10 November 2004	Wednesday	26 Ramazan 1425

Home advantage covers a lot of territory. Obviously a team playing at home will know the local conditions, have the backing of its crowd, will be familiar with the sounds and smells. It is also assumed that it will prepare wickets to suit its strength or exploit the weakness of its opponents.

This is both unavoidable and acceptable. But how much of a home advantage is enough and how much is more than enough?

The Mumbai Test finished in two days plus 11 overs that were bowled on a rain affected first day. India played three spinners, conclusive proof that it knew how the wicket would perform, that it would turn square from dot one.

India was determined to take something out of a series it had already lost but wanted the satisfaction of winning at least one Test. That it had to resort to fixing the wicket to such an extent and so blatantly makes India's win at Mumbai an embarrassment.

The Australian coach John Buchanan has asked the ICC to hold an inquiry on the pitch. " Have you ever heard of 36 wickets fall in two days? "he asked not as a question but as an indictment.

Polly Umrigar, a former India Test captain and who is the curator has tried to defend the pitch he prepared and has come up with a novel explanation that Ponting dug his own grave by using the heavy roller twice. Umrigar is an old friend of mine and we played cricket against each other on the maidans of Mumbai. I was hoping that he would come up with some better explanation. Dilip Vengsarkar who is the vice-president of the Mumbai Cricket Association was more to the point:" The match finished in two days and there is no doubt that the pitch was unsuitable for Test cricket.

"There is really nothing that the ICC can do. Home advantage is the host country's castle. Pakistan will be touring India next year. One hopes that the criticism of the Mumbai wicket will serve as a deterrent and no one takes it in his mind to do a repeat of Mumbai.

I don't know whether the matter of Central Contracts with the players has been settled as yet but if it hasn't, I would strongly advise the PCB to wait until after the Australian tour.

I also read a news item that has the chairman of the PCB as saying that he was being guided by Inzamam and Bob Woolmer in the matter. Being the senior most player Inzamam will be the chief beneficiary and, therefore, constitutes a vested interest and should be disqualified as one of those whose advice is being sought.

Woolmer will naturally go along with the players as he needs them for his own success. The present Pakistan team is an unsettled one and many changes are due. The message from the PCB should be that no player can take his place in the side for granted, that the future criteria for selection will be form and temperament.

The Australian tour will separate the men from the boys and after the Karachi Test against Sri Lanka when our top batsmen made such a heavy meal of a small target and our bowlers allowed the Sri Lankans to get back in the game after gaining an unassailable lead is a clear indication that we have yet to find a combination.

The team is a mishmash of players who are picked on past reputations and some younger players whose talent is proving to be erratic. I think the team for Australia should be picked bearing in the mine that the tour after Australia is India. We should select the best available team but included in the squad should be some bright future stars who could benefit by just being with the team. The Sri Lankans benefited a great deal from the tour to Australia. It made them battle-hardened.

I have watched with dismay Bangladesh's inability to even win an ODI at home. I think Dav Whatmore has done a good job for there are many improvements and the fielding has improved immensely. The team is not without home support and the Bangladeshi cricket fan is as enthusiastic as ever. But something seems to be missing. Could it be that it was given Test status too early and the team was pitted against the big boys before they were ready?

The ICC may have acted in haste though I must admit that at that time I had welcomed Bangladesh into the international cricket family. Bangladesh has tried many coaches but it is obvious that the answer does not lie with the coach.

Bangladesh needs to discover the equivalent of some Imran Khan or a Sunil Gavaskar who could become a role-model. Somewhere in all those slivers of glass could be a diamond. Even a cricket team needs some luck, some exceptional act of discovery. Of the present young batch of Bangladesh cricketers, the best of the lot is Mohammad Rafique and he happens to be 34 years old!