Home And Way: The Debate Goes On...

The last edition of Winners and Losers remarked upon the incredible discrepancies between home and away form and suggested that a definitive explanation was still being sought. Naturally, F365ers took the hint and attempted to solve one of football's most enduring mysteries...


Myxomatosis wrote: "When it comes to home records in general, I've always thought it came down to the fans."

Pete Gill: Likewise.

There is some statistical evidence to endorse the claim, too. Because, as a rule, the bigger the crowd, the bigger discrepancy between the form of a team when playing home or away, and the lower the crowd, the smaller the discrepancy.

First up, consider the record of the best-supported team (best being largest, in this instance) in the land last season, Manchester United. At Old Trafford, in front of an average of 75,000 fans, they won 17 of their 19 matches. Away from home, their record, if maintained over an entire season, would have seen them finish outside of the top four, with United winning barely half of their matches on the road.

But, at the very opposite end of the professional scale last season, the difference in form according to venue was near non-existent.

East Fife, who played in front of an average attendance of less than 1000 and won Scotland's Division Three, had an identical record both home and away: Played 18, Won 14, Lost 2, Drawn 2.

Meanwhile, both Swansea and Milton Keynes Dons, the teams that finished top of Leagues One and Two respectively, actually had a better record away from home than they did on home soil, while the home-and-away record of L2 runners-up Peterborough was identical. But L1 runners-up Nottingham Forest, who happened to have the second-highest attendance of any club in the division, lost six of their eight games on the road.



Myxomatosis wrote: "If a team is losing the home game, the fans see this as a lack of effort/fight/caring for the shirt, and finish the game through booing, therefore setting up another potential home game of the same. However, even if the negative results continue, but the fans are seeing their team running none stop, fighting, scrapping and intimidating the away team, there will be roars of approval for the whole 90 minutes. A negative scoreline at the end will still get the team cheered off. When the next home game comes about, both the players and the fans start from where they left off, and it then becomes home victory after home victory. The fans are not the 12th man when the cheer relentlessly, but what they do energize their team to another 10% of effort, stamina, relenting pressure on the opposition."

PG: Good argument - and not one I had considered beforehand. As much as I detest the sycophantic, please-buy-our-newspaper 'Kop Wot Won It' stories that followed Liverpool's victories over Chelsea in the Champions League, I don't doubt that the Anfield crowd essentially acted as a 12th man on both occasions. Just as it must have energised the Liverpool team, it must have been disconcertingly intimidating for the opposition, too.

However, your argument makes no mention of the effect the fans can have on officialdom, which, to my mind, is superior to the effect their support has on the players. As a guesstimate, eight of out ten controversial decisions, particularly those made by linesman, go in favour of the home team. Given that linesmen make their decisions while standing approximately a yard in front of a thousand-strong baying mob of partisans, it's inevitable and natural that their judgement is influenced in favour of the home side.

Consider, for instance, the soft penalty decision that went in Liverpool's favour on Wednesday night. The chances of Liverpool being awarded that penalty if the game was being played in Spain would be close to zilch. Moreover, as Jose Mourinho likes to remind, the key protagonist in Chelsea's defeat at Anfield wasn't a player, but the linesman who, on the advice of the Kop, awarded Luis Garcia's 'ghost' goal.

And while we are on a ramble, it's precisely because of the belief that fans can influence matches that home-team favouritisim is a phenomenon to celebrate. Frankly, it's just about the one and only way that we can be sure that fans do still have an influential say in the game these days....



BlanchflowerBoy wrote: "The pre-match preparation on the day is obviously vital and playing at home gives you the opportunity to prepare exactly how you want, when you want, with the facilities you are used to and are comfortable with. Pre-match nutrition can be more easily tailored for each player, eating what he needs at the right time. The obvious factor of the home fans being behind the home team (most of the time anyway) is another benefit of playing at home. Yes the players are professionals and the coach's take all the care in the world to try and counter act these numerous factors I'm sure, but it is undeniably easier and less stressful to play at home, therefore making victories more."

PG: Again, a good point, although I think it is overdone. Top-level teams travel with a host of assistants, from masseurs to personal chefs. The level of inconvenience they 'endure' is minimal . It's hardly as if they will struggle to get a good night's sleep in whatever five-star hotel they spend the night.



BlanchflowerBoy wrote: "I much prefer home games when playing because it is simply easier. Also travelling is simply a pain in the arse. I much prefer home games when playing because it is simply easier, and I think their is a significant psychological toll when having to travel away."

PG: The further down the ladder, the lower the budget of the team/club, the greater inconvenience, and from your personal viewpoint - without knowing what level you play at - that might well equate to being a pain in the arse. But for professional outfits, nevermind the millionaire outfits of the Premier League, the bother is negligible.

Nevertheless, all teams naturally feel more comfortable in a home environment. That, too, must be a factor in the discrepancy - although, like so much in this debate, it remains impossible to measure.



Ezy_Rider wrote: "I think home advantage is a mix of various things - players will naturally feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings, less travel involved, larger opposition support (which may not influence players particularly, but it certainly tends to influence referees) and in some cases, the pitch does make a difference - eg. Arsenal's compact Highbury pitch."

PG: All valid points, although I don't accept your final aside. Arsenal's record on the bigger Emirates pitch compares favourably to that achieved at Highbury. It seems a myth, then, that the size of the Highbury pitch mattered or suited Arsenal. Moreover, given their style of football, Highbury's compact nature probably hampered rather than helped.



GazzaPops wrote: "One is elevated testosterone levels in the home team. This comes from the basic instinct to defend ones own territory. Read "Run Like You Stole Something" written by Damian Furrow and Justin Kemp to get the full story. It's in Google books if your too cheap or lazy to go to a library or bookshop."

PG: Better still, I have a Christmas list to compile. Cheers for the tip.



Ezy_Rider wrote: "The main thing though is that it is probably a self-fulfilling phenomenon, as teams and managers perceive a significant advantage to the home team, so teams at home are set up to attack, players naturally have more confidence, while away sides adopt more defensive tactics."

PG: I don't agree that this could be the 'main thing', but you're likely to be on to something. The notion of 'home is relatively easy, away is difficult' has been woven into football's fabric. Teams must look forward to home matches more than away games and, as you say, that has given birth to a self-fulfilling phenomenon.

There's a story I once heard about Ian Rush, during his one and only year in Italy, in which he suggested to the Juventus coach ahead of an away match that they could catch the opposition by surprise by going on the attack. The suggestion was met with incredulous laughter.