England's party falls flat

If there was any danger that England might have delusions of grandeur as regards to their progress in Test cricket, they were given a rude awakening on the first day of the Centurion Test. Their new dawn has started with a hangover.

The charitable view of England's bowling performance here - perhaps their least impressive since the Lord's Test against India in 2014 - would be that, with the series won, they lacked the intensity required. And it is true that their record in recent dead rubbers - reading, as it does, four loss and two draws in Tests since 2012 with the series decided either in victory or defeat - does lend some weight to the theory that, subconsciously at least, they seem to struggle to lift themselves in these situations.

But that would be a generous assessment. Several of this England team have a point to prove and if any of them felt unable to rouse themselves for a Test, they should reflect on their vocation. They are ranked No. 5 in the world, after all, and have won just two of their last five Test series. They insist they are not satisfied and nor should they be.

Certainly Chris Woakes, playing for his Test future, had no room for complacency. Knowing that Mark Wood (who is back in training with the England Performance Squad in Potchefstroom) and Steven Finn are, when fit, currently ahead of him in the race for selection, this was an opportunity he had to take.

Perhaps he was nervous. Perhaps he was rusty. But he did not do himself justice. Unable to maintain anything like the required length, he was punished for eight boundaries in the 26 deliveries he bowled at Hashim Amla and his post-lunch spell - three overs that cost 22 (plus four leg-byes from a poor ball down the leg side) - was just a little bit reminiscent of Simon Kerrigan at The Oval in 2013. It may be a career defining day.

He not only struggled to offer much threat - he rarely found any lateral movement and there was some for the other bowlers - he also struggled to contain. At one stage, despite having a man on the cover-point boundary, Amla drove him for a succession of boundaries with an ease that boded ill for his future at this level. He conceded 13 boundaries in his 16 overs.

Woakes is a much better cricketer than this; a much better cricketer than his Test statistics currently show. But so was Mark Ramprakash and so was Graeme Hick. The harsh reality of international sport is that you are obliged to demonstrate your skills when conditions may not be favourable, under pressure and quickly. He has four more days to prove himself or he may face a long haul to get back into Test contention.

His performance will have done nothing to assuage the feelings of those who felt that Mark Footitt should have been picked ahead of him here. Footitt is a good bowler, for sure, and with his left-arm pace, might have added some variety to the attack. But Woakes is younger and has taken more wickets, at a higher level and at a lower average. It was not an unreasonable selection. For Footitt, 30-years-old and clearly behind many younger men in the queue for an opportunity, this may prove as close as he gets.

James Anderson did not have room for complacency, either. After a disappointing tour from a personal basis, he knows that whispers about his future - specifically, that all the years and all the miles in the legs might have started to catch up with him - are growing. This performance will have done nothing to quell them.

It was not so much that Anderson lacked pace. Pace has rarely been his primary weapon and his average speed here was actually fractionally quicker than Broad's. No, the concern here was his struggle to maintain the line required. After allowing Stephen Cook to get off the mark first ball with the most friendly leg stump half-volley a debutant could wish to receive - Cook is, after all, a man who has grown-up knowing the pain of waiting half-a-life for a Test debut only to see hope crushed after one delivery - he then served up the same treat to Dean Elgar. He rarely found the control that rendered him so useful in the UAE before Christmas or in India, in 2012, when the pitches offered him nothing yet MS Dhoni rated him "the difference between the sides."

There was no lack of effort from Anderson. Any fast bowler who can shrug off the blisters, the bruises, the lost toe nails and aching muscles often enough to represent their country in more than 100 Tests has a drive that should not be doubted and it would be premature to write him off. But at times here, Anderson looked like Bob Willis during the West Indies series of 1984: confused that, for all the determination, the rhythm would not return. You can't fool Time with a well-disguised inswinger.

As long as he is fit, Anderson will start the English summer in the Test side. But he will have a bit to prove. It is a long time since he has endured three such modest Tests in a row.

Some mitigation may be provided in the quality of the batting and the surface. Amla is a class act and timed the ball as well as he has done at any point in this series; Cook looked a well organised player who knew his strengths and limitations. The lack of pace in the surface provides little room for error.

But, as England pulled themselves back into the match - up to a point, at least - in the third session, the nagging doubt will have persevered: had they bowled so well in the first two sessions, what might the scoreboard look like? On a cracked surface that looks likely to deteriorate, South Africa may already have a strong foundation.

"We weren't at our best in that first session," Joe Root admitted. "Even though they've got fantastic records, our bowlers are human. They do make mistakes and for me the most important thing was how we came back and reacted.

"We missed our lengths at times, especially early on but the way we fought back and came into the game was a really good effort. The start of that last session is our benchmark for tomorrow morning."

The other worry for England is the continuing unreliability of Jonny Bairstow with the gloves. Neither of the chances that he was unable to cling on to here were simple - the first, offered by Amla on 5, was more Alastair Cook's catch but Bairstow dived in front of him and may have got a touch on the ball - and the second, easier chance, would have required some movement to the right.

The concern is there is a pattern emerging. Bairstow has yet to keep in a Test where he has not missed a chance and several of them have been similar: needing to go to his right, he has first moved to his left and then, with too far to go, thrown himself towards the ball without the requisite control. His footwork is as much of a concern as his glovework. He is an admirable cricketer in many ways, but it may be asking too much of him, at this stage of his career, to keep wicket.

All of which provides a reminder - perhaps a helpful reminder - of how far England have to go. AB de Villiers may not have been especially smart to point out England's weaknesses ahead of this Test, but he wasn't wrong.