subshakerz
International Coach
I think if home conditions massively suit your style of play then of course it will be seen as less of a test to perform there than away. You will be expected to perform there. So once you achieve a benchmark of quality at home, any surplus doesn't add to your standing as a cricketer. Anderson can take 500 wickets in England and it won't move his rating. Kumble perhaps won more games for his country than Warne, but because they were home wins on specific pitches, it doesn't really bring him closer to being a better spinner.First of all I don't think home performances should necessarily count for more than away, but they shouldn't count for less. Murali is a poor example because he has other factors affecting his average, like taking 25% of his wickets against Zimbabwe & Bangaldesh at an average of 12. It's not just home dominance.
Jadeja or Anderson are better examples, 2 guys who are chronically underrated because their home performances are seen as "not counting". Though Anderson seems to be starting to get appreciated more lately
And if you can't reproduce those results in away conditions then your home performances are seen in a different light. It actually works against you because it exposes your limitation.
Jadeja and Anderson aren't underrated. They are rated exactly as they should be IMO, just like Vernon Philander who was even better than Steyn at home.
David Warner is the best Aussie batsmen since Bradman at home, nobody cares though.
Performing away from home is how a cricketer establishes themselves as world-class, with some exceptions if your home conditions are more difficult for your style of play. That doesn't mean you ignore home performances but they don't build a case for someone to be top tier.
Last edited: