Back in the days when tennis’ Davis Cup was played exclusively on the home-and-away format right until the final, it was one of sport’s grander spectacles. The sheer energy and electricity of playing at home almost erased the gulf between nations and between players. Tennis history is replete with stirring deeds in the country vs country tournament; underdogs found a way to overcome players and teams they had no business competing with on even terms.
The host nation had the prerogative of choosing the surface and oftentimes, instead of plumping for one that might suit their strengths, they turned to the one that would trouble their more illustrious opponents the most. If both of these were in sync, nothing like it. That’s why in the days of John McEnroe, for instance, most European and Latin rivals opted for clay, the American’s least favourite and productive surface.
The choice of the playing surface, the support of vociferous fans who left nothing behind and the honour of playing for the country elevated Davis Cup face-offs to a wonderful art. One needn’t look too far for those who played well above themselves on that grandest of stages. Leander Paes has a 101-99 win-loss record in all ATP singles play, but in the Davis Cup, he holds a staggering 48-22 record. Among his much higher-ranked victims are Henri Leconte, Wayne Ferreira and Goran Ivanisevic.
Except perhaps the US Open, a rowdy and raucous event often referred to as the People’s Slam, tennis’ other three Grand Slam tournaments are marked by polite applause and strict adherence to spectator protocols, including not cheering or shouting during points and generally refraining from clapping for errors from their favourite player’s opponent. All such decorum used to be thrown out the window at Davis Cups, where home support was unabashed, unapologetic, uncompromising. Especially if the match was played indoors, the deafening applause threatened to blow the roof off. It was pulsating, goosebump-inducing, a visceral expression of backing and encouragement with little parallel.
The advantage of playing at home is also immense in football even though the playing surfaces are pretty much standardised. There was a reason why, until five years back, away goals counted for more in tournament play. Even though there was always a fair smattering of visiting fans, every stadium was inundated by home supporters, which made winning on alien territory that much more special, satisfying and significant. The added weightage to away goals was scrapped in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when matches were played in front of empty stands and therefore there was no tangible home advantage. Perhaps now that we are back to the old normal in so many ways, it’s time to restore the sanctity and importance of the away goal?
Unique edge
Cricket is one of those sports where playing at home bestows a unique edge, especially in the longest format. Pitches are very country-specific. You know that when you go to Australia, there will be pace and bounce, that in New Zealand and South Africa, there will be seam and bounce. And, in the subcontinent, there will be turn. Uneven bounce. A slowness that home batters are used to but that put the visiting batters off their rhythm. Teams play to their strengths, as they should because otherwise cricket would become so boring, and increasingly, even strong outfits are struggling to make a statement on away turf (New Zealand’s 3-0 conquest of Rohit Sharma’s men in India last year, therefore, needs to be eulogised even more). It’s a shame that the International Cricket Council, which introduced the World Test Championship in 2019, gives no additional weight-age to away Test wins. Perhaps that will change from the next cycle.
You’d think playing at home doesn’t necessarily confer any additional edge in a format as frenetic and condensed as the 20-over version, where the singular objective (like in all formats, come to think of it) is to score one run more than the opponent. The popular perception is that fans throng the grounds to watch the ball fly into orbit, to scatter them in the stands, to threaten their limbs and other body parts. It’s a risk they are willing (happy?) to take. There is something very basal about the ball travelling long distances that appeals to the average modern-day cricket follower, though even they will concede that a low-scoring thriller provides as much value for money. T20 cricket, more than any other format, needs that balance between tall-scoring bat-fests and middling totals on less than perfect batting tracks that keep both teams in the hunt and the spectators on the edges of their seats. This edition of IPL 2025 has, almost accidentally, gone some distance towards conferring that balance.
At just past the halfway stage of the league phase after Saturday’s double-header, there have been 20 victories for visiting teams as opposed to 17 for the home side. It’s a staggering anomaly, exacerbated by the fact that Royal Challengers Bengaluru have yet to win at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in three tries while winning their first four away matches. It’s a trend that has been discussed at length, with several team representatives lamenting in the early stages of the tournament about being deprived of the edge of playing at home turf (ostensibly because of the presence of neutral curators overseeing pitch-preparation).
The surmise from those initial laments has been that there has been a change in the stance of the Board of Control for Cricket in India this season which has short-changed the franchises, but that is far from reality. The protocol of ‘neutral’ curators being involved in the preparation of playing surfaces at all venues has been in vogue for nearly a decade. At one point, there was a certain predictability to how pitches behaved at specific venues. In the not-so-distant past, one knew that the M.A. Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai or the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium in Uppal would preclude hitting through the line and stacking up intimidating totals, that spinners would call the shots, that even totals of 140 or less stood a very good chance of being defended successfully.
Or that the Chinnaswamy in Bengaluru was a batting paradise, flat as a pancake which, coupled with a lightning quick outfield and relatively smaller boundaries, invariably resulted in gargantuan totals with the rider that the concept of a ‘safe’ score was pretty much non-existent.
All that has changed with the evolution of time and today, it is reasonably hard to get a read on surfaces, on squares, until at least a couple of matches have been played. Those who are part of decision-making groups within the BCCI/IPL insist that from their perspective, nothing has changed between last season – or even the last several reasons – and now with regard to ‘instructions’ to the board-appointed curators. All they are looking for is consistency in the numerous pitches used at the same venue – meaning that in Chennai, for instance, there ideally should not be one track where 200 is easily breached and another where the ball grips and turns and sits on the pitch to the extent that even 130 takes some getting. There is no concerted push to negate home advantage (apart from the fact that the franchise/association where the team is housed can’t ‘tailor’ pitches entirely to their liking) and even if that is how it is perceived, then there is no home advantage for any side, which perhaps explains why there have been more away wins than home wins at this stage of the season.
One of the other, perhaps more influential, reasons for this balance between home and away results is that this is the first season following a mega auction, which saw a tremendous shake-up in personnel and stacking up of new teams. While all sides used the retention and right to match cards with purpose and common sense, not everyone was able to retain the solid core group of previous years. Several of them have had to go for new captains – including Kolkata Knight Riders, the defending champions who couldn’t hang on to Shreyas Iyer – and a rejigged list of playing personnel and coaching staff, which means taking some time to get used to the new dynamics and coming up with game plans on the fly to maximise the opportunity to playing in their backyard.
It’s interesting that Mahendra Singh Dhoni, whose CSK practically built their fortunes on the strength of their spinning riches, should call for better batting surfaces at Chepauk even though they have three outstanding tweakers in Noor Ahmad, the Afghan who until Saturday headed the race for the Purple Cap, Ravindra Jadeja and R. Ashwin (who, admittedly, hasn’t had a season to remember yet). CSK’s problems this season have stemmed from their inability to produce big totals, a problem that has been compounded by the elbow injury that has put captain Ruturaj Gaikwad out of commission for the rest of the campaign and thrust Dhoni back into the captaincy hot seat. It remains to be seen if the former India captain’s plaintive cry for more batting-friendly surfaces – not unlike the calls emanating from the RCB camp when it comes to the Chinnaswamy – bears fruit, because CSK are running out of time as they target a desperate late surge to stay in contention for a spot in the playoffs.
There are still numerous plusses of playing at home – familiarity with conditions, if not the pitch itself, and the unofficial 12th man in the form of a packed house. Some of that support is diluted when a Virat Kohli or a Dhoni is in the house as part of the visiting opponent, but that’s merely the exception to the norm. But there is no disputing the fact that home comfort has diminished this season more than ever before. Maybe that’s the new normal in the IPL.
Published – April 20, 2025 11:22 pm IST