It's not a myth, but it's overblown to some extent. With home advantage you are more likely to get the 50/50 calls and your team is more likely to attack the opponents and the fans feed off that energy of there team trying to score.

On the other hand while you're playing away, teams usually opt for a more defensive approach. And ref decisions are more likely to go against your way. And as the away team you don't get much fan support so it creates a bit of a problem mentality wise. Confidence levels naturally drop during the game, making players more prone to mistakes and conceding goals.

free_cat wrote:No, it isn't a myth, it is well documented statistcally in almost every sport.

Only in Ice Hockey there is almost no home field advantadge (probably because of widespread use of drugs), in other games it is 60-70% more likely that you have a home win than an away win.

What it is a myth, is that in a two legs knockout round, the team playing at home the second leg has an advantadge.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I regularly watch Ice Hockey (NHL) and I'm not sure there is much truth behind that, I could be wrong though. In ice hockey the home team has the face off and last change advantage.

Casciavit wrote:

free_cat wrote:No, it isn't a myth, it is well documented statistcally in almost every sport.

Only in Ice Hockey there is almost no home field advantadge (probably because of widespread use of drugs), in other games it is 60-70% more likely that you have a home win than an away win.

What it is a myth, is that in a two legs knockout round, the team playing at home the second leg has an advantadge.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I regularly watch Ice Hockey (NHL) and I'm not sure there is much truth behind that, I could be wrong though. In ice hockey the home team has the face off and last change advantage.

I read that in a book called Soccernomics. It seems that NHL has the smallest home % win of many studied professional sports.

When players become acclimated to their surrounding I don't see why they wouldn't play better on their home pitch.....Its like you coming to country for the first time...You don't know jack shit but eventually you get accustom and know your way around and learn everything you need to make things work out.

It's even better if they train on the pitch all the time.

Having played in front of crowds you can not BS me into believing that home/crowd advantage doesn't matter.

Even 100 people makes a difference. Whether or not one responds positively or negatively under pressure is another matter.

free_cat wrote:

Casciavit wrote:

free_cat wrote:No, it isn't a myth, it is well documented statistcally in almost every sport.

Only in Ice Hockey there is almost no home field advantadge (probably because of widespread use of drugs), in other games it is 60-70% more likely that you have a home win than an away win.

What it is a myth, is that in a two legs knockout round, the team playing at home the second leg has an advantadge.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I regularly watch Ice Hockey (NHL) and I'm not sure there is much truth behind that, I could be wrong though. In ice hockey the home team has the face off and last change advantage.

I read that in a book called Soccernomics. It seems that NHL has the smallest home % win of many studied professional sports.

The stat is interesting. However, the accusation of doping is more so... Anything to back that up or, is it just a random, unsubstantiated assertion?

Phritz wrote:Having played in front of crowds you can not BS me into believing that home/crowd advantage doesn't matter.

Even 100 people makes a difference. Whether or not one responds positively or negatively under pressure is another matter.

I can confirm this. Gives a huge boost to your will to win if you have even 20 people cheering you.

donttreadonred wrote:

free_cat wrote:

Casciavit wrote:

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I regularly watch Ice Hockey (NHL) and I'm not sure there is much truth behind that, I could be wrong though. In ice hockey the home team has the face off and last change advantage.

I read that in a book called Soccernomics. It seems that NHL has the smallest home % win of many studied professional sports.

The stat is interesting. However, the accusation of doping is more so... Anything to back that up or, is it just a random, unsubstantiated assertion?

Well, they said in the book that the controls on doping are very loose in NHL. They really don't make a big point on that and provide lots of information.

I personally think its a myth between the big teams.....

Most of the big teams can win anywhere it doesn't matter...

As recent results have proven, the biggest impact it has is when a small team hosts a big team then it probably isn't a myth.

Depends entirely on the scenario.

Jose Mourinho at Stamford Bridge
70 games
55 win , 15 draw, 0 loss
surely it's not a case.

Robespierre wrote:Jose Mourinho at Stamford Bridge
70 games
55 win , 15 draw, 0 loss
surely it's not a case.

And he was unbeaten for nearly 10 years too...

Unbeaten at home in Portugal, in England, in Italy yet it was Scrub Liga that finally did him in

Sporting Gijon of all teams

La Liga ffs

This is quite relevant to this thread. Posted by Robespierre in another thread.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1551670_466333770138036_488870017_n.png

Notice the huge difference in home wins and away wins. Definitely no myth.

It's absolutely abs0olutely massive.

stevieg08 got this wrong big time. The pressure, the referee, the comfort level. It's freaking MASSIVE

I guess its on me since I picked the title, but it sure seems as though a lot of people didn't read my posts. The question wasn't "do teams win more at home?", the question was WHY. Personally I think it's because managers and players attribute importance to home field advantage, which creates a vicious cycle... Being intimidated by an away match or receiving confidence from playing home (and adjusting tactics accordingly) -> better home results -> being intimidated by an away match or receiving confidence from playing home.

The referees point, as I mentioned earlier, has been shown to be statistically significant (i.e. the pattern is clear enough that home field makes a difference), but the benefit to the home team is fairly small... It turns 50/50s into 52/48s or so; not quite enough to justify the numbers in that table above.

I think if managers played their game both home and away, only adjusting their tactics for the opponent (and not the location), we'd see a much smaller difference in home/away splits.