Hard to know which way to call this series. South Africa, in South Africa, should win. But cricket is won in the bowling so it's even Stephen. Where cricket is lost for Australia, is in the dismal batting collapses. South Africa is unlikely to let Australia off the hook like England so often let Australia off the hook last Ashes. England were also putrid. Could an absent Shane Watson, and his key wicket taking ability, be the crucial omission?
Been quiet here for two reasons.
Everyone is going on about Kevin Pietersen. I have bugger all to add. People who select teams weigh up two competing characteristics: 1) is a player better than the next player in line; and 2) does the player compromise team performance? Clearly KP can perform and has more talent than the next in line, even if his recent performances, while better than his teammates, have not been special. Does he compromise team performance? Well, if you believe the England Cricket Group Unit: yes. Geelong always had issues with Gary Ablett senior, but they would not leave him out because he was too good to leave out. On recent form and with form as a troublemaker, the ECGU has decided KP is no longer too good to leave out.
The other salient issue has been the ICC, BCCI, CA, ECB brouhaha. I am in no way qualified or well placed to assess cricket's high level management, financial matters and all the other stuff relating to how cricket should be run. I leave that to the likes of Gideon Haigh, Russ, and the assorted cricket boffins. (Who, to be honest, have swamped me with their assiduous analysis.)