Alongside various other momentous events in the world last week, it was a cricket match in Rajkot that became the subject of much dispute in India, specifically on the aspect of home advantage.
For the residents of Saurashtra, it was a matter of great pride when the Saurashtra Cricket Association Stadium in Rajkot became the 23rd Test venue in India – and 120th overall – as it hosted the first match of the much anticipated India-England series. The initial euphoria of watching local lads Cheteshwar Pujara and Ravindra Jadeja in action soon gave way to a resigned frustration at the placid and flat pitch that was on offer in the historical game.
Low on confidence after receiving a Test battering from the hands of Bangladesh less than a fortnight ago, a true pitch in the very first match of their five-Test tour provided England an ample opportunity to gain their lost momentum back, with four of their batsmen scoring a century. Maybe Rajkot refused to be drawn into controversy by refusing to provide a rank-turner in its Test debut, but the match had done enough to reignite the “home advantage versus a fair Test wicket” debate all over again.
India don’t get favours abroad
The Test match featuring India and South Africa in Nagpur last year had become a point of discussion after the Vidarbha Cricket Association produced a pitch where 33 of the 40 wickets went to spinners, with the game lasting just over two days. The wicket was categorised as “poor” by the International Cricket Council, with experts contemplating about the undue advantage that rank-turners provided India with. Two points here: firstly, what exactly is the criterion for a good or a bad pitch? Secondly, even though there was uneven bounce, the players were never at the risk of injury.
For once, ponder over whether England will welcome India with a pitch which does not have swing and seam from Day 1? Will Australia not doctor the bouncy 22 yards every time India tour Down Under? The answer is not too difficult.
New Zealand never hesitated before preparing a pitch with an abundance of grass when India toured the country in 2002. India were mercilessly whitewashed 0-8 when they toured England and Australia in 2011 with the wickets completely favouring the home team. The last time the Indian team visited South Africa in 2013, they were greeted by a characteristically bouncy surface in the very first Test at the Wanderers. In the last decade, the home team has won a whopping 55% of their games, courtesy tailored pitches and astonishing crowd support.
The question then remains that if India are the recipients of decks which suit the home team when they play away from home, why should they take the initiative to provide fair and lively wickets that last all five days of a Test match, when only 25% of the total Test matches in the last 30 years have lasted the full quota of five days? Is not an exciting match that lasts three days better than a fruitless affair that ends in a boring draw over five days?
While the ICC slammed Nagpur’s three-day finish, many failed to observe that the first ever day-night Test between neighbours Australia and New Zealand too wrapped up within a similar time span. However, while the latter was praised for its bowling performances, the first was heavenly criticised for dishing out a true Indian wicket.
Having a look at the win-loss percentage at home of England, Australia and South Africa will reveal its own tale.
The above table only highlights that the home team often do exaggerate their natural conditions to suit their own players, whilst challenging the rival cricketers. England have managed to win 11 of the last 15 Ashes encounters that have taken place in the United Kingdom, and as much as it can be attributed to poor cricket from the Aussies, the home advantage cannot be ruled out either.
Home advantage isn’t unfair advantage
Harbhajan Singh was recently quoted as saying that India should stay away from wickets which turn from Day 1, as it can boomerang on the hosts. His statement only negates the undue advantage that a home team supposedly garners by preparing wickets that suit their style of play.
The World Twenty20 encounter between India and New Zealand earlier this year, where India was dismissed for a paltry 79, chasing New Zealand’s 126 on a typical dustbowl stands as an instance of home advantage having its own risks. With Ravichandran Ashwin, Ravindra Jadeja and Suresh Raina containing the Kiwis to a gettable target, the spin trio of Nathan McCullum, Mitchell Santner and Ish Sodhi walked away with the match.
The much talked about home series between India and England in 2012 too turned the tides against India, as England’s spinners Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar finished with a combined tally of 37 wickets in the four Tests. After an emphatic victory in Ahmedabad, India were made to eat humble pie on the low wickets, which were on offer in Mumbai and Kolkata. They ultimately lost their first home series in over thirteen years, losing 1-2.
Likewise, India’s famous triumphs in two of the toughest pitches abroad, in Perth (2008) and at Lord’s (2014), again reinforce how home advantage can have its own unforgettable moments. Mired in controversy after being the victim of biased umpiring howlers in the second Test match in Sydney against Australia, the Indian team, led by Irfan Pathan and RP Singh, staged a memorable comeback at the Western Australian Cricket Association ground in Perth, on a pitch, which honestly, not many gave them the chance to survive on.
In 2014 in Lord’s, under overcast conditions, Ishant Sharma’s astounding figures of 7/74 in the fourth innings, scripted a memorable win for MS Dhoni’s team.
Hence, the heightened talk of home advantage ruining the fortunes of Test cricket and presenting an unfair benefit which makes the series a one-way encounter, holds no ground. Rather, it comes with its own perils which can even backfire on a complacent home team.
Alien conditions are the real test
It is no secret that Test cricketers require immense skills, technique, temperament and determination to last all five days. The hallmark of a great batsman or a bowler remains his feats in Test cricket, which is still seen as the ultimate form of cricket.
A young Indian batsman, who has grown up and succeeded in low and slow wickets in India, has to quickly change gears and face short pitched deliveries when he arrives in England. Similarly, an English or Australian batsman’s ability is gauged by how well he can adapt to the uneven and low bounces that a traditional fourth day wicket in India throws up. Playing outside their comfort zones, in a large number of conditions the world over, is the ultimate examination of greatness, sans which, the very charm of Test cricket will remain absent.
Gautam Gambhir remains one of the few Indian cricketers who openly support the preparation of turners against touring teams. “They talk about our technique outside and question our skills, especially when we lose. I think we should make it tough for the visiting teams as well,” he had said in 2012. It is indeed, no harm to bamboozle the opponent with a hoard of googlies and doosras in helpful pitches, especially when the Indian team does not get a leeway in the number of short deliveries abroad, either.
One major reason why James Anderson and Dale Steyn are held in such high regard is due to their astonishing records in Asia. While Ashwin’s pedigree has to be tested on foreign shores, there is no denying that each country and each continent provides its own set of tough battles which needs to be conquered for the all-round development of a cricketer.
While many sportsmen fail to overcome the obstacles and just remain home-bullies, the few who do manage to rise and perform in alien conditions consistency earmark their name in cricket’s history forever.