Quoted for truth purposes.I disagree personally.
England were the far better team during '05, but Australia stayed in it because England faltered at crucial times and because of Warne. Took an unlikely rearguard to make Edgbaston close, which Australia could have won, but England clearly dominated most of the test, just collapsed in the second innings when it counted and then couldn't get the tail out. OT would have been England's too if Ponting hadn't played a freakish knock.
This series, Australia were ahead after two days in all three tests, pretty comfortably in the case of the first and second tests, and could easily have won all the games, but neither side could really close out the tail. South Africa won the series because they did what Australia used to do, which is win the crucial moments in each game and fight their way back into it. They chased over 400 to win one game and added 300 with their last four wickets in another. And they had the better bowling attack overall, but not by a huge margin IMO.
Was a pretty close series, South Africa just did better when it counted.
edit: I also think there's a lot of positives for Australia to take from this. Siddle bowled pretty well throughout for a new guy against a good batting lineup, Johnson was great, as was about half of the batting lineup. Could definitely have been worse if it wasn't for a few of the newer guys and the way they performed. Same goes for SA actually, who found Duminy in this series, who looks a great player.
I would only give a pass mark to Johnson, Siddle and Ponting on the Australian Team, while South Africa had clearly more players performing for their team than not.
Australia did a mighty fine job (albeit at home) with an attack of Johnson, Siddle, Mcdonald, Hauritz and Bollinger. Lee and Clark both injured and bowling under their capability. Can't wait for the next 2 series involving Australia. A superclose series with SA in SA and thrashing the English and showing the world we're still here to stay.