Hosts in AFCON Finals

[Tbite]

The record of hosts performing in the final match of AFCON.

I am not looking at situations where the hosts were knocked out earlier in the tournament. 33-14, so the hosts didn't make it to the final 19 times.

1959 - Egypt won as hosts (United Arab Republic)
1962 - Ethiopia won as hosts
1963 - Ghana won as hosts
1965 - Tunisia lost in the final AET
1970 - Sudan won as hosts
1978 - Ghana won as hosts
1980 - Nigeria won as hosts
1982 - Libya - Libya lost in the final Penalties
1986 - Egypt won as hosts
1990 - Algeria won as hosts
1996 - South Africa won as hosts
2000 - Nigeria lost in the final (disputed) Penalties
2004 - Tunisia won as hosts
2006 - Egypt won as hosts

So we can see that 2/14 times the visitor beat the hosts in the final. 3/14 if we count Surulere.

Every time a host has lost in the final, it has been on penalties on AET. A host has never lost in regulation time in AFCON history.

We can see that a little more than 50% of the time the host has not made it to the final. However, when they do make it there, the home advantage is devastating. Hosting AFCON is a SIGNIFICANT advantage to say the least. Half of the time you make it to the final, and once you are there, you almost always win it. In fact, one can be almost certain that the only reason CIV are in the final is because of home advantage.

Can Nigeria become the first country in AFCON history to beat a host in regulation or extra time?

[Tbite]

This goes back to my earlier point that I made in another thread.

If the players have the mentality of Novak Djokovic (an unbreakable mind) then they can probably approach this as any other match. However, in all reality this will NOT be like any other match. Playing the host at a home final is tough. It is statistically easier to dispatch the host BEFORE the final. The two phases are not the same.

In my humble OPINION (take it or leave it), Nigeria needs to deal the death blow EARLY on in the match. That is when hosts struggle the most (anecdotally), but I can check the stats. Then the second best scenario is when the game is in the dying embers.

The worst period I suspect is in the middle of the game when momentum is high. That is the period of the game where you want to be frustrating the host and not leaving too many openings.

Once again. Home advantage is NO Joke. It is not a slight advantage. It is a MASSIVE advantage, and we see it in other tournaments not just AFCON. We need to find some sort of way to appreciate this.

Novak Djokovic's approach was to consider the opposing crowd's energy and invert it. I.e. negativity is just fuel.

[Penarity]

Tbite, I respect your analysis. However, there are certain variables that are not controlled for in your analysis. Sincerely, when I see comparisons like this, I just shudder at the absence of due scientific process. For example, to what extent do you see these events as significant in forecasting what would happen on Sunday if you factored in the presence of VAR? So many other things have changed, but I will stop with just the VAR.

[bret- hart]

No VAR back then so it was much easier to do ojoro for the hosts.

[1naija]

Tidbit, we are winning in regulation as long as we don't make mistakes and commit a silly penalty like we did against SA. We are the better team, host or no host.

[Tbite]

Tbite, I respect your analysis. However, there are certain variables that are not controlled for in your analysis. Sincerely, when I see comparisons like this, I just shudder at the absence of due scientific process. For example, to what extent do you see these events as significant in forecasting what would happen on Sunday if you factored in the presence of VAR? So many other things have changed, but I will stop with just the VAR.

Obviously I know that there are multiple variables. But this statement is naturally not made in isolation.

Home advantage is significant in other tournaments AND sports, so the sample size is HUGE when those are included. That is scientifically credible. As far as the inclusion of VAR, certainly it could diminish home advantage, but I was not quantifying the advantage was I? This is qualitative for the most part.

A big part of the advantage will not be dubious calls etc. It will also be psychological. So, no, one would not expect VAR to render this as noise. You obviously have to consider the most within a broader context of which home advantage is already considered to be critical.

Most of the variables that I would identify, I would expect to be constant (Psychological, logistics, attendance rates increasing), I think it is fanciful to try to limit it to factors such as (refereeing, refereeing interventions (VAR).

Would psychological or logistical elements have changed in the periods in question? I don't think so. Sure logistics in the 50s-80s would have been more difficult to negotiate, so the home advantage there would be more significant, but still not trivial in the period of the 90s to present, where distances are great and transportation is still limited. See the below post for more.

And yes I can actually conduct the quantitative study, include weights, use all sorts of component analysis etc. but I am not inspired to do so for just a game against CIV. For that I will defer to context and leave it largely qualitative.

https://statathlon.com/world-cup-benefi ... g-nations/

[Tbite]

No VAR back then so it was much easier to do ojoro for the hosts.

That is only one small factor.

In fact this goes back to the BROADER statistic on home advantage in general (of which host advantage is a subset, and host advantage in finals is a subset of a subset).

This study for example from 2004 shows how home advantage is significant across ALL international and domestic games, and they surveyed almost 9000 matches.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Chp ... ge&f=false

They even found that for international games, home advantage is greater than for domestic games based on one factor: logistics. This has to do with fan movements (this is a psychological component).

Now why would the final matter more than the group stages. I need to look more into this, but for now, my conclusion would be that attendance rates in the finals become even more substantial than in the group stage and other penultimate rounds. Yes I have not done the study, but this does not mean that the assertion is not plausible.

All in all, I think you would be betting against the body of literature to say that this is just another game. It simply isn't. It is different.

Of course there is one element that is significant, but is less relevant to the discussion which is investment. That encompasses how good the team becomes. I disregarded that, because we already have a fair assessment of how good they are. The question however is how much MORE can they show, than their baseline. Hosting the tournament increases the baseline sure...but more interestingly, does it deviate? Well if performances and attendances improve in just 1 year before tournaments (which studies have shown), it does hint at a psychological component.

[danfo driver]

I know this doesnt really fit in here, but I didnt want to open a new thread and this thread mentioned "finals"

[Penarity]

Tbite, I respect your analysis. However, there are certain variables that are not controlled for in your analysis. Sincerely, when I see comparisons like this, I just shudder at the absence of due scientific process. For example, to what extent do you see these events as significant in forecasting what would happen on Sunday if you factored in the presence of VAR? So many other things have changed, but I will stop with just the VAR.

Obviously I know that there are multiple variables. But this statement is naturally not made in isolation.

Home advantage is significant in other tournaments AND sports, so the sample size is HUGE when those are included. That is scientifically credible. As far as the inclusion of VAR, certainly it could diminish home advantage, but I was not quantifying the advantage was I? This is qualitative for the most part.

A big part of the advantage will not be dubious calls etc. It will also be psychological. So, no, one would not expect VAR to render this as noise. You obviously have to consider the most within a broader context of which home advantage is already considered to be critical.

Most of the variables that I would identify, I would expect to be constant (Psychological, logistics, attendance rates increasing), I think it is fanciful to try to limit it to factors such as (refereeing, refereeing interventions (VAR).

Would psychological or logistical elements have changed in the periods in question? I don't think so. Sure logistics in the 50s-80s would have been more difficult to negotiate, so the home advantage there would be more significant, but still not trivial in the period of the 90s to present, where distances are great and transportation is still limited. See the below post for more.

And yes I can actually conduct the quantitative study, include weights, use all sorts of component analysis etc. but I am not inspired to do so for just a game against CIV. For that I will defer to context and leave it largely qualitative.

https://statathlon.com/world-cup-benefi ... g-nations/

Again, Tbite, fair points. As one who has done an obscene amount of these types of analyses in different settings, I can tell you that one of the fallacies of regression models is ignoring the influence of a single variable. In this case, I cannot tell (which is why you have a point). Likewise, I am confident that the statistical significance of VAR may just be sufficient to nullify the so called "home advantage" that you (incuding many others) premised your argument on. Heck! Their first defeat, in front of their vociferous home crowd, was in the hands of the SE. While there are exceptions to the rule, but in this case, the exception might not just be an exception, it could just be the influential variable that we seem to be discounting. One thing is certain, home advantage goes through the window if the visiting team is superior -- and that, my friend, Tbite, may be due to VAR!

[Enugu II]

Tbite, I respect your analysis. However, there are certain variables that are not controlled for in your analysis. Sincerely, when I see comparisons like this, I just shudder at the absence of due scientific process. For example, to what extent do you see these events as significant in forecasting what would happen on Sunday if you factored in the presence of VAR? So many other things have changed, but I will stop with just the VAR.

Obviously I know that there are multiple variables. But this statement is naturally not made in isolation.

Home advantage is significant in other tournaments AND sports, so the sample size is HUGE when those are included. That is scientifically credible. As far as the inclusion of VAR, certainly it could diminish home advantage, but I was not quantifying the advantage was I? This is qualitative for the most part.

A big part of the advantage will not be dubious calls etc. It will also be psychological. So, no, one would not expect VAR to render this as noise. You obviously have to consider the most within a broader context of which home advantage is already considered to be critical.

Most of the variables that I would identify, I would expect to be constant (Psychological, logistics, attendance rates increasing), I think it is fanciful to try to limit it to factors such as (refereeing, refereeing interventions (VAR).

Would psychological or logistical elements have changed in the periods in question? I don't think so. Sure logistics in the 50s-80s would have been more difficult to negotiate, so the home advantage there would be more significant, but still not trivial in the period of the 90s to present, where distances are great and transportation is still limited. See the below post for more.

And yes I can actually conduct the quantitative study, include weights, use all sorts of component analysis etc. but I am not inspired to do so for just a game against CIV. For that I will defer to context and leave it largely qualitative.

https://statathlon.com/world-cup-benefi ... g-nations/

Again, Tbite, fair points. As one who has done an obscene amount of these types of analyses in different settings, I can tell you that one of the fallacies of regression models is ignoring the influence of a single variable. In this case, I cannot tell (which is why you have a point). Likewise, I am confident that the statistical significance of VAR may just be sufficient to nullify the so called "home advantage" that you (incuding many others) premised your argument on. Heck! Their first defeat, in front of their vociferous home crowd, was in the hands of the SE. While there are exceptions to the rule, but in this case, the exception might not just be an exception, it could just be the influential variable that we seem to be discounting. One thing is certain, home advantage goes through the window if the visiting team is superior -- and that, my friend, Tbite, may be due to VAR!

Penarity,

Home advantage is REAL. Never discount it. Even in this tournament, Ivory Coast has reached this final gamer because of that advantage. Think about this, do you think their current team would have reached this very AFCON final if it was not being hosted in the Ivory Coast?

Then look at the analysis put up by Tboite. I remember the final Libya reached. Libya would never have even reached the medal stage if that tournament was not hosted in Libya. Home advantage is REAL.

The question, however, is how much will that grant the Ivoreins against Nigeria? I do not think it will be enough for them. In fact, what I see is the only way Ivory Coast wins is with a late pk or forcing a draw and winning in either OT or via pks. My believe is that Nigeria has close to 70% likelihood of winning in regulation time particularly if Osimhen is available throughout. He only poses the danger of 2 or 3 players because his aerial domination and his pace can be terrifying.

[Penarity]

Hmm... Enugu II, I am not saying HA is not real. I am just saying that its influence might be inconsequential given the new realities of modern day football. You will agree with me that HA cannot measure up to superior play combined with fairness. This is the same point you gently made in your post. If HA were nothing, why would the Ivoriens spend $1 billion to host the tourney? When the dust settles, you'd see that the winner under fair play may* be independent of HA. We will need more data points that reflect the realities of modern football to tell whether HA is still as strong as it used to be or it's strength has been modulated by the changing trends.

[camex]

The record of hosts performing in the final match of AFCON.

I am not looking at situations where the hosts were knocked out earlier in the tournament. 33-14, so the hosts didn't make it to the final 19 times.

1959 - Egypt won as hosts (United Arab Republic)
1962 - Ethiopia won as hosts
1963 - Ghana won as hosts
1965 - Tunisia lost in the final AET
1970 - Sudan won as hosts
1978 - Ghana won as hosts
1980 - Nigeria won as hosts
1982 - Libya - Libya lost in the final Penalties
1986 - Egypt won as hosts
1990 - Algeria won as hosts
1996 - South Africa won as hosts
2000 - Nigeria lost in the final (disputed) Penalties
2004 - Tunisia won as hosts
2006 - Egypt won as hosts

So we can see that 2/14 times the visitor beat the hosts in the final. 3/14 if we count Surulere.

Every time a host has lost in the final, it has been on penalties on AET. A host has never lost in regulation time in AFCON history.

We can see that a little more than 50% of the time the host has not made it to the final. However, when they do make it there, the home advantage is devastating. Hosting AFCON is a SIGNIFICANT advantage to say the least. Half of the time you make it to the final, and once you are there, you almost always win it. In fact, one can be almost certain that the only reason CIV are in the final is because of home advantage.

Can Nigeria become the first country in AFCON history to beat a host in regulation or extra time?

Why is the loss of Nigeria in 2000 disputed?

[panafrican]

Civ has an incredible popular support. All the country is behind the team : the pupils, the students, the government, the representatives, the journalists...

And in my opinion Civ is a very strong team at least as good as Nigeria.

For me Civ is the clear favorite with a great home advantage.

[nzeogwu]

Well, HA cannot be disputed. However, if we use the statistics from 2000 to date, hosts have only won 60% of the time.

And in the final, slightly better. The level playing field will come down to VAR and officiating in modern African football.

I would not use any statistics from 1996 and before because anyone who has lived through those matches knows that they are simply not valid.

Lastly, CIV has barely managed to win one of the three knock out matches in regulation.

Against Senegal, they were not convincing but then again neither was Senegal who failed to take their chances.

Against Mail, they should NEVER have won.


Against DRC….

Nigeria deserved to win every match they played and has shown the character, resilience, spirit and hard running coupled with an aggressive mental toughness.

In 1984, 1988, 1990 and 2000 we lost in the final on neutral, home and away turfs. That not withstanding, the difference in this team is simple, they have no match if they play their game.

They are not the best players but simply, this is the BEST NIGERIAN TEAM EVER. PERIOD!!

[wazobia]

With home support and the fairytale ending narrative, a lot of ‘neutrals’ are supporting Cote D’ivoire. Despite being the slightly higher ranked team and yet to lose a match in this tournament, the odds are stacked against the super eagles. It is going to be a very hostile atmosphere tomorrow in the stadium. We Super Eagles fans can only hope they come through with a ‘backs against the wall’ performance tomorrow…..

[Enugu II]

Hmm... Enugu II, I am not saying HA is not real. I am just saying that its influence might be inconsequential given the new realities of modern day football. You will agree with me that HA cannot measure up to superior play combined with fairness. This is the same point you gently made in your post. If HA were nothing, why would the Ivoriens spend $1 billion to host the tourney? When the dust settles, you'd see that the winner under fair play may* be independent of HA. We will need more data points that reflect the realities of modern football to tell whether HA is still as strong as it used to be or it's strength has been modulated by the changing trends.

The point is that if all things are equal e.g. talent, etc then the home team will likely win. Modern soccer has not obliterated that truism. The game is still played by humans and not machines. Humans are impacted by psychological factors and that is what home advantage is. Check out records of most teams and you will note that teams win more at home than they do away from home. There is a reason why and modern soccer has not stopped that.Why? No matter how modern soccer is, the game is played by humans and the issue of home advantage is about human psychology.

[TonyTheTigerKiller]

Hmm... Enugu II, I am not saying HA is not real. I am just saying that its influence might be inconsequential given the new realities of modern day football. You will agree with me that HA cannot measure up to superior play combined with fairness. This is the same point you gently made in your post. If HA were nothing, why would the Ivoriens spend $1 billion to host the tourney? When the dust settles, you'd see that the winner under fair play may* be independent of HA. We will need more data points that reflect the realities of modern football to tell whether HA is still as strong as it used to be or it's strength has been modulated by the changing trends.

The point is that if all things are equal e.g. talent, etc then the home team will likely win. Modern soccer has not obliterated that truism. The game is still played by humans and not machines. Humans are impacted by psychological factors and that is what home advantage is. Check out records of most teams and you will note that teams win more at home than they do away from home. There is a reason why and modern soccer has not stopped that.Why? No matter how modern soccer is, the game is played by humans and the issue of home advantage is about human psychology.

EII,

Playing at home offers an important advantage but it does not guarantee victory. Most teams who have won a major competition at home would probably, with the same level of preparation, have won it away from home. Preparation and determination are much more important factors than home advantage


Cheers.

[Enugu II]

Hmm... Enugu II, I am not saying HA is not real. I am just saying that its influence might be inconsequential given the new realities of modern day football. You will agree with me that HA cannot measure up to superior play combined with fairness. This is the same point you gently made in your post. If HA were nothing, why would the Ivoriens spend $1 billion to host the tourney? When the dust settles, you'd see that the winner under fair play may* be independent of HA. We will need more data points that reflect the realities of modern football to tell whether HA is still as strong as it used to be or it's strength has been modulated by the changing trends.

The point is that if all things are equal e.g. talent, etc then the home team will likely win. Modern soccer has not obliterated that truism. The game is still played by humans and not machines. Humans are impacted by psychological factors and that is what home advantage is. Check out records of most teams and you will note that teams win more at home than they do away from home. There is a reason why and modern soccer has not stopped that.Why? No matter how modern soccer is, the game is played by humans and the issue of home advantage is about human psychology.

EII,

Playing at home offers an important advantage but it does not guarantee victory. Most teams who have won a major competition at home would probably, with the same level of preparation, have won it away from home. Preparation and determination are much more important factors than home advantage


Cheers.

I do not disagree with this especiallycially when the away team may have advantages that outweigh those of the home team and that is precisely why home teams do not have 100% home record
However, note their home record transcends that of the away team.

[Tbite]

It is naive to think that home advantage is limited. It is considerable.

We didn't lose the game today purely on tactics as many think. Our players lacked any energy and desire, which they had in Every single other game. What changed?

I don't mean the midfield or the flanks which Kessie and the diminutive guy dominated, I mean just on the ball we lacked any true belief...and no that was not the character of the team.

That ONLY appeared in this game. The crowd attendance surged.

Forget statistics, you could see it with palpably. Ola Aina was the clearest example. One of the most courageous footballers in every single other game, but looked saddened from the offing. He quite literally looked like he didn't want to be on the pitch.

Iwobi also looked like he didn't want to be on the pitch. This is the effect of home advantage. The psychological torment.

You cannot chalk it up to preparation because home advantage in league matches is also undeniable, and that goes beyond logistics and travel.

[wiseone]

Home advantage is massive in the AFCON. Incredible that the home nation has won about a third of all AFCON tournaments.

[Penarity]

I don't think home advantage was why the Ivoriens won today! They played a SE team that was poorly coached. The so called home advantage was actually poor because the entire stadium was silent until they got their equalizer. Had the SE been well-coached and strategized, this match would not have turned out this way!

[bunda]

I don't think home advantage was why the Ivoriens won today! They played a SE team that was poorly coached. The so called home advantage was actually poor because the entire stadium was silent until they got their equalizer. Had the SE been well-coached and strategized, this match would not have turned out this way!

thank you!!!!! a seasoned coach would have managed this game -2nd goal would have killed off their confidence completely
instead we fall back deeper and don't address the midfield imbalance e

[wiseone]

Seasoned coaches did not help the other 13 teams who have lost AFCON finals to beat the host nation.

If home advantage was irrelevant, how do we explain how a team that lost its final group game 0-4, lost 2 of its 3 group games, lost its final two group games by an aggregate score of 0-5, fired its coach in the group phase, and who had to come from behind in 3 of its 4 KO matches (including scoring in the 90th minute and 121st minute), ended up winning the tournament?

I don't think home advantage was why the Ivoriens won today! They played a SE team that was poorly coached. The so called home advantage was actually poor because the entire stadium was silent until they got their equalizer. Had the SE been well-coached and strategized, this match would not have turned out this way!