd is the 12th man and affects players, both home and away, subconsciously.

You say that like it works to the away team's advantage. It doesn't. Both teams have to deal with the silence. Apart from his team, no one at the Chepauk stadium was cheering on every boundary scored by Joe Root.

 

[naseem]

Aus had crowd....Pakistan hadn't.... It's about which team adapts well prepare well and most importantly plays well.......

 

[naseem]

You say that like it works to the away team's advantage. It doesn't. Both teams have to deal with the silence. Apart from his team, no one at the Chepauk stadium was cheering on every boundary scored by Joe Root.

Yes good point

 

[Mamoon]

The fact you believe the crowd is not a factor tells me you are still in your nappies, as you were in the 90s.

In your words, the improbable results in the OP were a fluke.

Lol. You went from pitches to overcast conditions.

Overhead conditions also play a bigger role than crowd, but not as big a role as the actual pitch.

Forget 90’s. Even a person who was in his nappies in 2010s can see that you are talking absolute nonsense.

Once again - in Test cricket, the biggest influencer outside the 11 players on the field is the pitch and the conditions that they play in, not the crowd.

Read it a few times until it sinks in, and acknowledge the unprecedented achieved of India.

Your theories are getting more and more embarrassing. First, India won because Australians play in IPL, and second, India won because there was no crowd, when there actually was and you didn’t know, and even if there weren’t, it was not a factor.

 

[Bilal_103]

didn’t double-check in his haste to discredit India’s win in Australia.

Sounds like someone very familiar...

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

An away batsman standing in the middle of Chennai, Eden gardens, cricket ground, surrounded by near 100000 home supporters is not pressure?

Compare to blissful silence, minimal pressure, and the capacity to concentrate.

Lets not pretend the lack of a home crowd doesn't make a difference. It does. Even for the home team. Precisly why it's one of the reasons an away win is valued higher; pressure of the 12th man.

Pitch and conditions are expected and can be prepared for since test matches are played at regular times of the year. What you cannot prepare for is the home crowd and their reactions.

The crowd is the 12th man and affects players, both home and away, subconsciously.

If that is the case PCB should actually pay Pakistan fans to come to stadium everywhere in world, especially Australia. Pakistan would never lose a game..
Matlab kuch bhi...

 

[Technics 1210]

Overhead conditions also play a bigger role than crowd, but not as big a role as the actual pitch.

Forget 90’s. Even a person who was in his nappies in 2010s can see that you are talking absolute nonsense.

Once again - in Test cricket, the biggest influencer outside the 11 players on the field is the pitch and the conditions that they play in, not the crowd.

Read it a few times until it sinks in, and acknowledge the unprecedented achieved of India.

Your theories are getting more and more embarrassing. First, India won because Australians play in IPL, and second, India won because there was no crowd, when there actually was and you didn’t know, and even if there weren’t, it was not a factor.

Nope. Cannot see any substance.

No one is talking about the biggest factor in the improbable wins listed but rather the 12th man being 'a factor' is the point in question.

Now go back to reading the OP, or don't bother with your childish drivel. Take it on the chin, your country lost against England.

 

[Technics 1210]

You say that like it works to the away team's advantage. It doesn't. Both teams have to deal with the silence. Apart from his team, no one at the Chepauk stadium was cheering on every boundary scored by Joe Root.

That's exactly the point. In India in particular, the crowd is not renowned to cheer on an away players boundaries etc.

Both teams do have to deal with silence, but the silence favours the away team - not the home team.

 

[PakPremi]

Home crowds make a big difference in cricket too. I remember many players stating how they use to pump them up to bowl faster, and similarly batsmen get determined when crown applauding their efforts. On someone like Afridi it had determental effect as he started to go for big boundaries unnecessarily. India were outstanding in Australia
, bar the first Kohli led match, but as earlier poster pointed out substantial crowd was India supporting.

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

That's exactly the point. In India in particular, the crowd is not renowned to cheer on an away players boundaries etc.

You misunderstood. I'm talking about the current situation without fans. Joe Root scored a double century in Chennai. Who was cheering him on? No one, except his own team players in the dressing room.

It's a level playing field for both teams. It neither helps nor makes it difficult for either team.

 

[Varun]

That's exactly the point. In India in particular, the crowd is not renowned to cheer on an away players boundaries etc.

If only they could blare out the fake crowd noise on the speakers where a no-name like Sibley gets a resounding cheer for moving from 56 to 57*, England will win this series 4-zip.

 

[MenInG]

Indian crowds cheer for their side like no other - surely their presence will be missed?

 

[Suleiman]

My take is this: as a cricketer you become desensitized to people cheering for you or against you, because when you play other teams there is trash talk to some extent and after years and years of this you become desensitized to a certain degree of what verbals / behaviors are coming your way when playing.

So I think while home field advantage helps the home team, playing in the home of opposition whether crowds or not makes little difference in most cases. I think crowds in Australia up till the 2000’s could be very hostile and that could affect a player, but they have mellowed down (TO A CERTAIN EXTENT).

Also I feel like truly good players once they are used to international cricket, completely zone out and go into a flow like state where they are ultra focused on the game and their play and nothing else. I think someone like Virat or Smith would be in this state, so it doesn’t matter to them what is happening around them.

Mike Tyson talks about this a bit, and it has been talked about in eastern cultures. He described it as when he’s fighting, just everything fades out and he’s watching himself deliver punishment in 3rd person...

Ok maybe going off the rails a bit, but you get my point.