Data12 min readSeptember 6, 2026

Every International Team Has a Bogey Ground: The Stadiums Where They Struggle Most

The venues where India, Australia, England, Pakistan and every other major ODI side have won least — and what those numbers actually mean.

Cricket+ Editorial

Contributor

Home advantage is one of the oldest concepts in international cricket. Teams are expected to know their local conditions better, understand how their pitches behave and feel more comfortable playing in front of familiar crowds. Yet even the strongest international sides have stadiums where those advantages seem to disappear.

To find each team's true "bogey ground", we looked at the venue-wise ODI records of the major men's international teams and identified each team's lowest winning percentage at a stadium. To avoid small samples producing misleading results, only venues where the team had played at least five completed ODIs were considered. No-results were excluded from the calculation.

The bogey grounds at a glance

| Team | Bogey Venue | Matches | Wins | Losses | Win % | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | India | Jamshedpur | 8 | 1 | 7 | 12.50% | | Australia | Cardiff | 6 | 1 | 5 | 16.67% | | England | Newlands, Cape Town | 8 | 1 | 7 | 12.50% | | Pakistan | Southampton / Sabina Park | 5 each | 1 each | 4 each | 20.00% | | South Africa | Docklands / Leeds | 5 each | 1 each | 3 / 4 | 20.00% | | New Zealand | Centurion | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0% | | Sri Lanka | Perth | 17 | 2 | 15 | 11.76% | | Bangladesh | Bangabandhu National Stadium, Dhaka | 32 | 3 | 29 | 9.38% | | West Indies | Gqeberha | 6 | 1 | 5 | 16.67% | | Zimbabwe | Hobart | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0% | | Afghanistan | Mirpur / Hambantota / Pallekele | 5 each | 1 each | 4 each | 20.00% | | Ireland | Dublin | 17 | 3 | 14 | 17.65% |

India have struggled at Jamshedpur, England have found Newlands remarkably difficult, Sri Lanka's record at Perth is surprisingly poor and New Zealand have never won an ODI at Centurion despite playing seven matches there. Bangladesh have an even more remarkable record at one of their former home venues, while Zimbabwe have played seven ODIs in Hobart without winning a single one.

India: Jamshedpur has been an unlikely problem

India's overall ODI record is one of the strongest in international cricket. At several of India's traditional major grounds, that record is considerably stronger. Yet Jamshedpur stands out as a remarkable exception.

India have played eight ODIs in Jamshedpur, winning only once and losing seven times. That gives them a winning percentage of just 12.5%. The figure is striking because it is not based on a couple of isolated defeats.

The contrast with other Indian venues is particularly interesting. India have won 71.43% of their ODIs in Bengaluru, 77.78% in Cuttack and 87.5% in Indore. Even at grounds where their record is comparatively modest, such as Chennai or Ahmedabad, India remain above 57%. Jamshedpur is therefore a significant outlier rather than a reflection of India's general home record.

India's record becomes even more intriguing when we look outside the country. Their six wins from 22 matches at Sydney represent a 27.27% winning percentage, which is poor by India's standards, but still more than twice the Jamshedpur figure.

Australia: Cardiff is more troublesome than most Australian grounds

Australia's reputation in ODI cricket makes their result particularly interesting. Their overall record is exceptional, and they have dominated at many of their home venues. Yet Australia's worst qualified ODI record belongs to a ground outside Australia: Cardiff.

Australia have played six ODIs in Cardiff, winning only once and losing five times, for a winning percentage of 16.67%. That is dramatically lower than their records at Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and even many of the Australian grounds where they have traditionally been successful.

The fact that Cardiff has hosted only six Australian ODIs also reminds us why sample size matters. One additional victory would move Australia's winning percentage from 16.67% to 33.33%. The record is poor, but it should be treated as an intriguing pattern rather than proof that Cardiff somehow defeats Australian cricket.

England: Newlands is a surprising weak spot

At Newlands in Cape Town, England have played eight ODIs, winning only one and losing seven. Their winning percentage of 12.5% is the lowest among England's venues meeting our five-match threshold.

The comparison with England's other South African venues makes the result even more striking. England have a 50% record in Bloemfontein, have won two of six at Centurion and three of six at Gqeberha. They have also produced much stronger results at several English grounds, including Birmingham, where they have won 25 of 38 matches.

Newlands has historically been one of South Africa's most recognisable cricket grounds, but England's difficulties there stretch across different periods of their ODI history. The record therefore deserves attention, even though there is no reason to assume the stadium itself is responsible.

Pakistan: two grounds share the unwanted record

Two venues sit at the bottom of Pakistan's qualified list with a 20% winning percentage: Southampton in England and Sabina Park in Jamaica. Pakistan have played five ODIs at each ground, winning just once and losing four times at both.

The rest of Pakistan's venue record shows how unusual these numbers are. Pakistan have won 61.82% of their 55 ODIs at Gaddafi Stadium and 54.17% of their 48 at Karachi. Neither Southampton nor Sabina Park should be described as a cursed venue, but both have certainly produced results that Pakistan would rather forget.

South Africa: even the Proteas have more than one

South Africa's case is unusual because there is no single answer at the bottom of the table. Two grounds produce the same lowest winning percentage of 20%. South Africa have won one and lost three at Docklands in Melbourne, while they have also won one and lost four at Leeds in England.

The Docklands result is especially interesting because South Africa have generally performed well in Australia. Leeds is similarly inconsistent with South Africa's broader record in England. Rather than choosing one of the two, it is better to recognise the tie.

New Zealand: Centurion is the clearest genuine bogey ground

New Zealand provide one of the most dramatic examples in the article. The Black Caps have played seven ODIs at Centurion in South Africa and lost every single one. Their winning percentage is therefore 0%.

The record becomes even more interesting when it is compared with New Zealand's performances elsewhere in South Africa. They have won two of five at Gqeberha and have a much stronger record at several other overseas venues.

Centurion therefore deserves to be called one of the strongest statistical bogey grounds in international ODI cricket. Seven defeats from seven matches is a much more convincing pattern than a five-match record with a single victory.

Sri Lanka: Perth is extraordinarily difficult

Sri Lanka's record at Perth may be the most striking result in the entire table when sample size is taken into account.

They have played 17 ODIs at the venue, winning only two and losing 15. That produces a winning percentage of 11.76%, meaning Sri Lanka have won fewer than one in every eight ODIs they have played there.

What makes this more remarkable is that Sri Lanka have not been uniformly poor at every Australian venue. They have won five of ten in Hobart and six of 18 at Melbourne, while their record at Sydney, although still below 50%, is considerably better than Perth.

Bangladesh: the strangest result may be in their own country

Bangladesh's entry might be the most surprising because their worst venue is not somewhere overseas. It is Dhaka.

At the old Bangabandhu National Stadium, Bangladesh have played 32 ODIs, winning only three and losing 29. That gives them a remarkable winning percentage of just 9.38%.

The ground's record looks even stranger when compared with Bangladesh's other home venues. Bangladesh have won 20 of 32 ODIs at Chittagong and have an exactly 50% record at the much more frequently used Mirpur venue, with 56 wins from 112 matches. At Sylhet they have won all six of their ODIs.

There is an important historical caveat. Many of the matches at Bangabandhu National Stadium belong to the early part of Bangladesh's ODI history, when the team itself was still developing into a competitive international side.

West Indies: Gqeberha is the Caribbean side's problem

For the West Indies, the lowest qualified winning percentage comes from Gqeberha in South Africa. They have played six ODIs there, winning only once and losing five, for a winning percentage of 16.67%.

The record fits into a wider pattern of difficulty in South Africa. The West Indies have also lost seven of nine at Johannesburg and five of seven at Newlands. Their performances in Australia, meanwhile, have been mixed rather than uniformly poor.

Gqeberha may be the West Indies' worst qualified venue, but the record is probably better understood in the context of South African conditions and opposition strength than as something unique about the stadium.

Zimbabwe: seven visits to Hobart, seven defeats

Zimbabwe's record at Hobart is remarkably clear. They have played seven ODIs there and lost every one. That puts their winning percentage at 0%, matching New Zealand's record at Centurion.

There are actually several venues where Zimbabwe have failed to win any of their matches. They have also lost all five of their ODIs in Brisbane and all five in Bloemfontein. We have selected Hobart because it has the largest sample among the venues tied at zero percent.

The broader picture is more difficult for Zimbabwe. Their ODI records against some of the stronger sides are already challenging, meaning the venue figures inevitably contain an element of opposition strength.

Afghanistan: three venues share the same record

Afghanistan's relatively short ODI history produces a rare three-way tie. They have played five ODIs at Mirpur in Bangladesh, five at Hambantota in Sri Lanka and five at Pallekele, also in Sri Lanka. At each venue they have won once and lost four times, giving them a 20% winning percentage.

Because the samples are identical and the results are identical, there is no meaningful statistical reason to choose one venue over the others.

Afghanistan's record also demonstrates why the five-match threshold is necessary. There are several grounds where they have lost their only ODI, or their only two, but including those matches would create a misleading picture of venue difficulty.

Ireland: Dublin is an unusual home weakness

Ireland present another fascinating home-ground anomaly. At Dublin, Ireland have played 17 ODIs, winning only three and losing 14. That gives them a winning percentage of 17.65%, by far their lowest among venues where they have played at least five matches.

The contrast within Ireland is remarkable. At Belfast, Ireland have won 13 of 27, while at Castle Avenue in Dublin they have won 11 of 19. The poor record is therefore concentrated specifically at the venue listed simply as Dublin in the historical database rather than being a general home disadvantage.

Ireland have also produced much better results at several overseas venues, including an 80% record at Amstelveen in the Netherlands. That reinforces the idea that venue-specific records can sometimes be shaped by the particular opposition and period represented in the sample.

What does a bogey ground actually tell us?

The temptation with statistics like these is to call a stadium cursed. Cricket supporters have always enjoyed that kind of explanation, especially when a pattern lasts for years. But the numbers do not actually tell us that a pitch or ground causes defeats.

A venue record is a mixture of several factors. The strength of the opposition matters. The era matters. The quality of the team matters. The number of matches matters. Even the tournaments in which those matches were played can influence the sample.

That is why the article's most important statistic is not simply the percentage. It is the combination of win percentage and sample size.

At the same time, the data shows why we should resist overinterpreting a small sample. A team winning one of five matches has a 20% record, but a single future victory would take that percentage to 33.33%. The underlying story can change quickly.

So which is the biggest bogey ground?

There are several contenders, depending on what we value.

If we look purely at winning percentage, New Zealand at Centurion and Zimbabwe at Hobart are the most extreme examples, with neither team winning a single ODI at those grounds. Both have played seven matches, making the records unusual enough to deserve serious attention.

If we prioritise the combination of low winning percentage and a larger sample, Bangladesh at Bangabandhu National Stadium becomes one of the strongest cases. Three wins from 32 matches is an exceptionally poor record, while Sri Lanka at Perth is not far behind with only two victories from 17.

And if we are looking specifically at the strongest teams, India's 1-7 record at Jamshedpur and England's 1-7 record at Newlands stand out because both teams have otherwise enjoyed strong ODI records at many comparable venues.

A stadium can become a story

Cricket has always had room for superstition. Players and supporters remember particular venues not only because of what happened there, but because of how often something similar seems to happen again.

That is what makes venue records so fascinating. They sit somewhere between statistics and storytelling. The numbers cannot prove that a stadium is cursed, but they can reveal patterns that are difficult to ignore. India's Jamshedpur record, England's struggles at Newlands, Sri Lanka's extraordinary difficulties in Perth and New Zealand's seven defeats at Centurion all show that even the strongest international teams have grounds where the numbers turn against them.

Some of these patterns may eventually disappear. A few wins in the next decade could dramatically change the smallest samples, while others may continue to grow into genuinely remarkable statistical quirks.

For now, though, the numbers suggest that the idea of a bogey ground is not entirely a myth. Every international team has places where its record looks unexpectedly ordinary. Sometimes the reason is tactical, sometimes historical, sometimes simply statistical. But once a team keeps losing at the same stadium, that ground inevitably becomes part of the story.

And cricket, perhaps more than any other sport, has always loved a good story built around a number.

Data note: The article uses venue-wise men's ODI records from the statistical databases consulted for each team. Only venues with at least five completed ODIs for that team were considered, and no-results were excluded. Where two or more venues had the same lowest winning percentage, the tie has been retained rather than forcing an artificial single winner. The statistics should be read as a venue-record snapshot rather than a claim that the stadium itself causes poor performance.