Rite of Spring still blooms

With the imminent arrival of the World Twenty20, swiftly to be followed by the small matter of the Ashes, it's hard not to feel the marginalisation of county cricket more keenly than ever. The Twenty20 Cup - the very goose, lest one forget, that spawned the golden egg - has been shifted from it's habitual June fortnight; May will see just one full round of Championship matches. Should England regain the urn in August, domestic results will be relegated to the smallest print known to broadsheets. In the far more likely case of an Australian victory, the corpse of county cricket will be dragged out for its traditional public flogging. As those who paid to witness barely persistent rain ruin the season-opener at Lord's might have felt, it can be hard to win as a county supporter.

But with the attention of the mass media elsewhere, not inconsiderable change is afoot in the domestic arena. New coaches and directors have been brought in to reawaken sleeping giants. Big names, too: Peter Moores at Lancashire, Angus Fraser returning to Middlesex, Chris Adams making what appears - though Yorkshiremen will need convincing - a lasting move from Sussex to Surrey. Moores and Adams know county success, although the needs and wants of two regional heavyweights may press them harder than seaside Sussex, where they needed and were given years to bring about success. Meanwhile, the minnows of a decade ago, now temporary wearers of what was once Surrey's unchallenged crown - rarely Lancashire's, a 'big club' akin to Newcastle United - look to build their own dynasty. A surfeit of seam bowlers, mostly locally nurtured, should boost Durham's chances of retaining their title, while their young turk captain, Will Smith, will have the support of gnarled old-pros Benkenstein and Chanderpaul and perhaps an additional weapon in Steve Harmison, to whom that description can still apply in county cricket.

Past the defending champions, the competition looks tight-knit as has increasingly been the case in the two-divisional system. Nottinghamshire's seam attack is tasty, but they look short of runs, especially if Samit Patel is required by England. Somerset are at the other pole: Langer and Trescothick continue to underwrite any batting deficit, but an attack which has still to move on from 40-year old Andrew Caddick should keep them stronger contenders for relegation than the title. Sussex have shopped shrewdly - bringing in Yasir Arafat and Ed Joyce - but the reality of Mushtaq's lost wickets began to set in last season, and there is no clear impression that they have addressed the issue. Worcestershire look just covered on bowling, but short on batting; fellow promotees Wawrickshire will have to do it the dull way, as was the case five summers ago, but look too anodyne, as exemplified by the unprepossessing acquisition of New Zealand's Jeetan Patel. Yorkshire remain too long detained by the process of bringing through youth; they will not get far unless they can identify a hardy pair of openers, a glaring deficiency in recent seasons, but otherwise the team has a nice balance, and will benefit from a refreshed Matthew Hoggard, eager to jerk the attention of the national selectors, who want to move on.

If Surrey, Kent and Middlesex think turning up will see them out of the Second Division, they could struggle. All are reasonable bets for promotion, but will be pushed hard by the more ambitious of the lower tier's accustomed residents: Essex have a bright-looking squad, albeit slightly lacking the substance for four-day cricket, as opposed to limited overs formats, where they are kings. Derbyshire too are upwardly-mobile, albeit slightly lacking experience in the bowling ranks. The remaining teams look set for continued struggle: some would say that Leicestershire and Northants, pushing the overseas quota as far as it is willing to go, deserve little better. But if some degree of predictability would be a blessed relief to county followers - being able to work out starting times for games without the aid of star-gazing equipment would be a start - the complete uncertainty across all four competitions should keep supporters interested , and the chance to witness the next generation of aspiring hopefuls - in healthy abundance despite the much-trumpeted influx of Kolpaks et al - is sufficient reason to remain hopeful however the national team fares.

Defeated England out of ideas

Not many people would have expected England's habitually fragile batting line-up to reel off three totals easily in excess of 500; nor the West Indies, having dramatically snatched an early lead, to hold out for another three Test matches and secure a long-awaited series victory. But however surprising the result, a series which featured the odd moment of high drama among much turgid cricket confirmed rather than altered most well-held opinions. West Indies are still a mediocre side, although the excessively flat pitches played to their core batting strength, and capitalised on England's glaring deficiencies.

England possess not one seam bowler who can stride back to his mark all day with the captain's full confidence. The old guard - Flintoff, Harmison, even Sidebottom - all look finished in one sense or another. James Anderson and Stuart Broad both remain on the cusp of genuine utility as Test bowlers, although together they are a serviceable new ball pair, sorely lacking the support of an enforcer, which only Flintoff at full cry - an increasingly distant prospect - is capable of being amongst the present field. In desperation, England gave a debut to Amjad Khan, who brought no-balls aplenty, and more fire in words than deeds. As England cry out for a bowler who can bring express pace or steepling bounce, old Duncan Fletcher nostrums ring loud in the distance. Those who scoffed at his inflexibility in bowling selections, his insistence on ability and potential over domestic performance, may choke now. Look no further than Ryan Sidebottom, the darling of the Peter Moores regime, the anti-Fletcher. England had one good year from him, and in return have carried all winter a battered wreck of a bowler.

And as they finally look to have given up on long-lost causes, Steve Harmison prominent among them, England look around to find no-one ready to graduate to the highest level; somehow the prospects who should have taken flight in the two years since the last Ashes remain rooted to the ground. Where now Tremlett, Plunkett, Mahmood, Onions? Injured, discarded or ignored. Anything but cultivated. And now England are scrabbling on their knees, desperately trying to salvage the scraps of a generation they let slip through their fingers.

England now head into the limited overs segment of the tour with a captain who will don the blue kit by sole dint of the pips on his shoulder, and an acting coach who may or may not soon be permanently appointed to the post. Andy Flower is a demonstrably capable man of cricket, but his links with past regimes and the evidence of the current tour should be enough for the ECB to rule out his candidacy. A new voice is badly needed, a forced re-evaluation of common approach and attitude. The sort of cosy axis Strauss and Flower have apparently formed is ideal in prosperous times, but England in their current state require something more like shock treatment. No matter that there is little time before this summer's Ashes for a new man to make his mark; the resurgence of Ricky Ponting's Australia (that was quick) suggests that ship is well and truly sailing.

The bowling's the thing

With the calendar rolling over into another Ashes year, English and Australian cricket inevitably turns its gaze towards this summer's anticipated contest. The first batch of pre-Ashes headlines have focused on the batsmen, and administrators: Kevin Pietersen - who, depending on how you see it, either drowned trying to bridge the sea of English mediocrity, or collapsed under the weight of his own ego - was sprung from his throne as England's captain; Matthew Hayden, the last to see he had reached Do Not Pass Go, cashed in his chips. ECB blazers and an Australian lawyer - their Chairman of Selectors, Andrew Hilditch - have come under fire for creating a climate of mediocrity for their relative teams to function in.

Little matter that the two batting units to face-off at Cardiff in six months time could be predicted without too much head-scratching; that England's committee cock-ups are ritualistic; or that it is no surprise the Australians have forgotten good selection is an art, not a process. The unsentimental Australian system will soon have forgotten Hayden; unlike an English equivalent, Michael Vaughan for instance, he will not hang around waiting to be wheeled out again. The Australians have always been rather better at moving on, the process in which they are currently engaged, not without struggle. England, on the other hand, could roll up to the Swalec in six months time with one captain and as many as four old flames.

But as much as batsmen have grabbed the attention recently, increasingly it seems that their less oxygenated counterparts will be crucial to the outcome of this year's big event. In each of the last two Ashes series, the home team has had the bowling attack to make the difference: England's famed pace quartet of 2005 was their best in years, while the combination of experience - Warne and McGrath - and relative youth - Clark and Lee - was irresistible two years ago in Australia.

Among the specialist bowlers, possibly only Mitchell Johnson on either side can call himself a settled option. Peter Siddle has made an encouraging start to his career, but lacks subtlety and variation, if not heart and heat. Stuart Clark will share the new ball if injuries have not sapped him of his potency, which is always a possibility for a seamer heading for his mid-thirties. Their troubles on the spin-bowling front continue relatively unabated, the current toss-up between the accurate, anodyne Nathan Hauritz and Jason Krezja, as much a danger to his own side as the opposition. England can claim no frontline certainties, save Flintoff in the all-rounder's berth. Monty Panesar used to be guaranteed a place by right, but will bowl himself out of the team if he does not arrest his decline in performance. James Anderson and Stuart Broad have both made strides over the last 12 months, but have further to go before they can properly call themselves Test bowlers. Then England are delving into the crocks - Ryan Sidebottom and Simon Jones- and the unreliables - Harmison or Sajid Mahmood. Both sides have six months and a handful of Test matches to work out their best options. And despite what you might hear from the rooftops, it is the team with the more settled bowling attack which will prevail this summer, whatever they think of one another.

The captain and the coach

This is meant to be Kevin Pietersen's year. He now faces a home Ashes series he has to dominate not only as a batsman, but as captain. Then, in an electrifying prospect, he will lead his adopted country to his homeland, where he so stunningly broke into the England side four years ago. Caribbean tours, such as England will undergo in the spring, are rarely dull either, and a resurging if not quite resurgent West Indies side should not be taken for granted. Over the next 12 months, he will begin to define his place in the pantheon.

The men who chose Pietersen to lead England took a significant risk, not only in burdening their greatest asset but by placing power in the hands of an uncompliant character. It appears, with strong rumours circulating of a damaging rift between Pietersen and coach Peter Moores, that they are about to understand what having Pietersen as captain really entails. In the end he will have to have it his way; that could end up with his tenure lasting five years or five months. They should not have promoted Pietersen if unprepared to give him his head, however much that may sometimes cut against the grain. He has rarely done otherwise.

The tension between him and Moores, which has been a problem throughout and preceding his captaincy, may well end up costing the coach his job. Other than creating financial and administrative difficulties, it is hard to see how this hurts England. Moores was to have been a cheerful counterpoint to an increasingly glum Duncan Fletcher; a personable motivator; a new voice on one-day cricket in which England had long struggled. During his 20 month tenure to date, England have won just one Test match in twelve against top-rank opposition; in limited overs cricket there have been some exhilarating successes, offset by equally crushing reverses. Furthermore the impression seems to be that more players have been annoyed than inspired by his methods. With Duncan Fletcher the intentions were clear; you could agree or disagree with his nostrums, and the results, until the last year or so, encouraged the former. Moores seems intangible; he has rarely been much criticised for England's average performances, mostly because the team seems to bear so little of his imprint. Crucially, and in total contrast to Fletcher, he has failed to establish a decent working relationship with any of his captains; without the backing, overt and implicit, of the captain, no coach can succeed at this level. If that truly is the case in the current situation, Moores must be the one to lose out.

That should not necessarily entail a mad rush to install a direct replacement. With such an important year imminent, there is no time for a new face to bed in quietly. And with a captain like Pietersen, one suspects the right man may not be found easily or quickly. A simple solution would be to retain the relevant backroom staff and coaches, with respected manager Hugh Morris to act as a convener when necessary, in lieu of a head coach. Although not in keeping with prescriptive modern fashion, it would be a flexible situation which should suit Pietersen without leaving him isolated and unsupported. Unless someone who has the respect of the captain and his team can be found, it is the best recourse. By rolling the dice and making Pietersen captain, the England management showed faith in an impressive cricketer. Now they must back him.

England look back to the future

Victory may have finally eluded them, but there was more encouragement to be had for England from two well-contested Tests in India than any number of facile conquests - as they have enjoyed recently over New Zealand and West Indies - could ever provide. In the end, the tour which might never have been worked out well for England. It saw the resurgence of their contrasting Andrews - Strauss and Flintoff - who were so pivotal in 2005 and will need to be again next summer should England engineer a repeat. That Matt Prior's return to the team went almost unnoticed will be satisfaction enough for him, and there was further evidence of the value his trenchant batting adds. Stuart Broad, recalled for the second Test, looked to be hitting the pitch that much harder than this time last year, while the mix of a functioning outswinger with the new ball and discpilined lines with the old one gave indications of the bowler he should become.

While some quietly pushed themselves forward with solid work, the contrasting distress signals were more obvious. Ian Bell and Monty Panesar come most readily to mind: Bell simply does not look possessed of the stature to occupy the pivotal No.3 position yet, least of all against Australia. Exclusion, rather than demotion, would serve him better in the long-run, and also give England the chance to experiment with their top order, with the opening partnership of Cook and Strauss a case of good players in imperfect harmony. Cook could easily slip down the order to accomodate either Michael Vaughan or Rob Key at the top. Panesar, too, struggled: more worrying than his much chronicled mundanity as a bowler was his failure to maintain the basic tenets of his method, continually erring in length, a spinner's cardinal sin. With Graeme Swann looking combative, and Adil Rashid increasingly prominent, Panesar must now fight for his place.

England will now look forward, to the spring tour of the Caribbean, and, inevitably, next summer's Ashes. As much as it is important to focus on the matter at hand, the team for the West Indies should be selected with Australia in mind. This requires a the selectors to set aside some of their favoured notions of entitlement and security. Well as Paul Collingwood played in Chennai, England are well aware of what he contributes to the team; Owais Shah is a less-known quantity at this level, but one who could benefit England next summer. Accordingly, Collingwood should be stood down for the Caribbean in Shah's favour. England must gain a greater awareness of their reserve strength, and it is salutary that the batting line-up which played in India is identical to that which toured two years ago. This suggests a greater stability and consistency of performance than has been the case. The protected world of central contracts has made consolidation too easy an option for selectors, and they drift increasingly towards damaging inflexibility. As it stands, highly talented batsmen are in danger of being forever wasted through selectorial indifference.

As ever, the bowling attack remains more fluid. Anderson and Broad look the safest long-term bets and Steve Harmison is bound to tour the Caribbean with his history there and permanently alluring abilities. Without Harmison, or with him bowling badly, England lack potency once the new ball has lost its shine. Flintoff and Broad are steady; and while the big all-rounder retains his capacity to be outstanding, he has never been a consistent wicket-taker. Extreme pace and bounce or reverse swing are a seamer's three main old-ball weapons. The latter was England's trump card back in 2005 and has enjoyed an extended vogue since, best demonstrated of late by the Indian duo, Zaheer and Ishant. England have strived increasingly less successfuly for it since 2005, Flintoff included. Such shadow chasing has brought England back towards the mercurial Sajid Mahmood and rushed to prominence a Kentish Dutchman, Amjad Khan. Either could feature in the near future if England's mainstays prove too plain. One name which is synonomous with speed and swing is that of Simon Jones, who remains tantalisingly out of reach, if not mind. Only the doctors would want to write him off at this stage, and England will keep a hopeful eye out. The team may finally be moving on under Kevin Pietersen's leadership, but Vaughan and Jones, England's old alchemists, may yet hold the key to Ashes success.

Polar opposites alter critical mass

Their paths into international cricket - Lord's via Johannesburg versus a tough apprenticeship with an infant county - could hardly have been more different; likewise their initiation into the top level, the opener who began and went on faultlessly and the spare-part derided as England's first specialist fielder. Yet Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood have shared a common fate over the past year: each has made a century with their career on the line; both travelled to India with a weak hold on their starting positions. But when three quick wickets threatened to dissolve England's well-earned supremacy in the 1st Test in Chennai, it was the unlikely duo who came together and steered the team back to high ground. In cricketing terms the two have more similarities: both favour shots square of the wicket, mainly off the back foot; steady accumulation is a shared purpose and sharp running a common trait. Each played his keynote role: Strauss constructing the innings apposite to the circumstances and Collingwood steeling himself in the face of a potential crisis. Within a few hours, the two most dispensible players made themselves necesary again, and England look set fair for an unlikely victory.

Come in, No.3

As Strauss and Collingwood take their leave from the last-chance saloon, the spotlight turns to Ian Bell, with enough ability for the three of them but sadly lacking the capability to capitalise on his gifts. Two innocuous dismissals will not have helped the cause of a career on which perception
weighs heavy, and Bell, albeit just two games into his latest run at the crucial No.3 position, again looks unsure in and of his place. One view is that a dead-rubber and a Test under unusually stressful circumstances are no way to judge a player's true worth. The other is that Bell has proved once again that he does not have the mettle for a primary role in international cricket, and should be relieved of his duties. His fate is one bulky issue, but just part of the even weightier problem that is England's No.3. Nasser Hussain and Mark Butcher, two doughty fighters, did valuable service there and latterly Michael Vaughan had some success moving down from the top of the order. But when compared to their rivals, who have boasted the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara, Dravid and Kallis there in recent times, England look lightweight. Bell does not currently possess the stature to be England's batting fulcrum, while Kevin Pietersen will not (fairly) promote himself, and Owais Shah, although he bats there for Middlesex, is mainly viewed as a middle-order option. Of options from the counties, Rob Key will always be pushed in some quarters, and his inclusion would allow the possibility to re-jig what remains an unbalanced top order. It would be trust in his calibre rather than recent contributions that would propel Key, however, after an underpowered summer. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, the elephant still unwilling to leave the room; it has always seemed likely that the Caribbean tour would be his one chance to prove himself in anticipation of next year's Ashes contest. And Bell's travails may well have opened an unlikely door for him.

Emperor's old clothes

Meanwhile the arrival of South Africa has been proclaimed as a further test of Australia's fallen stock. One wonders whether the home support will be more amused by the tourists' confident predictions or the news that they have turned to Duncan Flethcer to give them them new ideas about how to win down under. New seems to be what is lacking from this South African outfit: they bring a batting line-up almost unchanged from their last visit, and one which has of late been carrying as a passenger its former driving force; on the bowling front, dependence on Pollock and Ntini has become dependence on Steyn, who will be targeted by the home batsmen. Australia have problems of their own, with uncertainty over the two giant Queenslanders, Hayden and Symonds, and of course the spinning option, but this is neither the place nor opposition to expose them. As their last recourse there remains the possibility that South Africa might, in time-honoured tradition, bottle it, but it will be a surpirse if they get close enough.

Monty finds the worm has turned

More than ever, international players seem to be judged by the common consensus of the media. Take Steve Harmison, who, dropped after the last in a long line of insipid performances in March, was deemed, quite reasonably, to have little prospect of an international future. Six months down the line, one Test and four wickets later, Harmison has been welcomed back into the journalistic embrace as England's matchwinner. With the Harmison story no longer interesting, attention has been turned to England's incumbent spinner, Monty Panesar. When Panesar was doing well - though never brilliantly - he was England's spin bowling messiah, the long-sought missing piece. Everyone loved Monty. But all party-lines become boring after a time: his relentlessness is now mundanity; bubbly enthusiasm is irritating over-oppealing; cult-status is arrogance. Shane Warne would no-doubt be amused and delighted to learn that barely a relevant article is written without his catchy but trite assessment of Panesar's career being faithfully trotted out.

In fairness, Panesar has not made the strides he might have over the past year. Like the team, he has been successful against a weak New Zealand side and much less so when the tougher challenges of Sri Lanka and South Africa presented themselves. Yet while Panesar was a palpable disappointment in Sri Lanka, failing to either restrict or dismiss batsmen with any regularity, his efforts against South Africa were, on the face of it, reasonable. Critics point to his failure to win games in the fourth innings at Lord's and Edgbaston, overlooking the extreme placidity of the pitch at HQ and the fact that - but for an understandable umpiring error - he would have dismissed Graeme Smith at Birmingham and opened the door for England to win the game.

Invariably, in such situations, the cry goes up for Panesar to flight the ball and experiment with variations. It is generic advice for a very specific bowler. He has had success through a well-honed method: buzzing the ball in at a quickish pace, imparting heavy revolutions on it and giving it the best chance of exploiting what bounce and turn the surface has to offer. On hard, abrasive pitches, Old Trafford being the best example, he has thrived and been a matchwinner. His failings this summer have been more of control than limitation. He has dished up too many short balls, releasing any pressure built up and compromising the accuracy which has been, and needs to be, a hallmark. Panesar is a mechanical bowler, and asking him to concentrate on flighting the ball requires him to do what does not come naturally, an unhappy situation.

Comparisons are most easily made with Test cricket's other current left-arm spinner of note, New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. Party-line here is that Panesar has much to learn from the Kiwi. And he is an admirable bowler and cricketer, a spinner of flight and guile, rather than jarring repetition. At Lord's last summer, where Panesar struggled on a flat pitch, he swept up a five-wicket, first innings haul, the sure sign of an accomplished practitioner. Yet in the next Test, at Panesar's favourite Manchester stomping ground, he was ineffective as England easily chased down 294, a scenario which had been set up by Panesar, who knifed through New Zealand's second innings with 6-37 from just 17 overs. They are two different bowlers, who prosper in different circumstances and have different areas of strength and weakness. That Vettori fits the more classical idea of a spin bowler does not make him a better one, something borne out by the statsitics, which in terms of average and strike rate are similar, slightly favouring the Englishman.

The England management have picked up on the issue fairly quickly and sent Panesar off to Sri Lanka for a month's club cricket in anticipation of the Indian Test series in December. It is a good move, and hopefully it will help him improve his weak sub-continental record when England visit India. But those who are expecting Panesar to blossom into a crafty, protean practitioner should prepare to be disappointed. If spin bowling is a form of code-breaking, his is a brute-force method, and essentially that will never change. There are subtleties to be added to his game, but they are adjustments, not redefinitions, which will come with time, of which Panesar has had only two and a half years as an international cricketer. And for those who worry he will stagnate because of a lack of comeptition, there is the comforting thought that it may be only one more season before Adil Rashid is giving Monty even more to worry about.

England ride on giant shoulders

A winding tunnel with no visible way out; the occasional, illusory glimmer of light. An apt summary for the fortunes of England's one-day side prior to Kevin's Pietersen's reign as captain; likewise for the career of Andrew Flintoff following three golden, glorious months back in the summer of 2005, when he stood tall and the cricket world sat at his feet. Almost a year ago, Flintoff's career was again ruptured by injury - terminally, it was feared at the time. He hobbled around the Twenty20 World Cup, the sort of tournament he might have dominated, bowling medium pace as England toiled. His batting was a broken wreck, the confidence and eye which once sustained a suspect technique had deserted him. It could have been a crushing end to an exhilarating career.

England had to prepare for a future without their biggest star. How desolate it seemed. The batting, to which Flintoff - along with the also departed Marcus Trescothick - had once given impetus, looked listless and blunt. They ground away - fading to dust in Sri Lanka, doing just enough to hold off New Zealand. Even Kevin Pietersen seemed to be succumbing to the collective inertia, his average and stike rate sucked into the morass. The bowling too was almost devoid of edge: once good batsmen were set, England looked to have no way of dislodging them. Flintoff was missed in the field too: for his bucket hands in the slips, inadequately replaced, and his totemic, galvanising presence. Victory across two series against a transient New Zealand outfit concealed harsh truths, already apparent to a burdened Michael Vaughan, as he was to later reveal.

In the event, Flintoff's return came too late to save Vaughan, feeling his way back into an underperforming and fractious side. But when he huffed, puffed and blew Jacques Kallis down on an electric evening at Edgbaston, Flintoff was back. He was unable to sustain the intensity as England fell away, but a statement had been made; Kallis, past 50 and belatedly setting out his stall for the series, has yet to recover. Briefly, England and their supporters were reminded of the power of Flintoff, his ability to stand toe to toe with the best players in the world and be England's champion. It is an exalted level of performance they have lacked without him and will need if they are to progress under Kevin Pietersen's leadership.

But while Flintoff looked a work in progress during the Test series, the transition to limited-overs cricket has seen him return to his all-encompassing best and fire England to undreamt-of heights. While other captains might have been tempted to forget about Flintoff's misfiring batting and concentrate on his ever-reliable bowling, Pietersen took the risk-reward path. Promotion to 5 in the order had not been earned and was a gamble, albeit one covered by England's batting depth. That has scarcely been needed, Flintoff anchoring two first-innings efforts which would have faltered without him and blasting England over the line in a 20-over chase. More telling than the runs themselves is the way he has made them: as has always been the case when Flintoff is in form, it is not power but timing that underpins his batting. Just a fraction of his fearsome strength is needed to dispatch bowling to all parts and Flintoff, batting well within himself, has shown full knowledge of this. His bowling, needless to say, has been supreme.

Stumbling blocks lie ahead, most tangibly over seven matches in India where his fitness and fallibility against spin will be examined. He will also need to translate his batting form to Tests, where he has always been less at ease. England, for all their one-day strife of recent years, have still managed a good home record, and more than one series win against an overripe South African outfit will be needed to convince cynics that there truly has been a renaissance. But, for now, Flintoff is flying and taking England with him. And it is a long time since we have been able to say that.

All aboard the KP express

And suddenly, it's all about Pietersen. Pietersen the master batsman; Pietersen the golden-arm; Pietersen the intrepid leader. King Midas, Nostradamus and Paul McKenna all rolled into one. It could have happened no other way. In time, salutary questions such as where the golden touch led Midas will need to be addressed; for now there is little option but to hold on tight and enjoy the ride. What must be said for Pietersen is that he has wasted no time in putting together the team he wants and thinks can be successful. Owais Shah has finally been shown to a seat at the top table after years of fighting for scraps; Andrew Flintoff's batting ego has been massaged with promotion; while Steve Harmison, the player drawn most tightly into the Pietersen embrace, is back to add snap to the change bowling.

The immediate signs are promising: Flintoff, back at 5 where he has produced his best in one-day cricket, constructed his most significant innings since his 2005 zenith; Harmison took two important wickets and was inexpensive. England, for so long lacking in one-day cricket, looked to have deep resources in both batting and bowling. Indeed so well did the specialists deliver in the first game against South Africa that all-round luxuries Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright were little more than window-dressing. One of them will be cut to make room for one-day lynchpin Paul Collingwood, who adds experience as well as balance, which looked slightly askew with so many all-rounders cluttering the lower-middle order.

Much was good about England, but even the all-encompassing figure of Pietersen could not mask all the old flaws, still mainly concerning the beginning of the innings with both bat and ball. A partnership of Ian Bell and Matt Prior at the top showsis no progress from England's post-Trescothick stagnation. In a way they did their job, Prior especially, setting up a platform for the middle-order to expand upon. The potency of Pietersen when coming in at around the 20-over mark and batting through was thoroughly demonstrated. But Bell batted too long and unwisely, before perishing slightly unfortunately to a stunning catch from AB De Villiers. Had his square cut sped away to the boundary, Bell might have gone on to make the big, anchoring contribution that is being asked of him. Certainly his fortune contrasted with that of his captain, who might have been adjudged leg-before twice before he had got going. But Bell is not the type of character to make his own luck; whispers suggest that the new regime may not have too much patience for him, either. And with England now travelling very much under the KP brand, Bell could easily find himself sidelined. Pietersen may have shown an inclination to embrace awkward characters - akin to Nasser Hussain, as Vic Marks has suggested - but there are always the faces that do not fit, and Bell may be one of those left behind.

While the return of Harmison sharpens England's attack, the new ball pairing is still a conundrum. It seems a long time since England have seen the best of James Anderson with the white ball, a curiosity considering he has begun to settle into Test cricket and has been a given in England's one-day line-up for some time. An off-colour Anderson destabilises the balance of the attack, especially when he opens alongside Stuart Broad, who will continue to have good and bad days. Ryan Sidebottom, when he returns from injury, might be needed to shore up the new ball attack, with Harmison and Flintoff either unwilling or unwise options in that regard.

More than anything, England were lucky, with decisions and the attitude of the opposition. South Africa, although reinforced with some one-day specialists, are yet to recover the focus they left behind at Edgbaston. The fielding was lax and three of their top 4 gave their wickets away, when only one needed to score big to win the game. No-one understands cricketing hangovers better than England of late; some would say there are suffering from an extended one themselves, while in the past they have benefited from them at the start of one-day series. It would be a surprise if South Africa, who are competing for the title of No.1 ODI side, do not come at them hard under the lights at Nottingham. At least England will be ready, Pietersen having acknowledged the trend when England start a series well. But there is more work to be done if a familiar tale is not to unfold.

Pietersen the inheritor of a tainted legacy

In an age when it seems perfectly normal for a team to finish a Test match on the Saturday under one captain and begin the next five days later with a new leader, one could almost be convinced that Kevin Pietersen is the sane choice to succeed Michael Vaughan as England's captain. In all seriousness, the selectors had almost nowhere else to go once they had decided to unify the captaincy. If nothing else the appointment will provoke heated debate, as the man himself has never failed to do throughout his career. But those who seek to label Pietersen as nothing more than an ego with all the trimmings miss the point: none but an uncommonly precise and driven character could have successfuly completed the unconventional road to stardom Pietersen has manufactured for himself. Indeed his presence is so all encompassing that it is amazing to think he has been in the team but three summers.

One thing he will not lack is the courage of his convictions. In increasingly troubled times for English cricket he will need them. The success of the team during the Duncan Fletcher era showed what can be achieved. But it was self-contained; the lessons and policies have proved non-transferable and the connections with that team - diminishing now Vaughan has gone - must not disguise that England are at their lowest ebb for almost a decade. Fletcher's tenure was successful in navigating the team away from the mismanagement and whimsy that undermined a talented generation in the 1990s. But, towards the end of his time and ever since, they have continued on the same course unabated, drifting further away from the happy medium towards the equally capricious opposite extreme. In the batting, especially, there seems to be an unhealthy lack of competition: form needs to become an almost national issue before anyone can be axed. Pietersen cannot effect change overnight on the team ethic, but he must ensure a gradual shift in dynamic. Vaughan achieved something similar, as a sympathetic counterpoint to Nasser Hussain, whose disciplinarian regime had run its course. In whatever way he chooses, Pietersen must restore England's edge.

Even before the first 'leading out England, Kevin Pietersen' has reverberated around The Oval, he has made a statement of intent. His first team will contain five bowlers, with Steve Harmison reinstated and Andrew Flintoff back in the all-rounder's berth at 6. In one hand he has grasped two nettles: both have questions hanging over them in their chosen positions and Pietersen has prudently sought to resolve them early on. Nevertheless, the honeymoon could last little longer than a few days: his old friend Graeme Smith will have been re-energised by the turn of events, and any prospect of the South Africans relaxing in the wake of their series victory has dissolved with Pietersen's elevation.

Like any England captain he will be judged on results against Australia. At this stage, his chances look slim. After The Oval there are just six Tests to refine the line-up, focus minds and build the necessary momentum. Foremost in his priorities must be establishing the best bowling attack. Flintoff should be the lynchpin, but establishing whether or not he can fulfil an all-round role will be crucial. Whether he plays as one of three or four seamers, another strike bowler is needed: in that regard they will need to examine the relative merits of Harmison and Simon Jones. Stuart Broad adds a nice balance but cannot play a part unless his bowling has improved. With his head spinning over that delicate conundrum, Pietersen will then need to set his mind to the thorny issue of the top 3, and the hardy perennial that is the wicket-keeper debate. He won't want to forget about his own batting either. That could be important. No sweat, King Kev. Give it 110%.

Vaughan severs golden thread

If cricket is a game of fine detail and small margins, two incidents defined a Test match which has ended in crushing series defeat for England and the end of the line for one of their greatest captains. One was Vaughan's second innings dismissal: a scorching cover drive which skimmed just inches from the turf and was brilliantly pouched by Hashim Amla. Then, in pursuit of a steep target, his opposite number almost imperceptibly gloved Monty Panesar through to the 'keeper but survived. Providence allowed Graeme Smith to continue on his way to a career-defining achievement; for Vaughan, whose own apogee has begun to look increasingly distant, luck had run out and with it his time as captain.

The Ashes defined Vaughan's international career - as a batsman two tours ago and as captain in 2005. The natural end to his captaincy was against Australia next summer: based on a deeply disappointing second stint as captain, he must have decided that there was no realistic chance his team could be competitive in that series. There will be mixed feelings on his departure: relief that an increasingly torturous period for English cricket is at an end; regret that England have lost a man who epitomised good leadership. Class is the word that best describes Vaughan; it shone from his every action on the field. He has also shown in it the timing of his resignation, before his own position started to become a bigger issue than the team itself.

Well as he has served England, the need to sever the links with Duncan Flethcer's era, which Vaughan never stopped representing, had becoming pressing. The team has not moved forward since the painful Ashes drubbing 18 months ago, and there was little prospect of such an outcome under present circumstances. One feels there was never rapport between Vaughan and Peter Moores, who now has the chance to form a more even-handed relationship with a new captain. That seems likely to be Kevin Pietersen, with the selectors keen to move away from the split-captaincy. If that is the case, they will fervently hope that the effect is not the same as the last time the torch was passed to the team's outstanding batsman.

But before the feeding frenzy begins over the new appointment, it is worth pausing to reflect on the achievements of the outgoing man. Along with Duncan Fletcher he managed the remains of Nasser Hussain's unit well, quickly forging a team which was undoubtedly his own. He helped establish a team ethic which sustained England through to their Ashes victory, albeit which started to become corrosive as that team was dismantled. Many of his achievements chartered territory untouched for a generation or more. The greatest pity was that he never really had the chance to build on the success of 2005: injuries both to himself and other key men crippled the team almost terminally. By the time he returned the connecting thread had been stretched too thin. But he will be remembered for his successes, and, whether or not England fans ever glimpse the perfect cover drive again, his place in history is secure.

Whose line is it anyway?

Test series against South Africa must hold special significance for Michael Vaughan. It was against them that he made his debut and first led his country; on tour there in 2004-5 his team established credibility as Ashes contenders. If they are to be again in a year's time, a similar outcome will be necessary, both for momentum to gather behind a hesitant unit and to allow Vaughan to impose himself on a team which, a year into his second stint as captain, still does not truly bear his imprint. Just as he did five years ago, inheriting Nasser Hussain's transient team, Vaughan finds himself in a difficult situation. The pace guns are no longer at his disposal, rather in the hands of an unbeloved opposite number; while the broad bats seem lined up on the South African side.

England find themselves in a curious position naming yet another unchanged squad. As has happened in these series on previous occasions, it seems almost certain reinforcements will need to be drafted in at some later stage; you sense England know it too. Yet propriety ensures they must pick the same bowling attack that did the job against New Zealand, despite the creeping suspicion that the trio of Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad will be overly accommodating to the tourists. Two swing bowlers is one more than is needed for a hot mid-summer; and while Stuart Broad remains more sheep's clothing than wolf, England's seam attack will not worry the best in good conditions. Delaying the return of Andrew Flintoff is sensible; still, the South Africans will surely be relieved to face an attack containing none of Flintoff, Jones, Harmison or Tremlett. They will also fancy themselves against a batting line-up which remains unchanged and brittle. Bearing in mind that the first Test is at Lord's - South Africa's favourite venue in a country where they always seem to start well - all signs point to defeat.

Unless individuals step out of their skins, both in terms of performance and progress, England look set to concede the advantage in a series which is disappointingly no longer a five match rubber. Vaughan should have increased bowling firepower from the second or third Test, which is when England can hope to come into the series. Until then, England have at least one game to prove that there is substance to the cheerful patter which is, just now, the only obvious hallmark of Peter Moores' tenure. South Africa, despite their well-earned reputations as chokers, are not the sort of team which will be cowed by sweet talk.

Same old

Since losing the first of six tests against New Zealand back in March, England have enjoyed consistency both in selection and performance. As New Zealand meekly folded on the fourth morning and England sealed comprehensive test and series victory, it would be easily supposed that the glorious Nottingham sunshine reflected England's fortunes. In one sense, it did: successive series victories are territory unknown since the heady days of 2004/5. But the caveats are unavoidable: New Zealand were the opposition on both occasions, a unit whose potency has been severely reduced by the loss of important personnel; in three out of the four victories, success emerged from first innings situations which seemed perilous, and England were reliant on two batsmen - Kevin Pietersen and Tim Ambrose- to rescue them repeatedly. New Zealand will not relish the irony of their own favourite manoeuvre - the bottom half of the batting order salvaging the wreckage of the top - being repeatedly used against them.

It is perhaps a little churlish to find fault in the manner of England's success: after all, many of the now famous victories they enjoyed in 2004-5 were achieved from similarly doubtful scenarios. Yet the question remains of how far, if at all, England have progressed and what has been learned about the team. The top order, which seemed uncertain at the end of the winter, at least appears settled for now, only Alistair Cook failing to make a significant impact on the series. The next two in, Bell and Collingwood, were the batsmen most under scrutiny coming into the final Test: their departures within minutes of each other for a pair of ducks only served to underline their shared predicament. Collingwood's situation is simple - he is a good player badly out of form and he has the one-day series to convince the selectors not to dispose of him for the South Africa series. Bell, as ever, is more difficult to rationalise. As an elegant, ethereal player, it is harder to attach the tag of bad form to him than the scrappy, unreconstructed Collingwood. He is the supreme batting technician of the side, with a style which is neither awkward nor ostensibly permeable. Often the main criticism of him has been his inability to construct big innings once past 50; after a series which did not yield that many runs in total, knives are being sharpened both in the press and, potentially, selectorial conclave. England want to back Bell, whose talent and potential is so manifest; there is a good chance that their support will extend to the next series. Whether that is the best thing for the player, as well as the team, is doubtful: it seems unlikely that Bell will suddenly evolve from his current catharsis into the match defining batsman his ability suggests he should be. A period of re-evaluation in county cricket may well be the best thing for him.

As one batting enigma continued to frustrate, England's most inscrutable bowler, James Anderson, took flight. Trent Bridge, with its recently earned reputation as a swing bowler's paradise, was Anderson's chance and he could not have made his mark in more spectacular fashion. It was Hoggard-like swing, but later and at higher speed, a combination which was too much for most of the New Zealand batsmen, as it would have been for nearly all Test batsmen. Yet even in his finest hour, Anderson's weaknesses were on show: Brendon McCullum envisaged clipping Anderson to the square leg boundary, only to find the ball speared in towards his legs curve past the closed face of his bat at the last moment. Another time, the ball would have carried on its path from hand to bat to boundary. It is not Anderson's fault that he is an attacking bowler who has to gamble on incalculable factors to take wickets. It was once the same for Matthew Hoggard: he adapted, added control and cutters to his armoury and was England's lynchpin until injuries caught up. Anderson must now do the same.

England are in a slightly curious position with their seam bowlers at the moment. Ryan Sidebottom is the pack leader, most strongly pencilled in for next year's Ashes rubber. In harness with him are the understudies - Broad and Anderson- while the experienced quartet of 2005 lurk in the shadows. England's success in forging a unit from the two distinct generations will decide their competitiveness both against South Africa this summer and Australia in 2009. Flintoff is the bowler most palpably missed, and the lack of a comparable enforcer has been shown up by the better opposition since he played his last Test in January 2007. He does not really fit into a four man attack, however, which is where his decline as a batsman, and Stuart Broad's emergence, couldbe significant. Broad has, justly, received nothing but praise for his efforts since being drafted in for the misfiring Harmison. As a batsman, in particular, he has surpassed expectations. But his bowling, for all the will in the world, is not yet at the stage where it will worry the better batsmen on flat pitches. England should not allow sentiment and Broad's youth and promise to cloud their judgement if there are better options for the here and now. Simon Jones is one such possibility: Worcestershire and England will rightly tread carefully around a player who has shown himself to be extremely fragile, but if Jones continues the devastating form he has shown so far this season, he is not the sort of player who should be left mouldering in domestic cricket for too long. A mid-series entry against South Africa probably represents the most sensible and realistic prospect for Jones, injury and form permitting.

England can take satisfaction from a conclusive end-result, although they were often anything but convincing during the course of the series. If they are to challenge South Africa, however, they must not dwell on the success and focus on what went wrong and needs to be improved. They have the essentials of a good team, with the bonus of an experienced and capable leader in Michael Vaughan. As they found out both through victory in 2005 and painful defeat 18 months later, the team which prevails is the one which brings momentum. New Zealand have given England a welcome jump start, but unless that is maintained against the South Africans, England are unlikely to match up to Australia when the Ashes rolls around in just over a year's time.

Recovering England stay grounded

The three main protagonists of the final day's play at Old Trafford - Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan and Daniel Vettori - must have had a distinct sense of history repeating itself as England made light work, in the context of their recent and historic batting tendencies, of a target just shy of 300. Each played a part in at least one of the two similar run-chases which England executed to kick of a perfect Test summer and exalted 12 month spell back in 2004. The relative ease with which England knocked off the runs today was encouraging: rarely over the last year have they looked as convincing. But all should be wary of viewing the match as a half not a whole: possibly only West Indies and the always mercurial Pakistan could have emulated the Kiwis in trashing what appeared an unassailable position, 179 ahead on first innings with the already helpful pitch wearing.

Parallels with four years ago extend beyond just the manner and result of the games. Again Andrew Strauss was at the fore, holding together a tottering effort first up before taking hold of the run chase with a century which displayed an evolved and self-assured style. Just as was the case when he made his debut, Strauss appears to have found his level. This was a return of the player England have missed badly since he last played with comfort before the tour of Australia: the man for the made-to-measure innings. Alistair Cook played his part too on the third evening, when an early breakthrough might have sparked New Zealand and opened the way for Vettori. As it was, when he departed the target had already been whittled down from daunting to achievable: by the time Vaughan was dismissed with lunch in sight, it was England's to lose.

The form of the two senior batsmen, who as on this occasion will be integral to England's fortunes over the next year, has been heartening and together with Cook and Pietersen, the anticipated bedrocks of the batting when they have gone, they have melded into what looks a workable top order with the right mixture of experience and scope. Still, England's timorous efforts in the first innings were more indicative of recent fortunes than the assured second dig. Launching pads previously supplied by Marcus Trescothick and occasionally exploited by Andrew Flintoff are no longer attainable; England seem capable of taking control with the bat only via the scenic route, building an edifice brick-by-brick. Against the better sides they will need more than six good batsmen playing within themselves. For that to happen with the current personnel will require something of a chrysalis in Alistair Cook, who has the range of shot to become the sort of dominant partner to Strauss that Trescothick once was, even if the Essex man cannot hope to manage the belligerent dominance of his predecessor. Hopefully that will also allow Kevin Pietersen to emerge from his shell: to beat South Africa, and compete with Australia, they will need the bucaneering Pietersen, not the pontifical and burdened figure of the last six months. Ian Bell must also show progress, frustratingly lacking in the two years since he cemented his place, while Paul Collingwood, suffering from a sore shoulder and wounded pride, is most at threat, not a state of affairs he is unaccstomed to. For good or ill, the top six have again earned themselves another chance: Trent Bridge could yet be decisive, though.

Just as with the batting, the bowling is worthy but overly accomodating to the opposition. Ryan Sidebottom has continued to lead the line, even if his bowling radar has shifted rather too far to the off-side, while his opening partner James Anderson seem still caught in the vicious spin-cycle that has epitomised his Test career to date. A virtuoso performance at Nottingham, condusive to swing bowling in recent years, is a reasonable expectation: with Anderson however, that means very little in the context of the rest of the summer. Stuart Broad could do with some success on his adopted home patch as well: the strong winds and abrasive pitch made this game something of a non-starter for him and while no-one doubts his talent, he need to back it up with hard currency, something he has conclusively managed with the bat, a small piece of the jigsaw which the selectors will be loath to dislodge for now. Reliant again on Monty Panesar, who came good dramatically after a misfiring first innings effort, chalking up his 100th Test wicket with impressive haste, England lack a certitude in their seam bowling which is set to be exposed by an experienced and muscular South African batting unit later in the summer. The intimidation factor currently does not stretch much beyond Ryan Sidebottom's animalistic hair and growl, something England are reliant on unreliable bodies to remedy. Andrew Flintoff is one obvious solution; an apparently revitalised Simon Jones another. But for even one of them to appear in England's iridescent new Test kit would require an act of almost divine benevolence in which few can have much faith.

England would have hoped to arrive at Trent Bridge with two convincing wins in the bank. Instead an even series has both highlighted their deficiencies and displayed their resolve. Such a crushing blow ought to be terminal for New Zealand, although time to lick the wounds and the helpful conditions at Nottingham, second home to two of their finest ever all-rounders, mean they are in with a chance. But whichever way you spin it - and Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores will do so in a credulously positive way - England's victory at Old Trafford was a salvage job from the jaws of defeat which locked open in agonising fashion for the visitors. Potentially it is an important turning point for a team still struggling for identity a year into Peter Moores' reign. The best they can hope for now is a convincing victory to seal the deal and the hopeful return of bowling giants whose absence casts a shadow from which the team as a whole has yet to emerge.

An unwanted repeat

Once, a series promising a duel between arguably the two most astute captains in international cricket; the world's newest, flashiest six-hitter; and two potentially top-class young bowling all-rounders, would have aroused a good deal of interest. In India, at least, the only acknowledgement of the forthcoming Test series between England and New Zealand is likely to come through people questioning what trifle has made Brendon McCullum unable to continue donning his plastic gold helmet and blast sixes like they're going out of fashion, which they soon will, if the old maxim concerning too much of a good thing holds true.

In fairness, encounters between New Zealand and England are rarely thrilling in expectation or reality. For England, there is little to be gained save avoidance of the leg rather obviously stretched out before them; while New Zealand's enjoyment of an upset would be rather more if the opposition were their near neighbours rather than one-time rulers. For fans there is the slightly pulse-deadening prospect of a re-run of a series they have just seen, with the classiest opposition batsman no longer around to entertain.

A year into the Peter Moores era, there is a slight feeling of deja-vu all-round. England's first engagement of the summer is one they are expected to win with room to spare, while the more significant test awaits them in high summer. The position of Andrew Flintoff is again dominating debate; while Michael Vaughan, having emerged from under the clouds of career-threatening injury, has stumbled headlong into the brick wall of bad form, a poor second leg of the winter compounded by his failure to register a significant score for Yorkshire in the first month of the county season. England are not quite in the disarray of a year ago, punch-drunk from a winter of ruthless beatings, but do not seem significantly better for the 12 months of recuperation, which have included their first loss in a home Test series for six years and the continuance of a dismal away record since 2005, only slightly alleviated by the spring surge which saw them come from behind to eclipse New Zealand in March.

The first-choice top-order from last year's West Indies series remains, with an ongoing game of musical chairs set to return affairs to the status quo of 2007, the captain reverting to his preferred position at one down. Dire predictions based on Vaughan's county form should be viewed with the habitual dichotomy between his performances for England and Yorkshire in mind. If no-one else does, he will back himself to score heavily against the New Zealand attack, while the desire to retain his position until next summer and have a tilt at becoming a double Ashes-winning captain, cementing his legacy as successor to Brearley in the record-books as well as the mind's eye, will be fierce. Nevertheless, the humours of England's top three do not quite balance, and unless things come good in unexpected fashion, something more drastic than the ordering of the same three players will have to change. Andrew Strauss, whose long run of poor returns still balances the scale against him, despite the ever-increasing recent credit column, is most in danger, while it would not be a bad time for Alistair Cook to show clarity of judgement outside off-stump and put together the scores with have, unusually, failed to materialise for Essex. Flintoff or no, the middle-order batting will remain as was, with no immediate threat to Pietersen, Bell or Collingwood, save the fact that the queue for batting places is longer and louder than for a while

When the fifth wicket in England's first innings of the summer falls and a white-clad batsman emerges from the Lord's pavilion, a lot will become clear on England's selection policy for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the trot of the diminutive Tim Ambrose or the giant stride of Andrew Flintoff will not be difficult to discern from the stands. Which decision the selectors will make, indeed which they should, is far less clear-cut. What is for certain is that there is no immediate prospect of Flintoff returning as a genuine all-rounder batting at 6, as he did in his golden period of 2003-5. The debate then shifts to his viability in a four-man attack, now apparently the balance favoured by coach and captain. As one of England's top fast bowlers, he would qualify for the seam-bowling triumvirate. Yet the question of his fitness to act as third seamer without significant back-up - as he never has for England before - both in terms of his troublesome ankle and wicket-taking ability will be questioned in light of the onerous workload he will face. Questions England need not seek the answers for at this stage of the summer, with Flintoff's bowling unlikely to be needed to overcome New Zealand and his return to first-class cricket still in its nascent stages. Better they wait until the one-day series, which should be more competitive, giving Flintoff the chance to put together the long series of games he has not since ankle problems subjugated his career in 2006, which have allowed him to take part in just two home Tests since he stood tall in the summer of 2005. That way his fitness can be realistically assessed, and his batting given a chance to regenerate, a prospect which his inclusion in the lower-order of the Test team would damage.

The return of Flintoff would strengthen England's lower order, although it would mean the selectors do not get to assess the batting of Stuart Broad in the key position of number 8 he will surely one day have to fill. Broad, along with new Nottinghamshire team-mate Ryan Sidebottom, is the only seamer guaranteed his place after he made the step up from one day cricket and played an important role in England's resurgence in the second half of the last series. His progress alongside that of similar New Zealand prospect Tim Southee will be one of the main points of interest and the series should give him the bit of extra experience at the top level he will need before facing the strong South African batting unit in July. Sidebottom, after his heroics in Sri Lanka and better rewarded exploits in New Zealand, is now England's first-choice seamer, a year after his return to Test level was greeted in many quarters as a temporary measure. And as Sidebottom has benefited from the transience of England's bowling attack, its lynchpin of recent years, Matthew Hoggard, has fallen foul of it. A victim of repeated injury since the Ashes two winters ago and the circumstances of England's predicament in New Zealand, Hoggard found himself on the sidelines when available to play for the first time in over four years. His replacement, James Anderson, has always been a polar opposite: flashy, expensive, unreliable. Hoggard made his point to the selectors with a nine-wicket haul for Yorkshire in their first championship game of the season, while Anderson has emulated him with Lancashire and may just have done enough to hold onto his place. Certainly Hoggard's inclusion for the England Lions seemed to suggest that the selectors were still asking for more from him, which he did not provide in the first innings.

New Zealand, their top-order batting the dictionary definition of inexperience, could very easily struggle to make significant runs in early season conditions, with all the English bowlers either on form or with a point to prove. Nevertheless, there is talent in the form of Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum, while all of the putative top three - How, Redmond, Marshall - have made runs either against England previously or on the tour so far. The middle and lower order will be a significant obstacle as ever, the triumvirate of McCullum, Oram and Vettori all ready to blunt and blast tired bowlers. The seam attack is a contrast, all senior men, led impressively by the underrated pair of Martin and Mills, both of whom troubled England back on home soil. England, although they saved face in the last series, are still a long way short of where they want to be and can little afford to slip up against an opposition who have all the excuses and none of the expectation. Anything less than a series victory and the coach and captain axis of Moores and Vaughan will face the prospect of packing their bags and not to jet off in celebration of their first anniversary.

Pale England make their mark

England's just concluded series in New Zealand was about as close to a thankless task as there comes in terms of away Test rubbers. They could have won all three games at a canter and still earned only judged acclaim. That they were forced to come from one down after a baleful effort in the opening match made the overall victory a notable achievement, but the same caveats remain: New Zealand shorn of some of their best players by retirements of one sort and another; the differing amounts of Test cricket played by the two nations; the comfortable conditions, as much a home from home as exists for England abroad. But England have learned the hard way that they are no longer in a position to turn their noses up at any Test series win, let alone one away from home, a trick which had until now gone unrepeated since before the 2005 Ashes.

It is the inevitable nature of the three Test series, fast becoming the standard, that slow starters set themselves up to be losers. And after England's capitulation at Hamilton there were plenty of hawks circling, ready to issue the Do Not Resuscitate notice. Michael Vaughan responded, with a display of the good sense of timing which has long served him well. He staked his reputation on a decision to drop not only the malfunctioning Steve Harmison, but his old partner in crime, Matthew Hoggard. Half-right, boomed the majority, a pronouncement which indirectly proved correct. And against a a home side which failed to recapture the focused excellence of their first Test performance, half-right was enough for England. The expected replacement, Stuart Broad, was magnificent: well-expressed concerns that he might not be physically ready for Test cricket were proved to be foundless as he battled through mammoth spells, maintaining control of the ball and himself, while not compromising the aggression which typifies both his bowling and attitude towards batsmen. Two contrasting contributions with the bat in the 3rd Test confirmed his reputaion as a capable lower-order player, and he has earned himself a full time role with England this summer and the chance to book his place for the Ashes in the next. James Anderson, on the other hand, did nothing to advance opinion of him, producing one devastating and three middling to seriously indifferent performances. England might persist with Anderson, to see if the cycle can be broken by an extended run; should Matthew Hoggard take a stack of wickets for Yorkshire in early season however, pragmatism might well supersede the long-term vision.

Victory in the third Test, from 4-3 on the first morning, salvaged not only England's tour and to an extent their winter, but several reputations. Andrew Strauss was teetering most dangerously over the precipice: England went over a lot of heads to bring Strauss back after he missed out on the tour of Sri Lanka. They backed a trusted man heavily and were kept waiting for recompense for the best part of three Test matches, as he alternately got himself out dabbling outside off-stump and retreated entirely into his shell. The descent of his batting average into the 30s after the second Test seemed to signfiy the end as much as his self-inflicted demise with England lurching on the first morning at Napier, where two years before England would have looked first to Strauss to play the made-to-measure innings. In view of that, his innings of 177 was exceptional: the pitch may have been placid, the bowlers tired, but nothing can have been remotely simple for Strauss with his career on the line. Hopefully, having earned a stay of execution, Strauss can now move back towards the composed excellence of his early career, and, with a modified technique which relies less on the square of the wicket options and includes greater proficiency on the drive, he will be better served to succeed in the long term should he consolidate his position with the runs he still needs.

Joining him in the second innings runletting was Ian Bell, who was under no such absoulte pressure, but against whom a whispering campagin had started to develop. . Part of the gripe against Bell was the fact that he appeared to be in excellent touch but was not making the most of it. Arguably the most stylish English batsman since David Gower, he suffers the same problems of perception, his laid-back demeanour interpreted as the sign of an unconcerned mind. Important as it was in an immediate sense, his second innings hundred tells us nothing; we know Bell can score Test centuries, but until he constructs a few more innings when the runs are needed most, he will be accused of making hay only when the sun is shining. Those rays have not dazzled on Kevin Pietersen this winter as much as he and supporters are accustomed to; his century, however, did come when the going was toughest, proving he is still England's stand out performer with the bat and hopefully something which will give him the confidence to revert to the natural attacking game he increasingly shied away from as the runs dried up.

The last throes of England's winter also suited Monty Panesar, another to suffer a difficult winter. Without having done a lot wrong, he still looked increasingly like drifting into ineffectiveness, but, as is his wont, produced the goods just as the doubts were gathering in the foothills. Bowling the team to victory in the fourth innings and collecting best Test figures is all that can be asked of a spinner, even if gnarled old finger spinners would have him vary his pace more. A change in pace is exactly what Ryan Sidebottom's career has experienced over the last ten months. It is well remembered that his place was by no means copper-bottomed certainty at the beginning of the tour: successful against the flaccid West Indian batsmen, he was worthy against India and Sri Lanka, not to mention unlucky, but finished with unflattering figures. Here he at last received due reward for his efforts, having added a yard of pace and greater nous on the angle of attack to the well honed attributes of accuracy and swing long developed in county cricket. When he returned from exile to rout West Indies, concerns were expressed that he would not be able to sustain a long career at Test level and that there would not be room for him and Hoggard in the same team. The last point has been, to an extent, proved; not many would have opined Sidebottom would be the last Yorkshireman standing, however. It goes to show how quickly and decidedly perceptions and circumstances can change, something which could work for or against England as they seek to lay the platform from which they can challenge Australia in just over a year's time.

The inertia of loss

Various series and epochal moments could be identified as turning points in England's transition from perennial failures to victors over the world's best team in 2005. You could look back to the success early in Duncan Fletcher's tenure on the subcontinent in 2000-1; the spring series in 2004 where England's bowling attack merged into a cohesive, incisive unit at the spiritual home of fast bowling; the subsequent summer where they swept the board in all seven Tests. All crucial moments: building blocks of a confident, winning team. Nevertheless, it was arguably the series which followed the all-conquering summer of 2004 that crystallised England's ambition and worldbeating potential. For all the success in the year 2004, they had not been challenged by the best, even the better teams: South Africa, on the home soil where only Australia had beaten them since their readmision in 1991, was an acid test if ever there was.

Having easily won the first Test, England looked to have ceded their advantage on the first day at Durban. Blasted out by Pollock and Ntini for 139, they began their second innings almost 200 behind. What followed showed all that was good about England then, and what they lack now. To put it simply, when Pollock picked up the opening wicket, a customary caught behind, the score was 273. Marcus Trescothick was the victim, his demise brining about a similar fate for his opening partner Andrew Strauss soon after, as so often happens after a big partnership is broken. From a surefire winning position, South Africa were left hanging from the precipice, two wickets from going down as the clouds closed over to save them on the last evening. Despite losing the next Test, England produced another amazing recovery at Johannesburg to snatch the series 2-1. Again Trescothick was to the fore, blasting a second innings 180 to set up Matthew Hoggard's procession. Good as the Somerset man was that series, he was eclipsed by his partner, who amassed 656 runs @ 72 to neutralise Jaques Kallis' colossal contribution and bat South Africa, country of his birth, into the ground.

Trescothick and Strauss were the ultimate manifestation of England's success, which correlated almost exactly with the lifespan of their own partnership. It came together by accident in 2004, when Michael Vaughan's knee collapsed on him not for the first or last time. When Vaughan returned for the second Test against New Zealand, he had lost a batsman of 96 Tests experience, Nasser Hussain, and his own place in the batting order. All for a diminuitive left-hander, not much known outside the county circuit he had quietly been dominating with Middlesex. Just as Trescothick had four years previously, Strauss slipped in unobtrusively; success came fast and with it a sense of belonging. While Trescothick blasted opening bowlers down the ground, Strauss hung on the back foot to punish them through backward square. It was a simple, but seemingly fireproof technique. In time its simplicity, and consequent lack of adaptability, has been his downfall. After returning from South Africa England's leading series run scorers, both enjoyed fine Ashes series: Trescothick's total of 431 runs was eclipsed only by Kevin Pietersen, Strauss compensating for his failure to reach three figures with two centuries. They seemed set to dominate the world stage for years to come, as did England.

Eighteen months on from the last time they opened in a Test match, with Trescothick having officially drawn a line under his England career and Strauss seemingly slipping from the team for a second time, the thought of such a fine, recent opening partnership only serves to highlight England's current shortcomings. An England batting unit led by Trescothick and Strauss was a genuine force to be reckoned with; they invariably gave good starts, giving a sense of condifence and ease which permeated the whole team. England's current opening pair, Cook and Vaughan, are both fine players, but their parterships this series have been either non-existent or ponderous. In a sense, England have never recovered from losing Trescothick: not only have they missed his runs and safe hands at slip, but his departure has had a domino effect on the rest of the team, not least Strauss, who has scored just one century when not partnered by him, and none since they last batted together in summer 2006. England's batsmen now seem caught between preservation and the need to attack, even Kevin Pietersen severely affected, without a century all winter until he rescued England in the ongoing Test. Without the example of a natural dominator like Trescothick, to set the tone from the off, they look rudderless. Only Michael Vaughan, who continues to get out inexplicably, and Pietersen are batting leaders; the case of Strauss has shown what happens when a follower attempts to take charge.

A shake-up in England's batting is necessary and should come in the return series with New Zealand in May. Strauss, second innings exploits at Napier notwithstanding, surely cannot continue to justify a place, especially out of position at 3. Ian Bell is also treading a fine line, and a ruthless selector would send him back to Wawrickshire to focus his mind. The hopeful return of Andrew Flintoff nominally weakens the batting, although the safety net of a sixth specialist batsman can be dehabilitating , and has certainly not done England too many favours recently. From the corrosive situation of every innings being an act of self-preservation, which was sometimes the case in the 1990s, England have swung too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. Bar the odd incursion on the part of Shah or Bopara, it has been the same six names for over two years now almost exclusively filling the specialist batting positions. England line up looks too much like a closed shop and for none of the right reasons. The batting is stolid, the outlook stale; sadly there will be no return of Trescothick to blow the cobwebs away.

Frightened England forget themselves

The pitch at Hamilton's Seddon Park may have been a lifeless beast, but to England's taildiving batsmen on the last day it must have appeared a mirror. Dead, blind to seam and spin, producing a performance not favouring England. Stephen Fleming referred to the "porridge" on the pitch; stuff England must feel like they are currently wading through, with a fair sprinkling of cement powder to boot. The final innings scenario, a target of 300 in just over 80 overs which emerged miraculously from a stodgy first three days, presented England with the chance to make a statement of positive intention. After all, no-one remembers that England's 3-0 victory against the same opposition back in 2004 came by means of two tricky 280+ run-chases; they just remember that England won every Test that summer. But if England had imagined a tense afternoon duel with New Zealand's pair of finger spinners their aspirations proved to be delusions of grandeur. By the twelfth over, when Keven Pietersen raised the drawbridge to Kyle Mills, the game was up, the facade wiped clean away.

England never had as good a batsman as Pietersen in the period before the 2005 Ashes; all of England's current top 6 can boast averages in excess of 40, which only half of the old brigade could. But that team had something infinitely more precious: the knowledge of how and when a Test match is won, the self-belief to turn the game their way at those key junctures and ultimately the luck and good fortune which invariably falls the way of a team which is winning and knows they will again. That sort of ethic and confidence allowed them to stay competitive, and win games from behind such as Johannesburg in early 2005, where Marcus Trescothick battered South Africa and Matthew Hoggard rolled them all within one day to win a game and seal a series from nowhere.

There were strange echoes in England's performance of past epochs - Matthew's Hoggard's stupendous boundary catch to put the skids under New Zealand's second innings brought back memories of a similar effort by Darren Gough at Lord's in 2000 which began West Indies' slide to 54 all out. England's slow crawl with the bat, roundly criticised, started to look a bit like the Atherton-led effort at Karachi in the winter of 2000-1, increasingly as England knocked over New Zealand to give themselves what looked a fighting chance. West Indies and Pakistan in 2000: two early series victories now regarded as important stages in the road which culminated in the Ashes being regained in 2005. There was a sense of this England team striving for their own definitive moment, the moment they stop being a shadow of 2005 England and start being their own team. Yet when an opportunity stared them in the face they wilted; clearly this is a team not ready to emerge from the shadows. And when the opposition are New Zealand, who play so little Test cricket and are a nascent outfit themselves, that is a dolorous state of affairs indeed.

New Zealand, to give them their due, fully deserved what should be a series defining victory. As ever with the bat, their bottom half proved more resilient than the top: England shaded the opening day, but from 6 wickets down 200 more runs were added, which says plenty about both teams. And while England's go-slow was in part of their own volition, the run rate would not have scraped along at 2-per-over had New Zealand not tied them down with tight lines and sharp ground-fielding. Stephen Fleming was the only batsman to achieve anything on note in the second innings of either team, his 66 filled with the beautifully timed pushes, racing to the boundary with little apparent effort, that his team and Test cricket will miss when he retires at the end of the series. To bowl a team out for 110 in 55 overs was some achievement as well, and Kyle Mills earned each of his opening four wickets, a burst which consigned England to defeat.

If any positives are to be gleaned from England's performance they are the catching, excellent after woeful efforts in Sri Lanka, and the 10-wicket haul of Ryan Sidebottom, benefiting from the improved fielding where before he had been denied. Rightly, even England have been too shame-faced to allude to them. But as Sidebottom scythed through New Zealand second time around, the shadow cast by the conspicuously and consistently absent Steve Harmison loomed large. The days where he was trusted to waste the new ball are long gone, while Michael Vaughan's decision to call on Paul Collingwood before Harmison was probably the signal that he has finally exhausted the supply of goodwill which has alone sustained his position for over a year now. Even if his bowling in Sri Lanka showed signs of a resurgence it was a wasted effort; as ever with Harmison the residual benefit was nil. His speed was down, his threat negligible, even taking into account the pitch. If there is any chance of salvaging his international career it will come by England stepping away from Harmison and forcing him to present his case like any other bowler. The current state of affairs is helping neither the bowler nor the team and although Stuart Broad is possibly a season away from being truly ready for Test cricket, England will get more from him than Harmison is currently able to provide.

With the series another of the ludicrous affairs consisting of three Tests back-to-back, England do not have time to consolidate or ponder their position at length. For the third successive series they go behind with only limited opportunity to recover and this is by far the most humiliating situation, in a series they were expected to walk. From here it goes one of two ways, either jolting them into action and a new level of performance or merely facilitating a continual demise. New Zealand, needless to say, will be up for the latter, and are bound to come hard at England with the confidence that such an emphatic win gives them. England need to find a way of brooking the tide; at the moment they seem to be hanging back, waiting for one to commit himself and set the tone. One batsman needs to be bold and take the fight to New Zealand, who are efficient and committed with the ball, but not special. That indicates Vaughan and Pietersen, England's most dominating batsmen. If one of them goes big, it should inspire confidence throughout the team. Currently, England seem to be so afraid of losing games that they have forgotten it requires confidence to win them. And until they realise that a team with defeat foremost in its mind can never succeed, the current trend will continue unabated.

Discomfited England must tread carefully

Records that defined the Duncan Fletcher era have continued to tumble in the ten months since he concluded his eight year tenure as England coach. For the first time in six years, a Test series was lost at home, which, as it did then but never again under Fletcher, brought about consecutive series defeats. New Zealand was Fletcher's next port of call after an honourable 1-0 reverse in India with a weakened squad had followed the habitual Ashes thrashing in the summer of 2001. And with Peter Moores' side having failed to win a single Test over two three-match series with India and Sri Lanka, cricket's cyclical calendar has provided him with the self-same means of stopping the rot. England shared the spoils back in 2002, a scoreline which will not be much help to captain and coach in repeated in the forthcoming series.

The task Moores has been struggling with over the best part of a year in charge is a different one from that which Fletcher successfully negotiated in the first half of his spell. The problem is less a deep legacy of mismanagement and poor results, more the shadow of tangible recent success: people find it hard to comprehend how the current team, with many of the constituent parts of what was not so long ago a brilliantly successful Test team, has none of the collective power which defined that unit. Perhaps Moores' inheritance was a more significantly tainted one than acknowledged at the time: he took over a team on the slide, engaged in an 18 month decline from its highest peak. Such a trend has been long in the acceptance, with the recent results that crytallised the reality ensuring much of the fall-out has affected Moores.

In fairness, England were unfortunate in the extreme to be denied a victory in the Lord's Test against India last July. Since then, however, they have not looked like winning a match, particularly worrying the manner in which they have often slipped so quickly from contention. Many factors have contributed, but there is a bottom line and it points to the twenty opposition wickets England have been failing to take. Bowling and the beefy five-man attack formed the main plank on which Michael Vaughan and Fletcher built the successful team of 2004-5. Not one of those five remain the same force as before, even if the old opening pair will line up for the first Test at Hamilton on Wednesday. Hoggard has been unlucky with injuries over the last 12 months and could yet return to his peak; the much greater worry is Harmison. Before every Test series the story with England's fastest bowler is the same. Whether he has been playing cricket for his county, adopted South African franchsie or none at all, he turns up for practice games and bowls with neither the control or penetration required for top-level cricket. The England management rally and insist that, with some overs "in his legs", he will recover his increasingly elusive cutting edge. But Harmison is increasingly proving himself the bowling equivalent of the National Health Service, a bottomless pit into which resources, care and attention are poured lovingly but to no end. England are going so far to accomodate and carry him that it appears he has lost the ability to make a step of his own and it is possible that only a complete severance from the current amniotic catharsis will have the desired effect. Another insipid series here might well persuade the selectors that they have no option.

Andrew Strauss has been the other contentious member of the squad; for many, nothing had changed since he was justifiably dumped at the end of last year. But Strauss is clearly someone whom England are desperate to have back in the side and his is a selection made with the next three years or so in mind. England have seen the way that the loss of cornerstone presences - Trescothick, Giles, Vaughan, Flintoff - has affected the team post-2005 and evidently they feel that Strauss was one they could not simply let slip away. It is harsh on Owais Shah, perpetually supplanted as first reserve, but if Strauss makes a successful return and is scoring runs against South Africa next summer, England's selectors will be heralded for a piece of pragmatic, long term thinking. Now headed by David Graveney's ex-lieutenant Geoff Miller, who favoured Strauss for the captaincy in Australia, the selectors probably at heart see him as Michael Vaughan's natural successor too.

Every new series for England seems to bring with it the need to consolidate, find a position from where they can begin to track progress. Eventually that becomes rock bottom, which arguably was Duncan Fletcher's starting point. New Zealand, although shown by results to be a poor Test side, will nevertheless present a threat to England, with the one-day series ample evidence that success is not to be taken for granted, even if New Zealand tend only to be a real danger when in the all-black kit of their fabled rugby team. Nevertheless, they are more than capable of wielding the knife if England continue to show the disorientation and lack of killer insticnt which has typified their recent Test performances. England need the desire and determination which can only come with realisation of their current standing; no longer can they maintain the pretence that they are suffering from a particularly nasty migraine. New Zealand stand ready to exploit weaknesses if displayed: the ambush is an easy one for England to fall prey to and the trapdoor gapes wide open.

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.