'I don't know what's right or wrong' - Gilchrist

Australia's Test team appears increasingly uneasy about playing cricket against an understrength, predominantly black Zimbabwe side, with Adam Gilchrist, the vice-captain, revealing that he is "really confused" about whether or not the tour should be abandoned.

In his unghosted column for Fairfax newspapers, Gilchrist wrote this morning: "I'm confused. Really, really confused ... Having arrived in Zimbabwe several days ago and having had the chance to experience first-hand the mood of the country, I'm no more certain as to what is a right or wrong decision."

The revelation represents a significant turnaround from Gilchrist's previous forthright insistence that the tour should proceed. It comes only four days before the first Test is scheduled to begin in Harare.

"The moral question has been presented to us over and over again, and I guess we've made public our answer by fronting for the tour," he writes hesitatingly. "We feel we can tour Zimbabwe, or any country, and not be seen to be supporting the local political regime. It's a game of cricket."

But Gilchrist then issues what could be interpreted as a cry for help: "If those in the game of politics want to overrule, please go ahead as that is your mandate, and I'm sure we would follow your lead."

He says the Australian players have spent "many hours thinking of the people of Zimbabwe who have reportedly suffered. The knowledge of alleged heartache and pain felt by many has registered deeply with the members of our team and has only made our decision-making more difficult."

Meanwhile Darren Lehmann, the only Australian player until now to have hinted publicly at serious concerns within the team, said he decided not to boycott Zimbabwe after speaking with Andy Flower, their former champion batsman. "I had a good chat with him before coming and he thought it was good to come for the people, that they'd certainly get a kick out of seeing the Australian team here," said Lehmann. "He said: 'You're not political pawns, you're a cricket side.' That sort of confirmed my thoughts, and I'm here now."

Until today, that was Gilchrist's position too. In his column of three weeks ago, the day after Stuart MacGill announced his conscience-based decision to make himself unavailable, Gilchrist wrote: "I believe I can do more good by completing the tour ... I'm sure that our presence will be welcomed by local Zimbabweans."

Back then, he said Zimbabwe had been a "competitive" side and it would be "a shame" if they were lost to world cricket. Today he seems less than upbeat about the country's cricketing future. He notes that Zimbabwe's national newspaper, preoccupied with South Africa's successful bid for the 2010 soccer World Cup, devoted only "one small column of match reports" to this week's second Test slaughter by Sri Lanka's cricketers.

"It's no secret that soccer is the most followed sport in these areas," Gilchrist writes, "and now ... I suspect cricket will be under even more strain to survive." He concludes his column with the words: "Call me a fence-sitter if you like, but please don't call me neglectful or naive, as some have, about what's taking place around us. Perhaps just really, really confused."

As the minutes count down, and the realisation sinks in that Australia are poised to play a Test match against a team seemingly chosen primarily on the basis of skin colour, it would seem that doubts, fears and tensions that have previously lain dormant can no longer be shrugged off.