England sealed an emphatic innings and 98 run victory over a surprisingly timid South Africa in Durban. The nature of the win has, for many, answered the questions I have raised over the course of this tour about the balance of a four man bowling unit, but in this slightly Jekyll and Hyde blog the problem will be re-examined in light of the events of the last week.

However, to avoid coming across all Bob Willis it is more than a little important that the win itself is at least touched upon, and what a win it was. Andrew Strauss said it was as good a victory away from home as he could recall and who can argue with him. Victories by an innings are rare against the major cricket playing nations, but to defeat the top ranked Test nation by such a margin in their own back yard is something worth heralding.

It was a victory to which everyone can lay claim. Trott and Onions may not have got the runs or taken the wickets they wanted but Trott withstood scrutiny in fading light on the second evening when losing another wicket would have dented any chance of such a sizable total, and Onions new ball bowling provided just the challenging control that the Kookaburra ball needs before the shine quickly disappears.

On another day this win could have belonged to either of them, but instead it was four others who soaked up the humidity down by the sea and returned performances of pure brilliance.

Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann produced one of those memorable sessions of international cricket on the 4th evening which is usually reserved for the Ashes to reduce South Africa to 50 for 6. For Swann, his 9 wicket haul for the match was a fitting end to a stunning renaissance year, almost a decade on from his debut. He is a reminder to all finger spinners that you don't need to dislocate your wrists or have a doosrah in your armoury to be successful, because simple mastery of your art will still confound batsmen at the highest level.

Broad again underlined his potential, taking three Proteas wickets for a single run at one point in his spell. It is easy to forget when he produces spells like this that he is only 23, and although fans may be desperate for him to turn in performances of this calibre every innings he is still learning his craft. That said, the ability is clearly there and the more he concentrates on trying to hit the top of off stump the quicker he will develop into a strike bowler to be feared.

With the bat, the two players under most scrutiny delivered characteristically contrasting innings and got the centuries they deserved. Despite averaging over 40 for the calender year, Alistair Cook has struggled to get beyond starts and there have been a few questions raised over whether he can produce match winning innings at the top of the order. His technique has undergone some tweaking and his innings was a lesson in mental restraint as he stubbornly refused to be drawn into the airy wafts outside off stump which have cost him his wicket over the last 18 months. For much of his 118 he was far from fluent, but his gritty performance and partnership with Paul Collingwood set the perfect platform for Ian Bell.

Bell has always been something of an enigma. As exemplified in the First Test he is does not seem to be a man for the crisis, but he has shown time and again that with a suitable foundation he can get England into a winning position. The tentativeness shown when England were struggling in the First Test was replaced by the sort of easy stroke play which has become his calling card. There can be no doubt that somewhere in there is a truly quality Test batsman, which brings us once more to the question of balance.

The first and arguably most important point was raised by Nasser Hussain. Simply put, this is not an issue of whether or not Bell is good enough to play for England. In truth it never has been, Bell has a good average and has shown again over the course of this last match that he is wonderfully gifted young man with many years of top level cricket left in him. That said, he would not have been in my England team before this century, and despite this wonderful innings he would not make the cut for the first Test of 2010.

Test match cricket has one major difference to One Day Internationals, namely the wicket requirement. In ODI's you can lose nine wickets and defeat a side you lost one, as a result of having more runs. In Test matches you can score infinitely more than the opposition but without 20 wickets it is meaningless and the game will meander towards a draw. England managed to do that in this game but I do not for one second that this four man attack will produce the required results on a regular basis for the following reasons.

Firstly, you cannot expect the opposition to be as bereft of fight as the South African's apparently were. Their tentative batting did not befit the top ranked side in the world, and for three quality batsmen to be dismissed attempting to leave the ball in such short time is unforgivable. Add to that Amla's poor dismissal and you have to accept that 4 top batsmen gifted England their wickets. This was less a case of bowlers defeating batsmen than it was a case of batsmen waving the white flag.

A further point would be that the South African bowling attack may have had five obvious prongs in name, but this was at best a three man attack in combination, with Kallis and Steyn only half fit and Ntini all but anonymous. de Whet must have been sat on the sidelines wondering what on earth he had to do on debut to warrant a place in this distinctly average bowling line up. For South Africa to pick Ntini over him for the next match would be at best sentimental ignorance. As a result, England will have to work a lot harder to give their bowlers such scoreboard pressure.

The inference would be that this was not a case of one unbalanced side being defeated by a balanced one, but rather a case of the least unbalanced side triumphing. England still need to win one of the remaining two Tests to be assured of victory and their best chance of victory does not lie in the hope that Graeme Smith's men will be as bad second time around. As a result, cruel though it is I would replace Bell with a bowler rather than gamble that four will be enough.

A nod to recent history would suggest that England have their best chance of winning with a five man attack. Few would suggest that England are a better bowling unit without Andrew Flintoff, and if the selectors didn't feel four was enough with him it seems odd that they suddenly feel that four is enough after his retirement. As the last man in, Bell would be the first man out, but this does not mean international exile. Think how long Hussey, Katich and Watson had to wait to prove their class. England should be thankful to have six batsmen and wicket keeper with such batting quality, but it doesn't mean that playing them all in the same side will bring victories of this magnitude on a regular basis.

Negative England Nearly Pay the Price

Cast your minds back to Cardiff this summer and you will recall a heroic last stand between Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar which held the Australians at bay in the crucial first Test. It is a little surprising that at the start of the very next series England found themselves in a near identical situation as Paul Collingwood (able to surpass his efforts in Cardiff) and Graeme Onions denied The Proteas the chance to take an early advantage.

History will also repeat itself in the aftermath, as the euphoria of saving the match will be tempered by a searching examination of what put England in a position where scraping a draw was the best they could hope for.

On this occasion it seems that Ian Bell will pay the price. The selectors preferred Bell to a fifth bowler, hoping to extend the batting line up precisely to avoid the situation that they ultimately found themselves in. Unfortunately for all parties Bell collected only 7 runs in two innings, a return which was made to look worse after England were twice unable to turn the screw in the field. At both 159 for 4 in the first innings and wobbling at 46 for 4 in the second Strauss's team had the opportunity to exert real pressure and possibly put themselves in a winning position. Instead, as South Africa rebuilt around Kallis or Amla Strauss cut a frustrated feeling, casting about for a wicket, even using Jonathon Trott for a couple of overs as England listed aimlessly, awaiting reverse swing or a bit of Swann magic after the new ball had lost his hardness.

Of course their is no guarantee that an extra bowler given England a different result, but it is always true that bowlers have more chance to recover from errors than batsmen. Ian Bell made two and found himself back in the pavilion unbuckling his pads, but a bowler could have sent down two shocking deliveries and maybe made that vital breakthrough with his third. As was shown in the first innings, although neither Swann or Broad is a natural Test number 7 the combination of them at 7 and 8 can be enough to add a hundred or maybe even more. As a result England will almost certainly opt for the five pronged attack in the second Test that they should have used in the first.

The other main point of interest was the referrals system which has had some tweaks since England last came across it a year ago and to my mind it was actually a success. By allowing the umpire's decision to stand in marginal cases their authority and dignity is upheld while glaring errors can be eliminated. It is a great compromise and although Stuart Broad's ugly outburst drew headlines it cannot be forgotten that the correct decision was actually reached. The system will need to be used before a practical decision can be made on how long is too long to appeal but either way, players like Broad will have to learn to hold their tongue because I have a feeling that this system is here to stay and I for one support this progress which still upholds the finest traditions of the game.

Wright the Wrong Choice?

The big question on everyone's lips round the England camp is what the balance of the bottom five places in the batting order will be. The top six has picked itself, with captain Strauss sure to be partnered by Cook with the Englishmen by trade Trott and Pieterson looking to form a solid middle order in the land of their birth. Collingwood will retain the number five position and Matt Prior is more than good enough to bat at number six. After that, Strauss and the selectors have a difficult task.

Balance was the talk of the ODI series, with South Africa struggling to select a lineup that satisfied the needs of both the bowling and batting departments. With Andrew Flintoff now retired, England would love a ready made replacement to slot in at number 7. But Flintoff was a once in a lifetime player; a batsman with of destructive capabilities on his day, and a bowler of frightening ability even when it wasn't.

There is talk that England will try and replace him like for like with Luke Wright, a player who - like Freddie - plies his trade under the label of an all rounder. He too is a powerful right hander and a bowler capable of breaking the 90mph barrier. However, for the moment at least he is not a man capable of winning a Test match with either bat or ball and a quick recap of Freddie's finest hours of late for England explain why Wright should not make his Test match bow next week.

Although we all recall those halcyon days of 2005 when Flintoff emptied bars by swashing his buckle in that greatest of Ashes summers, in truth that was the last time he changed a game for England with the bat. As injuries blighted his career he found it easier lacing up his bowling boots than putting on his pads after extended periods on the sidelines. If you need any more proof then think no further back to Lord's when a devastating spell ended England's hoodoo at the home of cricket against the players in the baggy green.

In that series it was Broad and Swann who provided the lower order runs, so in truth Strauss is arguably only looking for a bowler who can bat, as opposed to a genuine all rounder and this must be the strategy if England are serious about building on their excellent ODI series win. Extending the batting lineup and only playing four front line bowlers would be a step back from the aggressive attitude that served them so well thus far on the tour and a step in the wrong direction.

However many runs you get, in order to win a Test match you must take 20 wickets and England's best chance of doing that is to select a fifth bowler and trust the batsmen to do their job and give them something to bowl at. With this in mind I would expect Stuart Broad to be promoted to number 7. The combination of him and Swann at 7 and 8 is far from a weak one, and although it undoubtedly draw yet more media comparison between him and Freddie on an individual basis, it would be nothing more than the most positive selection for the team.

It is a given that Anderson will take one of the remaining slots now that he has proved his fitness and Ryan Sidebottom has bowled himself into contention in the final warm up game with 5-42. The fact that he may generate rough for Swann on what is not known as a spinner's paradise at Centurion will also count in his favour. This leaves just one space and given his selection for both warm up games and the quick pitch it may be the case that Wright does get the nod. To my mind this seems like a defensive selection and I would have liked to see a fit Onions of Plunkett getting more of a run out on the tour. If England were concerned about the length of the tail then Plunkett is not incapable and both are more complete bowlers than Wright. What is certain is that this will be a real test of England's selection committee as they try and balance a side without the sizeable counterweight of Mr Flintoff.