BBC cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew looks at five that could make the shortlist.

1. Headingley 1981, England v Australia

For sheer outrageousness it is the Headingley Test, which makes Test cricket the unique sport it is and the superior variety of cricket, when games turn on their heads.

It was all over, everyone knew it, the bookies knew it, England were still 92 behind with only three wickets left but then came an awesome innings by Ian Botham (149 not out from 148 balls with 27 fours and a six), aided by a fine fifty from Graham Dilley which often gets overlooked and astonishing spell of 8-43 by Bob Willis which is certainly often forgotten.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

It was a remarkable turnaround and the most amazing Test match from that perspective.

I remember watching it on TV, I had been playing cricket myself I think, but it gripped the country and did a huge amount for cricket all over the world.

England celebrated winning the Ashes in 2005 with a victory parade in London. Photo: PA

2. Edgbaston 2005, England v Australia

In terms of a nailbiting finish it is Birmingham in that amazing 2005 series. We thought Australia were going to do it on that Sunday morning, led by Shane Warne's impish, annoying innings.

There was Simon Jones trying to come in from third man to take a catch, not quite getting there, and the Australian team's last pair putting on 59 and almost inching their way to victory, just three runs short of their target.

My main memory of that match is the crowd noise, the huge belly roar that shook Edgbaston and came through the commentary box window.

You don't often get that at a cricket match but the sheer force of the ground when Billy Bowden put his finger up for that final wicket was unforgettable.

Poor old Mike Kasprowicz probably would have got away with it nowadays if he had a review left, because his hand was not on his bat when he gloved through to the keeper but thank goodness for the series.

England had been spanked in the first match but it set up probably the greatest series of all time.

3. Lord's 1963, England v West Indies

For sheer romance it was Colin Cowdrey walking back out to bat, having earlier had his arm broken by Wes Hall.

It was all rather misty-eyed, as things were rather more then. Someone had to be there at the other end and Colin helped David Allen play out the last two balls of the match.

There was huge amount of admiration and respect for Colin, who talked about Christianity and was more than just a cricketer to the nation.

It added to the whole event and he was rightly hailed as a hero.

4. Old Trafford 1956, England v Australia

I remember when I joined a thing called the Cricketer Club as a child and one of the items in my presentation pack was a reprint of the newspaper report of the match, "Laker's Test", which I read and read over and over again.

That was another Test which had so many strands to it, the Australians being furious with what they thought was a rogue pitch, specially prepared for the England spinners, Jim Laker and Tony Lock.

I loved Laker's reaction every time he took a wicket, it was just a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders and a smile, maybe the occasional shaking of hands, he was such a lovely man.

There was that lovely story of him driving home and he stopped off, in Derbyshire I think it was, or perhaps somewhere in the Midlands, for a pie and a pint in a pub.

Those were the days when sportsmen simply weren't seen or known. The locals were all in there watching the highlights in black and white, there was the man himself in there with them and they had no idea.

It was a remarkable achievement and I wonder if we will ever see anyone take 19 wickets in a Test match again.

5. Brisbane 1960, Australia v West Indies

The tied Test. I remember the great photographs of the jubilant West Indians after the last man was run out.

Australia had seemed certain to lose at 92-6 needing 233 but came so close to victory. Alan McGilvray the radio commentator, had given the game up and gone back to Sydney, I think he had to re-do his commentary from there!

Test cricket throws up these wonderful dramatic moments. There have been other great matches, and of course people will have their own favourites, but you need drama, unpredictability and brilliant individual performances.

The TMS panel will comprise a shortlist of the greatest Tests in a special programme on BBC Radio 5 live on Wednesday 20 July at 2000 BST with their final choice being made the following night from 2100 BST

No doubt there will be the same split in opinion we witnessed when he tried to hit Paul Harris for six at Edgbaston to reach his hundred, and hit a catch down long-on's throat. On that occasion former players were fiercely critical while a healthy number of cricket fans were happy to rejoice in his innings.

Well, it has happened again and although Pietersen tried to shrug it off by saying that it is the way he plays, the thunderous look on his face as he stormed off the field before the catch had even been taken said it all.

The fact is that he has now missed out on two Test centuries which, with just a little circumspection, he would have achieved and that must hurt.

If that shot lacked tactical nous, Chris Gayle's performance in the field in the final session was utterly bizarre.

Having dominated much of the day with Benn, the left-arm spinner, bowling 33 overs on the trot, he then set no fewer than three men on the hook for Andrew Flintoff, and two short mid-wickets!

It really was impossible to work out what the West Indian captain was thinking, and rather than battling under pressure, Flintoff - who had also been the model of patience - and Prior were able to negotiate the final half an hour with ease.

The first instance of a player referral in a match involving England occurred during the afternoon when Gayle asked for an lbw decision against Paul Collingwood to be looked at by the third umpire.

The whole process took two-and-a-half minutes when, in fact, it should have taken a lot less.

The first replay down the pitch showed us that the ball had struck Collingwood outside the off-stump - although not by much - but for some reason Darryl Harper took a long time relaying the information to Rudi Koertzen in the middle. Hopefully more practice will speed everything up a bit.

It is difficult to gauge what a good score is on this pitch.

Very slow, the amount of early spin has taken everyone by surprise to the extent that both teams might regret not playing a second spinner.

Certainly a large first innings would give England a huge advantage, and they would consider 350 to be a good start.

Andrew Strauss - a calm, phlegmatic man - is the ideal character to heal wounds, and he will have been cheered by a light-hearted and impromptu moment in his press conference when he stumbled repeatedly over the word "ship-shape", which he was using to describe the result of his efforts to restore team unity.

Hoots of laughter immediately erupted from the back of the room at the captain's embarrassment.

The culprits? Flintoff, Harmison and, yes, Pietersen. Humour within the ranks appears to have been restored.

The IPL auction is due to be held on Friday - another example of the BCCI not giving a thought about anything else. Why on earth did they have to stage it in the middle of a Test match?

The players say it will not be a distraction, but can that really be the case when life-changing amounts of money might be made or lost? And what will the reaction be of those not lucky or good enough to be involved? Will it really be magnanimous?

Then there's the unhappiness at the 10% levy the counties have charged the players for going to India.

I am less sympathetic with Owais Shah, who is not on a central contract, and is paid by Middlesex. He, in my view, should pay compensation for having to be replaced for the time he is away.

But I do find it hard to see how Hampshire can really claim £45,000 from Kevin Pietersen, for example, for missing possibly only one match!

Victories will help reduce the chuntering, of course, and the recent record of the West Indies is so bad as to be almost unbelievable - just two wins and 19 defeats from their last 30 Tests.

Like England, they have not named their final XI in advance, but with Flintoff almost certain to return, Strauss's first overseas team will probably include Bell, Sidebottom and Panesar, and exclude Shah, Anderson and Swann.

This match is England's first under the experimental referral system in which bowlers and batsmen can appeal against the umpire's decisions. Only two incorrect referrals are allowed - and following this series, the ICC will decide whether or not to implement the system throughout Test cricket.

Almost lost in the early days of the Wags and presidential walkabouts was the main reason we are here - the winner-take-all play-off on Saturday night.

Lost, that is, except in the England camp, where the tension has noticeably heightened in the last few days.

There, two facts the media has been discussing for weeks have now hit home: that nobody gives you $1m for nothing; and they are in a no-win situation.

I have some sympathy for them, too, because they have been put in this position by the ECB.

However, a rare word of support for the board on this aspect (and only this aspect) I can guess what the players' reaction would have been had they heard in June that the ECB had been in a position to play this game with its massive prize money, but turned it down.

Now to Mr Stanford. As Mihir Bose has now discovered, he is an amiable, well-intentioned man with an ego even bigger than his financial empire.

There is no doubting what he has already done for cricket in this part of the world - and he aims to do a lot more. This week, though, he and his camp have made a series of surprising blunders.

Although this is staged in Antigua, they failed to recognise the audience they had to convince this week will be sitting at home in England.

We do not yet know the full depth of the association between the ECB and Stanford and everyone, including the MCC and the county chairmen, needed reassurance.

Therefore the PR gaffes have been disastrous.

I do accept that there is a cultural difference here, and that the Caribbean cricket experience is entirely different to ours, but you would have thought that for this week at least, Stanford would have kept a low profile, remained out of the England dressing room and left us all to leave on Sunday wondering what the fuss had been about.

Frankly, having given a series of excellent interviews on Thursday, I was astonished to see Stanford on his walkabout again later in the evening.

It is not that he goes into the crowd - but that he always takes a TV camera with him. Why, if he simply wants to meet the punters, does he need the camera showing his every high five? Make your own minds up.

And now the ECB. Had they taken a different direction with the Indians, we would surely be in a better position. The Indian Premier League would probably have negotiated a window with our backing, and the EPL would have its own too.

England's players could appear in the IPL with impunity and vice versa - there being a global acknowledgment that Twenty20 cricket needs to be controlled by the world community rather than encouraging rogue, unofficial tournaments to spring up here and there.

But English cricket chose the confrontational route, and we find ourselves isolated with only the dysfunctional and bankrupt West Indies Cricket Board and a maverick Texan for company.

And that is why the heat is now on the chairman, Giles Clarke and his chief executive, David Collier.

By announcing a squad of 15 players for the controversial Stanford Twenty20 contest, the selectors have merely put back the day when the final 11, who will play for the chance to win $1m each, are revealed.

Only then will the impact of the most divisive and tasteless selection in cricket history be known.

I only hope the England management have been on an extra training course to prepare themselves.

The unlucky four squad members can console themselves with the thought of possibly picking up $250,000 each in the event of their colleagues beating the Stanford Super Stars, but I hope people are slowly waking up to quite what a vulgar and thoroughly unnecessary exercise this is.

The England and Wales Cricket Board's hope is that it will lure England's players away from participating in the Indian Premier League next spring.

Well, let's see. I will happily take a friendly bet with anyone now that this unofficial Texan shoot-out will not persuade England's players to remain at home rather than chase further riches in India.

There will, of course, be some sort of macabre interest in this first match of its kind but of much greater importance to me is the discovery over the coming months of exactly what the deal is between the ECB and Sir Allen Stanford, particularly the depth of his involvement in the English Premier League.

In an otherwise predictable announcement, I am very glad that former England captain Michael Vaughan has retained his central contract, and to hear selector Geoff Miller's ringing endorsement of a man who could still play an important role.

Vaughan will be setting his sights very much on Andrew Strauss's place in the team. Strauss will be thoroughly scrutinised in the two Tests against India before Christmas.

I travelled to see Vaughan a couple of weeks ago, and gained the impression that the former captain is determined to give his playing career a real shot between now and the start of the Ashes.

This would include playing club cricket overseas this winter if necessary. But if he fails to win his England place back by the time the Ashes come around in the summer of 2009, he would, in all likelihood, bring the curtain down.

Promoted to number three by Kevin Pietersen, Shah had missed out in his two previous innings, scoring 12 and 23 when he had ample time to set himself.

Perhaps it was the freedom that came with the 20 overs chase that relaxed him at Lord's, and also Pietersen's blistering 40 from 32 balls at the other end, and he played exactly the clever, well-paced innings that England want from their number three.

This has been an area of weakness in England's approach in recent years, and apart from getting the scoreboard moving without taking risks, sharp, positive running really winds up the opposition.

At 29, Shah is approaching the age of make or break at the shortened form of the game, but another sensible display at Cardiff in the final match of the series will earn him the benefit not only of the Stanford bonanza in Antigua, but also an extended run at number three in the seven-match series in India before Christmas.

The whitewash remains very much on the cards following another dispirited performance by South Africa. They now look a very sorry bunch indeed and must be mighty relieved that the Champions Trophy, which should have followed hard on the heels of this tournament, has been postponed.

England, on the other hand, would love to maintain the momentum that they are now building at such a rapid pace.

Their attitude at Lord's was commendable, as they had to face very fast bowling in near darkness to register a fourth win.

Andrew Flintoff's ruthless assault at the end in which he smashed 31 from just 12 balls could well prove to be the last straw for Jacques Kallis's beleaguered team who must be dreading the long coach trip to Cardiff.

There have been moments of short-lived success scattered through the past couple of decades, but generally England's record has been thoroughly disappointing.

Am I the only one who now feels that we just might be on the threshold of enjoying something really special?

Kevin Pietersen's natural enthusiasm, combined with the inevitable excitement of a new captain, has also helped lift the performance of the players.

We are still to see him under the cosh in the field really to assess his ability to think clearly and incisively under pressure - and that is one area where this series has been such a disappointment so far because, let's be honest, South Africa have been absolutely dreadful.

It is no longer an excuse to say that they have lost focus after the Test series. They have had more than enough time to get their minds back on the job.

Serious questions should be asked about Graeme Smith and Mickey Arthur's apparent inability to lift the morale of their team, and having been feeling on top of the world after the Edgbaston Test, they now rightly face accusations of unprofessionalism.

England must take great credit for not allowing South Africa to regroup, too. At The Oval on Friday, there was just a moment where things might have faltered as they slipped from 101-0 to 182-5.

But Flintoff batted with great common sense again and, for the first time, we were able to take a proper look at Samit Patel's no-nonsense approach to batting. He looks a good pick to me; he's a confident young man and certainly more than a 'bits and pieces' all-rounder of the type we have seen introduced to England teams in years gone by.

His bowling has variety, too and the dismissal of Albie Morkel came through a classic piece of left-arm spin. Having been hit twice for six, the temptation might have been to fire the ball into Morkel's pads, but Patel flighted it into the rough outside the left hander's off stump, Morkel mistimed his firm push and Patel took a fine caught and bowled - it was intelligent and confident bowling.

KP now wants a 5-0 whitewash, and the way both teams are playing I wouldn't bet against it.

There was even talk of them going home for a week.

Little wonder, then that at Trent Bridge his players seemed aloof and disinterested - certainly the batsmen did not appear to have any stomach for a fight - and they were thoroughly deserving of their 10-wicket humiliation...

What England's bowlers did so well was to bowl a full length despite the sight of the ball flying through to the wicketkeeper.

Too often in those circumstances you see quick bowlers drop too short, but Stuart Broad - coming off a poor performance in the previous game - set the standard from the word go with a career best 5-23.

The bowlers were very well supported by the close fielders, with Matt Prior becoming only the second keeper to claim six victims in a one-day international.

The catch to dismiss Smith was breathtaking - it was a good job he caught it, mind you, as he flung himself full length in front of Owais Shah at first slip, but it was certainly a timely reminder that he has his eye on reclaiming his Test place.

South Africa's lack of application was summed up by Mark Boucher's sorry innings. He looked unhappy from the start, then completely mis-pulled Andrew Flintoff over slip for four before limply hanging out his bat. He walked off shaking his head.

From an England perspective, there are few other thoughts to offer because they were asked so few questions.

They really should take the series from this position - 2-0 up with three to play - while South Africa urgently need to look at themselves.

It has often been my experience in the past that touring teams unwittingly relax and lose their focus after a hard Test series.

They have been away from home for a long time and once the discipline and attention has gone, it is desperately hard to get it back again.

This is the situation South Africa now find themselves in, and they have only a couple of days to sort it out.

His batting is flourishing with the extra responsibility - just the 190 runs from two innings - and every plan he hatches in the field is paying off.

It won't last forever of course, as sport isn't like that but bearing in mind what an inexperienced captain he is, he is indeed fortunate that everything is falling into place so easily in his difficult early matches.

You make your own luck, of course...

After all, KP's bowling figures in international cricket before this game were 2-112 from 18.5 overs - hardly encouraging.

But something stirred him to take the ball himself and, similarly, something stirred AB deVilliers to chip his sixth ball straight to Ian Bell at midwicket. It was jaw-dropping. And what about Jacques Kallis running himself out in Pietersen's next over? Amazing!

Is it that the very sight of Pietersen makes the South Africans lose the plot? I witnessed an interesting scene immediately after the toss at Headingley in which the two captains, Pietersen and Graeme Smith, had to select the replacement balls for the match.

Not a word was spoken. The body language was icy cold. Believe me, those two have more than merely a mild dislike for one another. Has that rubbed off on the South African team as a whole, I wonder?

The most heartening thing about England's victory was Andrew Flintoff's return to form with the bat.

His beautifully paced 78 from 70 balls was his most significant contribution for more than 18 months, and will do wonders for his confidence.

Previously, when Pietersen and Flintoff have batted together, their partnerships have degenerated into a contest between the two - but this oozed maturity as well as class.

Paul Collingwood is now free to return for Tuesday's game having served his suspension (although I am not sure how a match that was cancelled 24 hours in advance can really count!) and that means someone must give way.

Luke Wright looks the most likely candidate to step aside which would be a shame because I like his character and he is a very useful all round contributor.

But with Flintoff, Sami Patel, Collingwood, Ravi Bopara and Stuart Broad all filling the middle order, competition for places is now intense.

It is less than 12 months ago that England embarked on a World Twenty20 tournament in South Africa with a squad supplemented by one-day specialists like Darren Maddy, Chris Schofield and Jeremy Snape.

Wicketkeeper-batsman Matt Prior damaged a finger in the course of the tournament and was then replaced by Phil Mustard who was given an extended run behind the stumps before giving way to Tim Ambrose

All of that in less than a year so no wonder England's one day form has been so erratic...

England's selection policy has lurched between the aim of choosing all-round cricketers - i.e. those who play Test cricket and one-day cricket - and then packing a team with one-day specialists who 'do a bit of everything'.

Now the selectors have deliberately taken the step of appointing Kevin Pietersen as captain of both codes, it seems that they want to steer the formation of the team back to the former.

The instability has shown in the results - and especially in the brittle level of confidence the players have in their own game.

In both of the recent series against New Zealand, England had the opposition there for the taking, but contrived to lose them.

In New Zealand, England hammered the Kiwis in the Twenty20s, but managed to win only one - and tie one - thereafter.

It was a similar story here earlier in the summer where England won the Twenty20 by 9 wickets and then rattled up 307-5 in the first ODI. The result? 3-1 to New Zealand.

I am delighted that Owais Shah is to be given a proper run at number three.

Yes, this does displace Pietersen, but he seems happy to bat at four and needed firm persuasion to move up in the first place.

My pleasure is not based necessarily on a belief that Shah is the best number three - he can be brilliant coming in with 15 overs of an ODI remaining - but on the fact that he is now being given a chance to prove himself.

Shah has an outstanding eye and, I believe, should have been given considerably more opportunity to prove himself at Test level than merely two games.

Now he can establish his credentials in one day cricket - and improving his disappointing average of 27 from 42 games - Shah might get his chance.

I believe, incidentally, that his low average can be explained by coming in low in the order and throwing his wicket away in the search for quick runs.

As we all expected, South Africa have proved a much greater challenge than New Zealand and in order to gauge where England stand in the scheme of things, we should all pay close attention to the forthcoming series between Australia and South Africa.

England remain frustratingly unpredictable and inconsistent. Bear in mind that they should have lost the Manchester Test to New Zealand - and yet they could have forced an overwhelming victory over South Africa at Lord's.

Matt Prior must be strongly favoured to return to the Test team - but he will be praying that he doesn't do anything to blot his copy book during the one-day series which starts next week.

Harmison's recall has had a dramatic effect - not necessarily in terms of wickets here, but he bowled menacingly and England's future looks a good deal more optimistic with him back to his best.

When he and Matthew Hoggard lost their places in February, Hoggard looked the more likely to return one day. Now, even the Yorkshireman himself accepts that his international career is probably over.

It is good news that the performance squad will gather in India one month before the Test series gets underway in December.

That ensures that Harmison will have every opportunity to be in the best possible shape, and this could also be an opportunity for Simon Jones to continue his carefully monitored return.

I thought, generally, Kevin Pietersen made a good start as captain here, given that he has so little experience and he will learn lessons every match. India might be especially tough, but valuable at the same time, and whether Michael Vaughan is there to support him remains very much up to Vaughan.

He needs to score heavily for Yorkshire, but has the time to do so before the end of the season. Personally, I think it is unlikely that he will return quite so quickly, and it might also do him good to follow Andrew Strauss's example last winter, and take time to play some cricket overseas with a view to challenging for a place to the West Indies.

However, it sums up the level of cricket that England have been playing for too long now that South Africa were able to recover from a situation that at lunch looked hopeless.

It was also the case under Michael Vaughan's leadership that England, in my opinion, are far too quick to give established batsmen a single when a lower-order batsman is also at the crease.

On the fourth afternoon, Kevin Pietersen showed what a confused tactic this is when, with AB de Villiers batting with Paul Harris, he took the second new ball. But he did not use it as an attacking option to de Villiers, who had 62 at the time, and South Africa's lead was only 119. Immediately, de Villiers edged to second slip - but there was no one there. The fielders were scattered in the deep and the chance went begging.

The point is that de Villiers was still playing cautiously and responsibly. It is a different matter if an established batsman goes on the attack with a tail-ender at the other end - but Pietersen should have looked to take the initiative. After all, the ball has swung throughout the match, and there was always the possibility that de Villiers would edge it.

Bizarrely, when de Villiers had reached 94, Pietersen set an orthodox field of two slips and a gully, with only a deep square leg and long leg in the outfield. That is the field that should have been set some 70 runs earlier.

England also bowled badly at Harris. They either peppered him with short balls, or fired in attempted yorkers - but nothing in between. It is a perfectly legitimate tactic to give lower-order batsmen a bouncer of two - but they are as likely to edge a good length ball as anyone else and England got it wrong.

Harris gritted his teeth and showed admirable bravery and determination, but it was not until he had made 34 in a hugely valuable stand of 95 with de Villiers that Stuart Broad found a good length and Harris edged to Collingwood at third slip.

Conversely, Pietersen got it absolutely right when Monty Panesar bowled at de Villiers on 97. Going over the wicket and aiming into the rough, the tantalising target of deep midwicket was deliberately left open. Down the pitch came de Villiers, aiming for that spot to bring up his hundred and was bowled.

It was unnecessary from his point of view - but showed good research in that England know he is jittery when approaching a century. Six times in the last three-and-a-half years, de Villiers has fallen in the 90s.

In becoming only the fourth English captain to score a century in his first Test in charge, he answered a number of questions about his ability to bat with his usual freedom.

And although, understandably, he showed some nerves while in the 90s - not usually a problem for KP - he was rewarded with a wonderfully emotional reception from the Oval crowd.

It said more than "well played". To me it felt more like a cricketing nation embracing its new captain. His detractors will point to the fact that he was on his way back to the dressing room only two balls later - the fourth time he has fallen in what is widely acknowledged as a batsman's danger area between 100 and 110.

I don't think, under the special circumstances surrounding this century, that anyone will hold it against him.

Pietersen's innings - and Steve Harmison's late thrash apart - England's batting was disappointing again.

Andrew Flintoff didn't take advantage of his promotion to number six by selecting the wrong ball at which to aim a booming, firm-footed drive for nine. He was caught behind, and worse was to follow when Tim Ambrose fell in the most predictable manner - edging Jacques Kallis to slip.

I am afraid that Ambrose simply does not have a presence at the crease and can only score runs from short balls. Anything pitched up is now dangerous because he simply won't get onto the front foot which means that he is particularly susceptible to being caught behind the wicket.

It seems unlikely that he will be wicketkeeper in the next Test - and of the alternatives, the possible selection of Chris Read could cause a political storm between the England and Wales Cricket Board and its Indian counterparts because of his Indian Cricket League connections. It is fair to say that India would probably refuse to play against England with Read in the team.

That threat should have nothing at all to do with England's selection policy, but I doubt that Read is the most likely replacement. Matt Prior has the chance to catch the eye again in the one-day series, and I would select James Foster - the best gloveman I have seen this summer - to keep wicket in the Indian Tests.

South Africa do look rather jaded, but that is their problem and England have capitalised on it. With the ball swinging, England's attack has revelled in the conditions, but questions about the batting line-up simply won't go away.

After a rather scruffy morning session which was curtailed by a shower of rain, Pietersen was able to maintain attacking fields during the afternoon in which James Anderson and Steve Harmison took five wickets between them. Even Monty Panesar did precisely what Pietersen asked of him - twice!

Bringing the spinner on for the last over before tea - as many captains do - Monty had the obdurate AB de Villiers lbw with his third ball. And then, when the last pair had hung around long enough to be thoroughly annoying, Pietersen turned to his spinner again, and he bowled Makhaya Ntini with his fifth ball.

In fact, Smith looked rather jaded following his heroics at Edgbaston, and was nothing like his usual imposing self. He finally top-edged Harmison to long leg and, next ball, Harmison ripped out Hashim Amla's middle stump. That ball was timed at 93mph - pretty serious - and there's no doubt that Harmison looks a different bowler now he has some overs in his legs. The question is how England will monitor his fitness and preparation before his next Test appearance in Ahmedabad in December, because he simply can't afford to turn up as short of work as he was in New Zealand.

Anderson began at the Pavilion End, which did not suit his outswing. Switching to the Vauxhall End after the break, the breeze was exactly where he wanted it, and the ball swung both ways. His dismissal of Jacques Kallis was classical swing bowling - a perfect inswinger trapping him lbw after a series of outswingers. Perfection, and another disappointment in this series for Kallis.

No one should get carried away because England's reduced batting line-up faces a testing second day, but at least the new era has dawned brightly.

Only two matches ago at Headingley, Michael Vaughan said Andrew Flintoff's future lay in batting at number seven - regardless of the balance of the team.

Now Pietersen has very obviously promoted his all-rounder, with the ringing endorsement that he has great faith in him.

It does appear to have a better balance, but the key question is whether Flintoff is still suited to batting and scoring runs consistently at number six, and whether the move was made in order to protect Tim Ambrose, who looked out of his depth in that position at Headingley.

Certainly Stuart Broad's return to bat at eight adds depth to the batting line-up, and from what I saw from Steve Harmison bowling in the nets today, Pietersen should have some real firepower to aim at the South African batsmen.

It is also worth noting that in playing five bowlers, Pietersen has been given more options which should assist his inexperience in the field, and this also gives Harmison some cover so he can, hopefully, run in and bowl free of tension.

Graeme Smith had some fascinating observations to pass on. We must appreciate, of course, that it suits him to make Pietersen's first match in charge as difficult as possible.

But his remark that Pietersen can continue to bat as he likes "until he bumps his head" caught my attention.

What he meant was that all will be well until KP gets out playing a switch hit, or going for glory on 94. What would the reaction be not merely from the crowd and media, but from his players within the dressing room? Only time will tell.

Pietersen revealed that he called a team meeting on Tuesday in which every player was allowed his say. The most striking thing he wanted us all to notice from now, he told me, is the pride and passion his players will show representing their country.

At first glance, you would expect England cricketers always to be fiercely proud and patriotic, but they play so much these days that Pietersen clearly felt that everyone needed a reminder.

As always, though, his team will not be judged on words but on action - and especially, in this case, on how well they bat.