To South Africa, the win at Mirpur in the first Test against Bangladesh was special. When you win on the sub-continent for the first time in 10 years, it should feel like that.

But for Bangladesh, the match was a reality check. Many saw the match as Bangladesh’s best opportunity against the Proteas, a side whom they had never beaten in the format.

The Tigers followed their normal pattern for winning a Test at home: depend heavily on spin. That did not pay off. Bangladesh read the condition wrong. And their batting once again failed to score runs against what the bowlers could muster.

And, following the seven-wicket loss to an inexperienced South African side that has historically struggled against spin, the question arises: is the spin-template the only option for Bangladesh to win at home? Is the template way too one-dimensional?

Of course, any team would love to use their home advantage, especially in a gruelling format like Test. Bangladesh, too, have had success previously using spin as their main arsenal to win Tests at home.

But the number of successes is low. In a 24-year span after gaining Test status, Bangladesh only managed to win 21 matches, with 13 of those coming at home.

The first four wins were against depleted Zimbabwe. And if you exclude the newcomers Ireland and Afghanistan too, Bangladesh only won five Tests at home. Three of them at Mirpur.

Two of those came against the West Indies, one each against England, Australia, and New Zealand. Spin played a key role in all of those wins.

In the five Tests against those nations, the spinners took 97 wickets of 99 for Bangladesh. The numbers are staggering.

In one of those Tests, Bangladesh played with an all-spin attack. The pacers bowled only 41 overs out of 641 in those matches.

So when South Africa came, Bangladesh naturally saw an opportunity given that the side was inexperienced and had forgettable records on the continent in recent times.

We should not forget that at that time Chandika Hathurusingha was at the helm, a man who first introduced Bangladesh to the things called ‹home advantage’ in Tests. But Bangladesh’s batting failed to step up.

Taijul Islam, only the second bowler from Bangladesh to take 200 wickets in Tests, was the leader of the home side’s bowling attack in Mirpur.

As Bangladesh played only one pacer, he came to open the bowling from one end in the second innings even if the conditions were pace-friendly with the new ball. Aiden Markram and Tony De Zorzi decided to take him on.

Lone pacer Hasan Mahmud was building pressure from one end. But the target was only 106. South Africa had that cushion of risking of losing early wickets by taking the attack way from one end.

Taijul didn’t have that kind of cushion. He took three wickets that fell in the second innings eventually. He took eight wickets out of 13 in the match for Bangladesh. Still, he ended up on the losing side.

Bangladesh played an extra-batter in the Mirpur Test to make up the place for all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan. South Africa, too, played a four-bowlers attack. But they had two pacers.

Jaker Ali, the number eight batter for Bangladesh, played a key role in the second innings to hit his maiden fifty on his debut Test. But that could not prevent the Tigers from avoiding an innings defeat.

The specialist batters failed. Bangladesh read the condition wrong. But they didn’t have Plan B. Because they use only that template to win — rely heavily on spin at home.

Unfortunately, other teams know that too. They came up with a plan and executed it well.