Rollercoaster Ride

English cricket is ridiculous.

This South Africa tour has been as nervously anticipated as the Ashes, but as the Test series draws closer, and the ODI matches bump to a close, we are left with yet another English series to squint at in confusion.

No one can deny that the current English team has a lot of talent - led by Andrew Strauss, in the form of his life, their batting includes a steady newcomer in Jonathan Trott, a scintillating Paul Collingwood, a returning Kevin Pietersen, and a host more. James Anderson and Stuart Broad are a good frontline attack, ably backed up by Tim Bresnan, who's proving himself as an international player, while Graeme Swann's off-spin is always a danger to opposing teams.

And yet, the team cannot seem to perform for two games in a row. Look at the Ashes - Cardiff, Lords, Edgbaston, Headingley, The Oval. The momentum swung terrifyingly to and fro like Mike Gatting on the end of a rope. Australia then ripped them to shreds in the ODIs. The English then took on the Champions Trophy and were unlikely semi-finalists. And now this.

South Africa have been shown up in this as much as England. Without Jacques Kallis, one of the finest cricketers in the world with bat and ball, they looked dangerously balanced to start with. Hashim Amla showed good form and deserved his opening spot alongside the wonderful Graeme Smith , but JP Duminy, although a fantastic player, isn't a typical number 4. AB de Villiers, arguably in the top 3 batsmen on the planet, was elevated to number 3, and then came the 5-6-7 combination of Alviro Petersen, Ryan McLaren, and Albie Morkel. Herschelle Gibbs was another absentee for the first match.

They made 250, which is a modest score in Centurion today, with Petersen Duminy and Amla contributing decent knocks. England were able to chase it down without too much problem, Jonathan Trott making 87 (he also bowled 7 overs for 21 runs) before Collingwood finished them off with a superb 5th one-day ton.

Once bitten, twice destructive. The second game displayed the potential of that South African side - Smith and Amla got the Proteas off to a hundred-run partnership before handing the reins to de Villiers, who cracked a rapid-fire century to boost South Africa to 354. England never believed a chase possible, with both openers falling for 24, and Collingwood's 86 would prove far too little in the end, with the away team falling 111 runs short.

But it wouldn't be an England tour without a turnaround. Having brought Gibbs into the squad but not started him, South Africa elected to bat in Port Elizabeth yesterday morning, and stumbled to a record-low home total of 119. James Anderson was simply fantastic, collecting career-best figures of 5-23, and showing a welcome return to his destructive pre-Ashes form. Trott and Strauss set the visitors off nicely and they completed the job efficiently.

So what happened? It's no coincidence that South Africa's triumphs on the tour have coincided with Graeme Smith having good innings, and their disasters have seen him make an early exit. It seems that without Kallis at the top to steady things, the team tends to panic after the captain falls. The lower order are fine when building on a big total and they can let loose, but put more responsibility on them and it's a different story. Ryan McLaren may call himself an all-rounder, but 11 runs in 4 innings is a stat that needs to change quickly.

South Africa have little choice but to bring back Gibbs for the next match; having brought him into the squad and then capitulated as they did it seems ridiculous to overlook him. The problem is that Kallis has not only weakened their batting, but their bowling as well. His 8 or 10 overs are extremely valuable as a steadying influence while Morkel, McLaren, and van der Merwe are bowling the rest. He hopes to be back for the Test series, but South Africa need to start finding options for when the big man can't make it. With him they appear almost impenetrable; without him there's a nerviness and precipicial element that they could do without.

So what's going to happen on Friday? I'm going to go the usual way - England dominated the last match, so South Africa will blow them away.

Ashes to Ashes

Ashes to Ashes

It all ended so quickly. After 6 weeks, 5 matches, 5755 runs, 155 wickets, and a whole host of injuries, it all ended in a flurry of wickets to leave Andrew Strauss holding the earn aloft.

 Australia never quite got going in the last match. Admittedly, we didn't know that England's first innings of 332 would later be so strong, and at 73-0 Ponting's men looked comfortable, but from then on the game just eased away from them. Early wickets in the second innings gave them hope, but a fantastic ton on debut by Jonathan Trott left them chasing a mammoth total. It says something about the public's belief in England that everyone still faintly believed/feared that 546 was chaseable, although quite a few records needed to be shattered. The highest winning chase at the Oval for a Test victory was a mere 263, and while Mike Hussey pushed Australia bravely to that score and beyond, the margin of victory was still comfortable.

From first light on Thursday morning it looked like a good toss to win. This was borne out quickly, as any runs put up on the board became increasingly valuable as the game progressed. The lack of a full-time spin option undoubtedly hurt Australia's chances, although Marcus North, to his credit, showed himself to be a very competent player with the ball, having already performed heroics with the bat. In Ponting's defence, no one could have predicted the extent and immediacy of the pitch's deterioration. "Dust bowl" doesn't describe it - it was more like the Atacam desert during a dry spell, just after a herd of whatever is heavy and lives in the Atacama had had a bit of a shuffle around.

Jonathan Trott deserves an honourable mention. All of the doubts surrounding his inclusion will be forgotten; the name of Ramprakash will be recalled only with a laugh. His 41 in the first innings, despite being a trifle lower than Strauss would have liked, showed England that they had what they wanted: a middle-order batsman who was calm and collected under the very greatest of pressure. He consolidated this in his second knock, where he showed maturity and coolness far beyond his experience, and hit a glorious hundred to take England home.

A performance like that pretty much guarantees him a place in the team for life, although I'm glad to see him fall to Trent Johnston for a duck against Ireland as I write.

England deserved the victory, both in the Test and in the series. The fact that they only had one of the top seven run-scorers (Strauss at No. 1) and none of the top three wicket-takers only serves to underline this. It shows an ability to dig their feet in, take wickets when it counted, and scrap an important few runs at the death. Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, and James Anderson (sadly out for his first Test duck at the Oval) contributed so much more to the team than their wickets. How many times were England floundering at 250-7, only to climb past 320? England's tail in the 2007 drubbing did well to make it out to the crease - remember Giles, Harmison, and Panesar flolloping around? England now have a long and determined batting line-up, and there's no wicket that spells the end prematurely. Mind you, they needed it here. Cook (apart from a 90 at Lords), Bopara, and Collingwood (after the all-important innings at Cardiff) failed to get going throughout the series, and the bowlers were sorely needed to prop up Strauss's scores.

As for the Aussies. The fact of the dominance in the statistics shows a failure to strike while the iron was hot, a failure to finish off a team in its death throes, a failure to bowl at Monty Panesar at Cardiff. They showed brilliance in their batting in Cardiff and throughout the whole match in Leeds, but aside from that they were lacklustre. Michael Clarke deserved more than 3 runs in the last match, but when it came to it, the visitors showed their inexperience and, dare I say it of an Australian side, killer instinct. They also played some downright terrible cricket.

Ricky Ponting is the first Australian captain to lead his team to consecutive Ashes losses in England in over 90 years. Will he be back? It's difficult to say, but you get the feeling he'll want one more go. Will he be captain? Still more difficult - Michael Clarke can't be too far off taking up the mantle - a wonderful batsman, fielder, and decent bowler, Pup is definitely the next skipper - his cool and calm, combined with his popularity in the team, speak for themselves.

Andrew Strauss deserves this victory. He came into the captaincy at a difficult time, after the Pietersen/Moores debacle; despite struggling against the West Indies in March, he showed himself up to the task. He's also enjoyed his best batting in his career since he took over. Lest we forget, this is a man who endured a significant break from international cricket only 18 months ago, with many questioning his recall when it came. He was tactically astute in this Ashes series, no more so than at the Oval, where he used his bowlers to the full and led from the front in the field. There seems to be a great team spirit in the England camp, and Strauss must take the credit. His batting was strong all series, discounting a couple of soft dismissals at Headingley, and provided just what was required from a captain and opener. He deserves his spot at top of the runs board, and few will deny his place as man of the series.

Until December 2010.