The recall of Collingwood is the correct one. He should never have been left out in the first place. Yes, he was badly out of form, and I am not Collingwood's biggest fan. But I am of the belief that you only drop your top players when there is no other alternative, and their careers at that level are to all intents and purposes finished.
Collingwood has struggled for form for some time, but I think he paid the price for Vaughan's poor form, and the 199 scored by Bell. Had Bell failed, he may well have been the one to make way, which again would have been an erroneous decision.
England had too short a batting line-up once Collingwood was left out. Ambrose is not a good enough batsman to bat at six, and Flintoff has never been a real number six. His best position is number seven. Six is too responsible a position for his batting style.
I take your point about seeing how Collingwood performed in a 4 day game, and once dropped, this is the path the England selectos should have followed. It seems a little pointless to me to drop a player for poor form, tell him to regain it, and then bring him back in before he's had a chance to do so! It is a sign of a muddled selection policy.
I agree with the decision to leave Harmison out. In my opinion, he should never have been picked, and his axing in New Zealand was something that had been a long time coming. He has only performed sporadically since 2004, and this is unacceptable at international level. The only way his waywardness could be accommodated would be if he had a red-hot bowling attack alongside him that constantly fired on all cylinders. Sadly, England's bowliing resources are somewhat fragile, so the mis-firing Hrmison was not someone who could be carried.
I feel that Harmison's selection in the squad is another sign of a muddled selection policy. The final eleven is decided by the captain and coach, with some input from the selectors. This at least, is what Geoff Miller was saying on Saturday. So it appears Miller and his cohorts wnated Harmison in the team, but Vaughan and Moores think differently. I don't accept the explanation being put out that it is not Harmison's type of pitch. If they really believed in him, it would be irrelevant what the pitch was like. He has been left out because Vaughan has no faith in him. Also, if only four bowlers are to be picked, then would you really pick Harmison ahead of Anderson (who has been brilliant this summer - and I use the term 'summer' loosely, as it is hammering down outside, the sky is pich black, thunder is rumbling, and I have sen a flash of lightning!), Sidebottom, who has been our best bowler all year, or Panesar, our leading spin bowler.
The selection of Harmsion was a mistake from start to finish. Luckily, they have seen sense and left him out. Broad was looking very tired, and needs a break. His batting has kept him in the team recently, but his bowling was starting to become a liability. He should be given a month off from all cricket, and brought back recharged for the ODI series.
I think the squad is as strong as it possibly can be. There are worries over Vaughan's form, and questions have to be asked over his place in the side, as his captaincy alone is keeping him in. Owais Shah is waiting to take his place, and I think Rob Key would make a good England captain (or is that a bit leftfield?). Bell needs to start performing consistently, not just on flat tracks once Pietersen has shown the way. Ambrose is under a lot of pressure, as his 'keeping is decent-ish for a county player, but is not at international standard yet. However, he is a young player, and that position has been messed about with far too much (you know I'll post a question about this at some stage, backed up with lots of facts and figures!), so I would let Ambrose keep his place for a while, unpopular though this may be.
I think England have the capability to beat South Africa, but they need all their players to perform, not just a few.
And hey, it's just stopped raining, and the sun is trying to come out!