Mad, bad and dangerous to predict

It is New Zealand's knack to be a force more significant than anticipated, and between them maintaining a good level of performance with a changeling team and England failing to rise to the challenge consistency, the 3-1 scoreline will leave neither side feeling hard done by. In the final analysis, New Zealand probably have fewer problems than they had thought following an exodus of talent and experience; while Paul Collingwood's England probably have more than their two previous series had highlighted. Not once was a game won by the team batting first: England fulfilled that role in all but one of the five, three times at the behest of Daniel Vettori. And barring the fourth game where a belter of a pitch and a rollocking opening partership propelled England to 340 - and they were relieved to escape with a tie - the touring batsmen never imposed themselves sufficiently on the generally disciplined New Zealand bowlers to give themselves a realistic chance of series success. When they took to the field, and Brendon McCullum centre-stage, defeat was thrice administered in brutal and uncompromising fashion.

The exploits of McCullum, by a way the most successful bat on either side and boasting a withering overall strike rate of 128.57, contrasted at times drastically with his opposite number Phil Mustard. McCullum is a hitter, a clean striker of the ball; Mustard can do that too, but all too often tends to confuse that with the unrelated tactic of slogging, and the ugly smear which drew a line under his series with the bat may be the last England see of him for a while. One in five, which is what Mustard produced here, is simply not a good enough ratio, and it seems England's search to replace Marcus Trescothick will have to go on the road again. Alistair Cook notched two fifites, and no Englishman did better, but a strike-rate which is reaching out in vain for 70 looms large, not least in the mind of his batting partner, an unhealthy combination when it is the worrisome Ian Bell at the other end.

Kevin Pietersen had another one-day series when he seemed to be playing as if with a silencer attached to his bat: a strike rate of 73 reflects a batsman lacking confidence and bravado, two natural traits he has mislaid in the one-day game of late. England's captain gave increasing substantiation to the notion that the team's success reflects his own, the two games in which he contributed being the two Engalnd did not lose. Circumstances did not favour Owais Shah, as they seemingly never have in his international career, but he could equally have proved his worth in adversity. He has, sadly, in all likelihood batted himself out of contention for the Tests and with a congestion for lower-middle order places likely next summer, he may slip from the scene altogether.

It is through the bowlers that England have had much of their one-day success under Peter Moores, so it was no great coincidence that their failure to fire here met with defeat. Ryan Sidebottom alone was reliable; Stuart Broad had two excellent games and three shoddy ones. The pall was heaviest around James Anderson, who appeared to have graduated into England's spearhead after some excellent performances last summer. But he was ineffectual in Sri Lanka, and added profligacy this time around, New Zealand taking him for over 7 an over. It is Anderson's burden that he has to look either master or mug, and something which makes it hard for England to back him through a bad patch. Replacements are hardly falling over themselves in a rush to take his place however. Chris Tremlett is next in line, but the selectors might just hesitate with the memory of his last few performances. Back-up for the pace trio was sparse: Graeme Swann, the primary spinner, was given just five overs in the whole tour, and England went in to the last three games without a slow bowler. The men who came in, Mascarenhas and Wright, appeared low on favour with Collingwood, something which will probably spell the end for Mascarenhas, who didn't do much with the ball to deserve more opportunity, if not Wright, who flowered with the bat and sealed the tie at Napier conceding just six off the last over, his first.

Perhaps it is a sign of how far England have come that a series loss away from home, standard fare under Duncan Fletcher, meets with relative despondency. It does show, just in case people were getting ahead of themselves, that England still have some way to go, and there will be more talking points than the selectors would want when the one-day side reconvenes next summer. Top of their agenda will be the head of the batting order, something England have not had right for a while, especially since the loss of Marcus Trescothick. In the shorter form of the game, where momentum shifts can be terminal, how a team begins its innings is crucial. At the moment, England's openers reflect the team as a whole: inconsistent, ponderous and inclined to collapse. And that will have to change before England can become anything more than an occasional threat.

England black out in game of Russian Roulette

A week may be the arbitary unit of time used to illustrate the fluid nature of circumstance and perception, but a mere two days of cricket, and short ones at that, have been all that was needed to effect volte-face on multiple fronts and leave England with cheeks reddened by the embarassment of two defeats crushingly ignominious even by the recent dismal standards of their one-day team. Words like dismal, detroe and rabble had begun to fade from the English supporter's vocabulary in regard to the one-day team, but two consecutive nostalgia nightmares have refreshed the memory with a venegance. And their opposition? Not all-conquering Australia, patrician India or swashbuckling Sri Lanka; all teams England have taken series off over the last year. Instead a team shorn of the flower of its talent; derided by its own press and public prior to the series; and crushed by England in the 20 over games. Little New Zealand, all tubby batsmen and dobbing trundlers; they have been far too good.

Perhaps the first defeat was explainable. Unable to roar from the blocks on a lightning-fast pitch and detach the English head from body by force, New Zealand took the achievable alternative: asphyxiation on a dead track, Styris and Oram constrictors in chief. 130 a total no more defendable than England's palpable failure to adapt to conditions they had failed to divine. But on no grounds can their performance at Hamilton be defended, explained or countenanced. Pietersen and Cook were laying a decent foundation at 90-2; then England were in freefall, the last 8 wickets falling for 68. To say it all went up in a puff of smoke would be to imply a sense of spectacle wholly inappropriate.

Assumptions and pre-allocated views have had to be hastily re-examined. Consider the contrasting fortunes of Ravi Bopara and Jesse Ryder. The former, despite a chastening induction to the Test arena, was still England one-day golden boy; Ryder, before he had raised a bat in anger for his country, was labelled a lardarse too fat to be playing international sport. Now, in just one innings, Ryder is said to embody the spirit of Colin Milburn; after two fraught, high body-count innings, Bopara awaits his first taste of the scrap heap. Perception has and always will be fickle when it comes to sport, but such paradigm shifts are faintly incredible, which illustrates the extraoridnary nature of the results. And therein, possibly, lies England's salvation. Their demise in both games has been so swift that there has been precious little chance to make a judged retreat to safer ground, a manouevre England have proved themselves neither good enough nor experienced enough to effect. And by fouling up on each occasion with the bat, they have given their bowlers, architects of many recent victories, no chance to make an impression on the course of either game. Possibly it is vain hope that England will deign to showcase the talent they have previosly displayed, which should make them New Zealand's betters. For New Zealand will continue to be good; the question is, will England continue to make them look worldbeaters?

I hear the vitriol already. English arrogance! What credit to New Zealand? Plenty, in fact. They have not only outdone England by several elongated heads in every facet of the game, but have effected a comeback only the most blinkered Kiwi tub-thumper would have forecasted after they submitted to double defeat in the Twenty20 series and England looked rampant. The bowling has been incisive, tight and to plan; twice they have given England masterclasses on batting according to conditions. More than anything, their fielding has sparkled; England have been getting precious little themselves with the bat, but that next to nothing has been given away just augments the torture. Compare with England, a tawdry mess of run-outs and dropped catches.

Repeated humiliation for England has opened up debate over issues which looked case-closed when they overcame India at the tail-end of last summer. Ian Bell, batting star of that series for the home team, no longer looks secure at first drop, having followed an anonymous series in Sri Lanka with two no-shows here. Kevin Pietersen, whom many would have occupy Bell's slot, looks in no state for the promotion and a shadow of his dominating best. The middle-order, once a lone bastion of reliablity, has been experimenting detrimentally with the binary system. A fairly inflexible 16-man squad means England are more-or-less stuck with what they've got, although Ravi Bopara seems sure to lose his place to Dimi Mascarenhas. There is equally little room for manouevre in the series, in that familiar position of two down with three to come. The management will be stressing the need for a performance in the forthcoming game; the rest are just screaming for a result. There is little left in the realm of possiblity with which England's one-day side can surprise us. Dating from twelve months ago, there have been victories against opposition as unlikely as Australia, India and Sri Lanka. Right now, they are supping from the well of despair visited in the period preceding those results and again at the World Cup. All told, a dizzying cocktail of brilliance and crapulence, and a sequence which they look unready to bring any sort of order to.

Efficiency the essence for improved England

New Zealand can be a frustrating opposition in more ways than one. Not only does their battling style tend to pose more problems than their overall talent might suggest; but such is their nature that there are few plaudits to be gained in victory and much ridicule to be suffered in defeat. That tends to be more true of their Test side than limited-overs outfit, with the shorter, more formulaic game logically suiting their gameplan with a strong emphasis on collective achievement in the absence of any great deal of class. But after a World Cup in which they made the last four and defeated England in the pool-stages, New Zealand have been in decline; while England, who made absolutely no impression on that tournament, have had a pleasantly surprising amount of success as their Test form has stuttered.

Without Fleming, Bond and McMillan, what was a competitive, dangerous team begins to look more electrically-powered milk float than grinding four-wheel drive. Having lost Bond, who had to bear the weight of frequent injury along with the responsibility of being a lone spearhead, and with James Franklin sidelined, there remains very little in New Zealand's bowling stock which should be capable of worrying England. Kyle Mills and Jacob Oram maybe; Daniel Vettori for sure if he can shake off an ankle niggle. But the back-up of Chris Martin, Michael Mason and Paul Hitchcock looks on the innocuous side of powderpuff. Each is in his 34th year and boasts an unfavourable ODI record; they are in a way typical of New Zealand, the one country unwilling to give up on the medium-pacer. To be fair, if there is anywhere left in the world where the redoubtable trundler can prosper, it is the land of the long white cloud; but if England capitulate, there will be much vitriol from press and public and hand-wringing from players and management.

And if England had continued in the same vein after the World Cup, it would be a very possible outcome. But evidently even they have got bored of being pants at one-day cricket, and the results under Peter Moores have generally been heartening, giving the impression that England have finally started to move forward in the more proscriptive form of the game after a long period under Duncan Fletcher when they seemed to go only backwards or sideways. Bowling has been the primary reason for the success against India and Sri Lanka; James Anderson is at home with the new white ball in his hand, complemented by Ryan Sidebottom's swing and hustle and vertical and lateral movement from Stuart Broad. Graeme Swann balances the team nicely with both bat and ball, although he will need to prove his flighted and well-spun off breaks are effective away from the slow tracks of Dambulla and Colombo where he won his place.

The opening pair retain a temporary guise, with Cook and Mustard set to resume a partnership which failed to flower in some admittedly averse conditions in Sri Lanka, but which will not survive a lack of success over 5 more games. With Marcus Trescothick set never to return, England badly need Cook to become a force for them in ODIs, primarily because there is really no-one else, evidenced by the fact he has been partnered by no specialist opener since returning to the team last May. On the positive side, Mustard could be the man to give England the sort of quick runs up-front no-one bar Trescothick has recently, and maybe even tout for a place in the Test team if he hits the jackpot. At the same time, he is keeping out a very useful one-day batsman in Tim Ambrose and will not keep his place for long on the basis of strike-rate and a quick wit.

The other area of debate in the line-up is over the No.7 position, currently in possession of Ravi Bopara. He appears deserving of a place, but there remains the essential problem that, as someone who majors on batting, he is occupying a position which is the preserve of a bowling all-rounder. As it stands, he is not having much chance to influence the game with either bat or ball; England are grateful for his presence when the main batting fails, but otherwise he tends to cut an anonymous figure, especially as Collingwood's improved medium-pace means he is really a sixth bowler. Following the double success in the 20 over games, Dimi Mascarenhas has also put his name forward; his chance was long in the coming, and despite some flickers, not least smiting Yuvraj Singh for five consecutive sixes, he looked to be surplus to requirements having watched the games in Sri Lanka from the pavilion. But Mascarenhas is evidently not one to go quietly, and emphasised his case with another burst of sixes in the first game and two tight four over spells. England will have to decide if they want the batting safety-net, fielding excellence and youthful promise of Bopara or the superior bowling and boundary hitting of the Hampshire man. With Mascarenhas, the batting is more fragile, especially if wickets tumble; on the flip-side, he has the ability to accelarate at the death more than perhaps any other English bat.

It should not matter too much against what looked a baleful New Zealand outfit in the first matches of the tour. Jacob Oram and Daniel Vettori should return to increase the class and depth of both batting and bowling, but England remain favourites. Of course, no team is better than them at subverting such brash assumptions, but unless the home side finds unforseen levels of performance, a series loss would be of their own design. Hopefully those days will continue to be associated with England past rather than present, and they will record the comfortable victory the gulf in talent indicates is likely. Following impressive displays at home to India and more so in Sri Lanka, less can hardly be expected.