New Zealand 0-0 England review

It was only thanks to the last day heroics of Ian Bell, Matt Prior, Stuart Broad and Monty Panesar that England avoided losing a first series in New Zealand in nearly thirty years. England did not have a good series overall and in some respects never seemed to really get going. They started the series disastrously by succumbing to 162 all out on a very flat pitch and although they then batted very well to save that Test, they were helped by losing four sessions to the rain. They did play well in the second Test, but could not take their only chance to force a result before the rains set in.

England’s batting, although being what saved them on the last day, really let them down in this series. None of the pitches were in any way minefields and there was no excuse at all for being bowled out so cheaply in Dunedin. They can at least point to some swing in Auckland, but there was still not enough to justify the ensuing collapse. New Zealand bowled well throughout the series, but it was not until the last Test that they actually looked threatening on their own merits. England simply batted very poorly in one innings and fairly poorly in another and in a three Test series that is going to be problematic. The lack of preparation may have been partly to blame; there was only one first-class match ahead of the series and when Jonny Bairstow had to come in for the third Test he did so having not played a first-class match since the second Test in India.

But whilst that may explain some of the team performance and that of some of the players, it does not explain all of it and it is hard to escape the notion that England were simply not up for it. The way the team behaved in the field when they were behind in the third Test was a disgrace and even though they came back to show a lot of heart and fight on the last day it spoke volumes about their attitude. This is something on which Alastair Cook will need to work as captain; it has happened before when he was leading the ODI side and it is hard to imagine that it would have happened under Strauss. It is still early in his captaincy and I think he will improve, but he needs to do so quickly and this is a further suggestion that Strauss retired too soon.

England’s bowling was better than the batting, but not by as much as England would have liked. In addition to the poor attitude displayed in the final Test, they struggled throughout to make the ball swing as much as they would have liked and in the last Test they were actually outbowled by New Zealand’s seamers. The pitches were generally flat and the Kookaburra ball does not swing as much as the Dukes one does, but they also bowled consistently too short and this was exposed in Auckland. It was a very lacklustre performance overall.

For all of England’s faults, however, New Zealand played quite well. Brendan McCullum, controversy about his appointment aside, led them very well and was comfortably the better of the two captains. The seamers bowled consistently well on generally unhelpful pitches (though it was not until the third Test that they really excelled in the manner that I had been expecting) and the team not only fought hard with the bat in the second Test, they batted very well in the first and last Tests to put themselves into dominant positions twice. I was keen before the series to see how their new openers would get on and although Peter Fulton looked scrappy at the start he finished the series with back-to-back centuries. Forming consistently large partnerships will still take some work, but this does look like the best opening pair that New Zealand have had in some time. They certainly deserved the share of the spoils that they got and probably deserved to win the series. Without question they deserve to be ranked higher than eighth (which was true before the series began too) and the fact that this result has not moved them up the table shows just how poor the ICC rankings can be.

Although I don’t like the back-to-back series in general, in this case it will be very interesting to see if New Zealand can continue to play well in the return leg in May. It is fair to expect that England will be better and that New Zealand will be faced with a much tougher task. It should tell us a lot about whether this New Zealand team can play more consistently well and challenge teams away from home. For England, it will be vital to put in a strong show ahead of the Ashes.

Auckland, day four: England 90-4

The hope of last night that England might bowl very well and give themselves a chance for a remarkable victory was always likely to be a vain one. But it would have been nice if England had made an effort to do something to resist New Zealand in the morning session. Not only would it have been better for the supporters, they might not have found themselves in the rather parlous position that they do now. Instead, England came out without any clear plan and from there the wheels came off very quickly. Not only was there not an attempt to force more wickets, there did not even seem to be a coherent attempt to choke off the runs at first. The field setting was just odd. By the time Monty Panesar had bought the wicket of Doug Brownlie New Zealand were already looking comfortable and the arrival of Brendan McCullum saw them tee off. Not only did the bowlers look helpless and Cook clueless, there did not seem to be any effort made by any of them to do something. They just sat back and seemed to take the view that eventually he would declare. That, far more than the actual result, was the most infuriating aspect of England’s performance. All notion of discipline appeared to collapse and an utter shambles was the result. It was a disgraceful effort and the worst I have seen from England recently.

It may be harsh on Cook, who is still a very new captain, but it is hard to imagine that happening in such an important match under Strauss’s leadership. As bad as things got in the UAE, England never appeared to just give up in the field and in fact did a very good job of keeping it close. Even the following summer as South Africa piled on the runs at the Oval, the worst that could be said was that England did not appear to have a plan, but they kept coming in and at least tried to bowl well enough to keep the runs down. Strauss’s captaincy was not perfect, but he never lost control in the field. Cook will no doubt grow into the role, but right now this is very reminiscent of England’s 0-5 ODI series in India in late 2011. The irrelevance of the pyjama-only tour meant that it did not attract a lot of attention, but Cook had trouble keeping everyone in line then too. With a long double Ashes series coming up, it is something at which Cook and Flower need to look.

England were given 143 overs to bat out the draw, something which they have only managed three times before in their history. (And one of those was the Timeless Test in Durban in 1939.) They have made a decent effort, but Cook and Trott both went to loose shots after getting set. Both batsmen really ought to have gone on after getting set and both played very uncharacteristic shots. It leaves England in an almost impossible position. Ian Bell has batted doggedly for eight runs off an Boycott-esque 89 deliveries, but England do not have a lot of batting left. Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow are both inexperienced and short of time in the middle. Matt Prior is very good at counterattacking, but England need crease occupation. Stuart Broad is hopelessly short of confidence and throwing his bat at everything. And Steven Finn is already in and out as nightwatchman.

To say that the odds are against England would be a massive understatement. They would need one of their young players to play the sort of innings that Faf du Plessis did for South Africa in Adelaide, but it looks almost vanishingly unlikely. New Zealand will complete a famous and deserved victory tomorrow, probably before tea.

Auckland, day three: New Zealand 35-3

Today was very probably the day that England lost a Test series to New Zealand. They resumed on 50-2, trailing by 393, and never got going. The New Zealand seamers bowled well, got the ball to swing and bowled England out for 204 before Brendan McCullum declined to enforce the follow-on.

New Zealand bowled consistently well all day; it was their best day with the ball in the series and actually the first time we have seen what I expected from them before the series. They pitched the ball up and got the ball to swing both ways and the one that came back in caused no end of problems for England. Four of the top seven were out lbw to inswingers, two each to Trent Boult and Tim Southee. England should have batted better, but really what today shows is that they ought to have bowled better on the first day. I said at the time that they were consistently too short, but today the New Zealand bowlers showed just how much more effective the fuller length is. This has also led to a lot of remarks on Twitter about the pitch not being as flat as was originally claimed. (Generally these have taken the form of snide remarks.) But the movement has generally not come from the pitch, but from the air. It may be that the conditions were not conducive on the first day, but it cannot be disputed that New Zealand did bowl better than England did. The pitch itself is still generally flat, though it is starting to keep a bit low and maybe break up a bit.

Alastair Cook’s decision to bowl first is now looking a very poor one indeed and although it is hard to say now that things would not have turned out better for England if they had batted first, I still don’t think it was as bad of a decision as some others do. Certainly there are some who put England’s predicament at Cook’s feet, but the fact that the tactics did not come off does not by itself mean that it was wrong to take the risk. The fact is that England have been outplayed and there is nothing to suggest that they would not have collapsed if they had batted first.

But at least in the immediate future there the spotlight will have shifted to the decision by McCullum not to enforce the follow-on. England were bowled out still 239 in arrears, but more importantly having lost their last four wickets for just four runs between them. What had been a faint hope of saving the follow-on had very suddenly vanished and England were reeling. The decision to enforce the follow-on seemed obvious, but McCullum opted against it and it is not immediately clear why. Even if England had gone back out to bat and put on a decent second innings total it is very hard to see a way they could have really put New Zealand under pressure. Even a score of 400 would have only given New Zealand 160 to win and probably only left a session and a half in which to try to bowl them out. A few quick wickets and the match would have been effectively over. As it is, New Zealand batted again and it is England who took three quick wickets and now have a faint sniff of hope.

it is only a very faint sniff, mind. But New Zealand were at one point 8-3 in their second innings and finished the day by scoring four runs in the last eight overs. England were forced to attack by the match position and unsurprisingly it was a better strategy than what they had been employing. Even though New Zealand recovered to 35-3 by stumps, England have effectively taken 23 overs out of the match as New Zealand were too tied down to really get anywhere. New Zealand will probably want at least another hundred and maybe even a few more (160 would make the target an even 400) and at the rate they are going that will take almost two sessions and there is still an outside chance that England could bowl them out and maybe find themselves with a reasonable target. It is very unlikely, of course, but there is no doubt that New Zealand would be happier if England were only trying to escape with a draw.

The more optimistic of England supporters might actually think back to the Old Trafford Test of 2008. In that match England were bowled out for 202, barely avoiding the follow-on, but responded by bowling New Zealand out for 114 and chasing just under 300 to win by six wickets. England have a tougher ask this time as they trail by sixty more runs and even if they did not would still be strong underdogs, but it is something about which to think.

Auckland, day one: New Zealand 250-1

Before the start of the third Test there was a lot of discussion about how the pitch would play. New Zealand captain Brendan McCullum said that New Zealand would be playing to win the Test and the suggestion was that the pitch would have more life in it than what were relatively flat wickets in Dunedin and Wellington. That has not been the case at least on the first day, however. The wicket is very flat and apparently quite hard and does not look likely to break up. The expected seam movement was not present at all and the bowlers struggled to get movement through the air.

The flatness of the wicket certainly played a part in New Zealand racking up such a good score, but England did not bowl well at all for most of the day. They were far too short in the first session especially and did not really work out where to bowl until late in the day. They were especially poor immediately after tea; they came out late from the interval and seemed utterly uninterested. New Zealand had already put up a very good score, but with England needing to take wickets to try to drag the match back it was very annoying to see. England did not get a wicket in the session, although they did sharpen up after the drinks interval and managed to beat the bat a few times with the second new ball. It was not enough and certainly well too late, however.

England also had to contend with the problem of the absurdly short boundaries at Eden Park. It is a rugby ground and although it is not quite the standard rectangle of others, it is still noticeably shorter straight than square of the wicket and far too short to play Test cricket on. Peter Fulton had a top edge carry 53 metres and over the boundary. Friends of mine playing in the park have hit the ball farther*. The ground also has a capacity suited for rugby matches which means that it was less than a third full and had no atmosphere at all. Hopefully that will improve over the weekend, but even if it does this should be the last Test that Eden Park hosts. There should certainly be Test cricket in Aukland, but only if they build a cricket ground.

The state of the match means that Cook has come in for a lot of criticism for his decision to bowl first, but that criticism is premature at best and possibly unfounded. The pitch is good for batting, but there are other things to consider beside the first innings (and especially just the first day). The question is whether England will be in a better position having batted second than if they had batted first and with the pitch not showing any signs of deteriorating there is every chance that England will match whatever New Zealand score. (And remember that New Zealand have only scored 250 so far; there is still time for England to claw things back.) If the first innings scores are roughly parity than the decision to bowl first will certainly have been the right one because England will still have a chance to win with New Zealand batting third, they probably would not if New Zealand batted last. Of course, if the pitch does break up and New Zealand get a decent first innings lead then it will certainly have been the wrong decision for Cook. But either way we will not know until tomorrow at the earliest, so it is not possible to say right now that the decision was the right or wrong one.

*That’s not an exaggeration; we measured one of the sixes hit at seventy metres.

Wellington, day two: New Zealand 66-3

The second day of the Wellington Test was a much better one for New Zealand, especially with the ball. I said after day one that their bowlers had to find something more than what they had been showing and they stepped up to take eight English wickets for fewer than two hundred runs. It was certainly not the day for which England were hoping, but they did do enough to get the score up to 465 all out, which is certainly still formidable.

A lot of the credit to that score must go to Matt Prior and Steven Finn. After Ian Bell and Joe Root had got out to a pair of poor shots in the morning, Prior came in and started to steady the ship and after Kevin Pietersen and Stuart Broad departed in quick succession in the afternoon Finn kept him company. The pair came together with the score 374-7 and England still some way short of a good total. But Finn survived for 82 deliveries whilst Prior scored quickly from the other end and the pair put on 83 runs in just under twenty overs. Finn got a bit of criticism during his innings for the slow rate at which he scored, but it was entirely unjustified. Prior can and did score quite quickly and what he needed was a foil to prevent him from running out of partners. Finn provided an excellent one and deserves credit for the way he hung around.

Four hundred and sixty-five was still not as many as England would have liked, but impressive bowling in the evening session was enough to tilt the day into their favour. There was pace in the pitch and a bit of movement through the air, though the seamers did get a bit carried away with the bounce and started bowling a bit too short. This allowed New Zealand to put together a decent partnership for the second wicket, but Broad was the first one to find the right length and promptly took two wickets in as many deliveries.

The forecast for the last two days of the Test has improved slightly, but England will still want to hurry things along. New Zealand need another two hundred runs exactly to avoid the follow-on and England’s best chance to force a victory is to make sure that the Kiwis don’t get there. England will probably need to get amongst the wickets early tomorrow and they can get McCullum out before he can rescue his side again.

Wellington, day one: England 267-2

The first day of this Test was almost as good for England as the first day (of play, not the one where it rained) at Dunedin was bad. England will be grateful to Brendan McCullum for either not having the faith in his own lineup to bat first or for badly misreading the pitch, but either way he decided to bowl first upon winning the toss. After ninety overs on a pitch with little side-to-side movement and not as much pace as had been expected, that decision looks like the wrong one and very possibly a disastrously wrong one.

It has actually been an odd couple of days for McCullum. He said yesterday that he would bowl first if he won the toss and was apparently sincere in that statement. He also paid a compliment to Alastair Cook which was subsequently blown well out of proportion. He said that in his current form, Cook was probably the best batsman since Don Bradman. This was, inexplicably, taken as comparing Cook with Bradman despite very clearly saying that Cook is not as good as Bradman. Also overlooked was the important caveat of current form. And Cook’s form coming into the Test was four centuries in five Tests, certainly worthy of comparison to any batsman of the recent era. McCullum was certainly not helped by the press, but the fact so few bothered to actually see what he said blew what should have been an uncontroversial compliment out of proportion.

In the long run, however, it will be his decision to bowl first that causes him the most regret. His bowlers had not had a lot of time to recuperate from bowling for nearly two days at Dunedin and they were faced with another tough task here. Although Cook played a loose shot to depart fairly cheaply, neither Jonathan Trott or Nick Compton were in a mood to oblige. Both played very patiently, did not try to force the tempo and made sure that England got a good platform set. They actually did not get particularly bogged down either, despite their reputations. England’s run rate was well above three an over when Compton departed and by then the two had put on over two hundred together.

The Barmy Army started singing that England were halfway there when the 250 came up near the end of the day, but England should actually be aiming well over five hundred. From this platform and with the batsmen not only still in but still to come, 550 is certainly possible and perhaps even six hundred. The biggest issue is time. Run rate is not normally a major issue in the first innings of a Test match, but there is rain strongly forecast for the fourth and fifth days and it looks like a guarantee that the match will be shortened. England will have to put New Zealand in at some point tomorrow; if Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Joe Root and Matt Prior can score as quickly as they usually do then England will have time to put on three hundred before declaring very late in the day, but there is a chance that the attempt will result in a collapse and a sub-500 score. It is probably a chance England have to take, however.

It is certainly too early to suggest that New Zealand cannot win this Test, but they are in a position where they will probably have to play for a draw and hope for an opportunity to turn that into a win. But their bowlers have been disappointingly toothless after performing well recently and in the first innings of the series. They have had circumstances turn against them, but in the last 260 overs England have scored 688 runs for the loss of eight wickets. New Zealand are going to have to find something more than what they have been showing if they still want to pull off an upset.

Dunedin, day three: New Zealand 402-7

Day three was certainly a better day for England than day two was. The day was overcast and the seamers got a bit more help and especially once they got the second new ball in the afternoon. It wasn’t so good that England could get back into the match, however, and that is largely down to the efforts of Hamish Rutherford in the morning. He scored 171, four more than the entire English team, before departing to the first delivery of the second new ball and has almost single handedly given New Zealand their lead. Especially on debut, it was an enormously impressive innings. The next highest score for the Kiwis is only 55, though Brendan McCullum is 44 not out overnight.

That innings from McCullum is important also in it’s timing. He came in with New Zealand teetering a bit on 310-4 and it was then very quickly 326-6. New Zealand were certainly in danger of not getting the lead that they wanted and maybe not even a lead over two hundred. But McCullum scored his runs very quickly and often quite streakily whilst England kept the field up to attack and has scored better than a run-a-ball whilst getting the lead up to 235. It was particularly frustrating for England after they had done very well to get an opening, only to see it slam shut on them.

The drizzle and bad light meant that play was abandoned early again, which from this position will suit England. But the game has progressed so fast that even losing the better part of four sessions to the weather has not made the impact one would expect. New Zealand probably have time to bat a bit more in the morning, but McCullum should strongly consider declaring overnight. With the lead already 235, England will have to bat for most of the day just to reach parity and from there it will be more than a session into day five before they can make the match safe. New Zealand can make this task a bit harder for England by batting on, but I very much doubt it will be worth taking the additional time out of the match. The pitch is flat and expected to stay flat and New Zealand may want as much time as possible to bowl England out and possibly chase a target. The only reason for New Zealand to keep batting would be if they were worried about possibly losing the match, which is not even a vaguely realistic concern at this point.

Dunedin, day two: New Zealand 131-0

After the first day was washed out, England will probably be left hoping that the third fourth and fifth days will also see nothing but rain. This was probably the worst single day of cricket I have seen from England since 2009; even the debacles in the UAE had more positives than this performance.

I said in my preview that New Zealand could be a dangerous side and although they did show that today, England were simply far too careless. The fact that the spinner Bruce Martin ended up with four wickets on a pitch that wasn’t turning tells the story all too clearly. It’s hard to know exactly where to put the blame for England’s batting performance. They should have had another warmup match, but I don’t think the lack of one is a sufficient explanation. The fact that the entire first day was lost may have also taken a toll on concentration, but that is purely speculative and it certainly did not seem to hurt New Zealand. I worry that in fact England simply thought that there was nothing in the pitch or bowlers to concern them and paid dearly for that thought.

That said, some credit must also go to New Zealand. Neil Wagner in particular bowled very well and as a group they had clear plans in mind and showed very good discipline in bowling to those plans. Brendan McCullum, controversy about being handed the captaincy notwithstanding, did an excellent job. Never could he have hoped that England would so carelessly fall into the traps he set, but he and his bowlers did everything right to set them up. This is not a surprise in itself, but something England did not seem to have recognised.

What was rather more of a surprise was how well New Zealand batted. Certainly England were deflated after being bowled out for such a low total, but there was not a lot expected from Hamish Rutherford and Peter Fulton and they went about showing just how tame the pitch was. New Zealand have had a lot of problems with their opening combinations in the past, but Rutherford in particular looked very composed and competent on his debut. It’s far too early to say too much about him, but seeing someone finally succeed at the top of the order must give New Zealand supporters a lot of hope.

England bowled fairly well in the evening session, but it took them a bit to get going and with so few runs on the board the bowlers really had little chance. Stuart Broad was probably the pick of the bowlers; he was the most economical and also produced three clear chances. Unfortunately for England, two were dropped (one a sitter) and the other flew through a vacant third slip. It was very much that kind of day for England. Jimmy Anderson and Steven Finn also caused problems, but never managed to actually take a wicket or even produce a clear chance.

England were bowled out so fast that the loss of the entire first day now doesn’t make a lot of difference, though it does give England at least a sniff of a chance of a draw. They will probably have to approach the third day as a clean slate and although they are utterly up against it, they will have to get whatever they can out of this innings and then see where they are. They may take some heart that on this ground a year ago South Africa were bowled out for around 230 in the first innings before putting up 450-5 in the third innings. Obviously we saw last summer that England are not as good as South Africa, but it does suggest that the pitch won’t get much worse for batting as the match goes on. (New Zealand also got off to a very good start in their chase in that match, before the weather intervened.) The next three days will be a very interesting test of England’s resilience and whether New Zealand can make the most of a good situation, something with which they have often struggled. The match isn’t over, but England will really have to improve to get anything out of it. And maybe do a rain dance for good measure…

Swann’s elbow and England’s spinners

On the field it was not an exciting first day of the New Zealand v England series, unless one feels that seven hours of rain are particularly interesting. But there was a surprising moment at the toss when England made a late change to the XI after Graeme Swann was ruled out of both the match and the series due to the elbow problem that he has had for the past several years.

Swann is going to America to have surgery on the elbow and he is expected to be back by ‘early summer’ and England are said to be targeting a return in time for the Champions Trophy. But given the utter pointlessness of that competition, it is surely a better idea to have him play in the County Championship and prove his fitness ahead of the back-to-back Ashes. Whilst England could certainly still win the Ashes without Swann, we know just how much of an asset he can be even at home and especially the way Australia have been playing spin in India there is no reason at all to risk Swann in the Champions Trophy. There is literally nothing to gain and plenty to lose.

This brings the question of England’s reserve spinners to the fore, both for the next couple of series and as a reminder that Swann may not have a lot of cricket left in him. For the short term there is Monty Panesar who performed decently in the subcontinent in the last two winters and has replaced Swann in the XI for the Dunedin Test. There is also James Tredwell who has been playing when Swann has been rested from the pyjama squads. Tredwell has been called into the Test squad as (extra) backup, but I would be very surprised if he got a match. There is little to no chance of England playing two spinners and I doubt that Panesar will bowl so poorly as to be dropped, unless England decide to play four seamers. (Which, given Onions’ form in the warmup also seems vert unlikely.)

I expect Panesar to still be in the XI for the return series in May, but it may be wise for England to give a game to one of the younger candidates instead. None of Simon Kerrigan, Scott Borthwick or Ben Stokes impressed on the recent Lions tour of Australia (though to be fair, no one did), but they will have each had a handful of County Championship matches to try to make a case ahead of the first Test as well. If England want to give someone a taste of international experience then one of the early season Tests when everyone is thinking about the Ashes is a decent time for it. I would probably still have Panesar as Swann’s backup in the Ashes (unless he bowls very poorly in New Zealand) simply due to his experience, but it won’t be long until neither he nor Swann are available and England should take this as a reminder to start choosing a replacement and getting him ready now.

New Zealand v England preview

After England won both pyjama series 2-1 and lost the only red ball warmup match, we are finally approaching the meat of the tour: the three match Test series which begins in Dunedin on the sixth of March (fifth of March for those in the UK). England will be strong favourites after a first win in India for 28 years and after New Zealand were badly beaten in both Tests in South Africa. But this is not a New Zealand side to be underestimated and they will have Tim Southee and Ross Taylor returning, both of whom were absent in South Africa.

England did not play Jonny Bairstow in the warmup which should end any possibility that he may still compete with Joe Root for the number six spot. As I’ve written before, this is very generous to Root and harsh on Bairstow. England did give Graham Onions an opportunity to press his case for either Stuart Broad’s or Graeme Swann’s spot as the fourth bowler, but he took only one wicket for 213 runs in the match. The effect of this is that unless Broad suffers a recurrence of his heel injury ahead of the fourth Test, England’s XI for the first Test at least is all but set in stone. I suspect it will take an injury or a very poor performance for there to be any changes for the other two matches as well.

New Zealand added Neil Wagner to their squad for the first Test after he impressed against England in the warmup. With Southee, Trent Boult and Doug Bracewell all available for the first Test I don’t see any way for Wagner to be one of the three main seamers, but New Zealand’s only spin option in the squad is Bruce Martin. Martin is uncapped and has a first class average over 35 and I don’t think it would be a terrible idea for New Zealand to play Wagner instead in conditions that will likely help the seamers. It’s a tough call and unfortunately for New Zealand a tough call because neither player has done much to demand selection. I suspect it will be a decision made once they have had a look at the pitch, but right now I’d lean toward Wagner.

Even with the return of Taylor to the New Zealand side, I am not expecting much from the New Zealand batsmen. They were pretty thoroughly demolished in South Africa and even having returned home I don’t think they will find life against Anderson and company much easier. I’d be surprised if we saw any more double figure scores, but I think they will really struggle to put England under pressure. A lot will depend on New Zealand’s new opening pair of (presumably) Hamish Rutherford and Peter Fulton. New Zealand’s middle order is fragile and exposing them to the new ball is a recipe for disaster. Even if the top two can’t put a lot of runs on the board, they need to consistently form long partnerships to make sure that the Kiwi middle order do not face the teeth of the English bowling. In other words, they need to do the job of an opening pair.

New Zealand’s real strength, however, and where they might really cause England problems is their bowling. Southee was in the form of his life before missing the South Africa series with injury, but on his return to the Plunket Shield he promptly took 9-149 in a match. Boult and Bracewell are also both quite dangerous, though they have probably not shown it as often as New Zealand would like. Especially in their home conditions England can expect them to be a handful. England’s batsmen are quite good and won’t be in terribly unfamiliar conditions, but I still expect they will have a few low scores.

The player to watch may be Nick Compton; he has not yet solidified his place and this will be a very different ask than opening in India was. England still have the option of opening with Root and Compton probably needs to prove his worth here to make sure that Andy Flower doesn’t start thinking along those lines. Root himself need to show that his efforts in Nagpur were no fluke, however. As mature as he has looked it is easy to forget that he only has one Test to his name, but he does. He could yet find himself under pressure as well.

England are favourites, but if they did not already know that this would not be a walkover then their defeat in the warmup will have made that point quite clear. I expect New Zealand will have a few good performances in the series and will put England under pressure at times. The problem the Kiwis have is that when they do perform well they really struggle to back those performances up and consistently perform to the standard of which they are capable. England are a good enough side that if New Zealand continue to be so hit-or-miss they will struggle most of the series. I expect them to do enough to avoid the whitewash and with the weather also an issue I think the series will finish 2-0 to England, though 2-1 is a possibility. New Zealand might be able to get a draw or more, but only if they perform consistently well and England consistently or frequently fail to play to their standard.