County game basks in calm before the storm

Cricket may be entering an uncertain phase at the moment, with the Indian leagues and money threatening the stucture of the game as we now know it, but the portents of the English summer remain as reassuring and unmistakeable as ever. And whatever becomes of cricket in the next decade, which could be defining, one senses that nothing will ever change in the comforting sequence of the calendar flicking over to April, the clocks going forward, the new Wisden rolling off the press and the English county season beginning in the confounding mixture of brilliant sun and incessant showers that spring in the sceptred isle tends to provide.

For all that one county, Sussex, has taken the spoils three years out of the last five, the Championship remains anything but predictable. Nottinghamshire, 2005 winners, suffered relegation in 2006; Durham, who escaped the same fate that year by half a point, were Sussex's closest challengers last season. Yorkshire, miserable for much of 2006, title challengers in 07, both times finished 6th. The beauty of the competition was crystallised in its conclusion last year: Sussex won at a canter to set a clubhouse lead, only to see Lancashire make a serious attempt at the 489 they needed to steal the prize. VVS Laxman led the charge at The Oval, ever the ground of late summer, with a run-a-ball century, but Lancahsire fell agonisingly short, Dominic Cork the last man down. Another title for Sussex; another year of failure for Lanchasire; another year of glorious success for Mark Ramprakash, who plundered twin centuries in the same game to mark up a second consecutive 2000-run season.

Sussex, providing Mushtaq is permitted to play, will be contenders again, even if age and departures may stretch their well-used resources too thin. With the retirement of Richard Montgomerie, the weakness of their opening partnership is exacerbated, while Mihcael Yardy will have to take some of the strain from the ageing duo of Goodwin and Adams if they are to score enough runs for Mushtaq to play with, although the return of Matt Prior from England duty should help. Lancashire ought to compete again, with runs aplenty expected from Law, Hodge and Loye. If England are prudent, they will also have the services of Andrew Flintoff for a longer period than injury or Duncan Fletcher have allowed for much of this decade.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the other teams make their prospects diffucult to predict. Nottinghamshire could struggle with Ryan Sidebottom and new signing Stuart Broad now in England's clutches, while Hampshire, who have tended to be strong in recent years, are without their top three wicket-takers from 2007 and much will rest on the rarely reliable shoulders of Shane Bond, whom injury has never yet permitted to fulfil a county contract.

The chancesof the top-flight teams broadly in the title mix can be plausibly talked up or down: Surrey and Somerset have the batting strength, with former internationals Langer, Trescothick, Ramprakash and Butcher likely to provide runs in bulk. Their fortunes will depend much on the bowling, which has let down Surrey, in particular, in the recent past. They have, however, recruited shrewdly, bringing in Pedro Collins and Saqlain Mushtaq to bolster an attack which has yet to recover from the loss of Martin Bicknell. As it has been for the past few seasons, the unenviable Taunton bowling duties will fall largely on the shoulders of Andrew Caddick and Charl Willoughbly. Indefatigable as Caddick, in his 40th year, remains, the support for the new ball duo looks too thin to sustain any serious title challenge, with the influence of the likes of Peter Trego and Steffan Jones likely to be dimished by the superior Division 1 batsmen.

Durham have lost Ottis Gibson, one of the stars of 2007, but should have Steve Harmison for the whole season to lead an attack which still reads like a tall English seamers production line, Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions featuring. They should hoover up wickets, while a hardy corps of international batmsen, led by Michael Di Venuto and Dale Benkenstein, with Neil McKenzie and Shivnarine Chanderpaul to feature alternately, means they should be near the top again. Yorkshire's team is built on similar foundations, with the common theme of an England bowler returning not necessarily just for April, although Hoggard's chance of a quick recall to the international fold is significantly greater than that of his old new ball partner. If Darren Gough's legs can carry him through another season, and Rana Naved comes through contractual and injury complications, the seam attack should be formidable, while Adil Rashid, who has survived the hype from his first flowering and circumnavigated the difficult second season, will have a telling influence either way. Yorkshire might be inspired in patches, as was the case last season, but a flimsy-looking middle order and general lack of batting class, Rudolph and McGrath excepted, makes a concerted title challenge unlikely. The same is probably true of Kent, who lack the sprinkling of star quality usually needed to pick up silverware, but whose strong all-round contingent and experience should make them a tricky proposition and as unlikely to descend from comfortable mid-table as they are to rise from it.

The picture is slightly clearer, although by no means defined, in the second division which, eight years on, is increasingly cast afloat from the top flight. Unusually, neither of the two teams relegated last season appear nailed on for an immediate return. Worcestershire have a reasonable chance if their younger batsmen can support the veteran brigade of Hick, Smith and Solanki, while the fitness of seamers Matt Mason and Simon Jones will be crucial. Wawrickshire, who sunk without trace in the second half of last season, have much convincing to do, and look short on class in both batting and bowling, a situation not helped by the loss of Tim Ambrose to England. Middlesex, their middle order a class above, the seam bowling a healthy mix of youth and experience in Steven Finn, Chris Silverwood and Alan Richardson, look favourites for promotion. Essex could join them and Jason Gallian looks a cute acquisition, to help guide the talented but inexperienced duo of Chopra and Pettini which went astray last season.

Glamorgan and Leicestershire might well scrap to avoid the wooden spoon, both lacking enough high class players to damage the better teams. Derbyshire are a slight wild card, their management having thrown a lot of money at some big names, with Mahela Jayawardene, Chris Rogers and Rikki Clarke all to feature. Two more Kolpak signings are also reportedly in the pipeline and, if not a good bet to challenge for promotion this season, they could be laying the foundation for the years to come. Gloucestershire, struggling in the Championship and a shadow of the supreme one-day unit of a few years ago, will require significant contributions from captain Jon Lewis and overseas duo Marcus North and Hamish Marshall to compete.

In addition to the usual array of high-class overseas players, the season also provides an intriuging glimpse of England past and future. Mark Ramprakash will be looking for a third stellar season in a row, and Graeme Hick, who will turn 42 during the campaign, remains omnipresent. While Marcus Trescothick's international retirement is grievous for England, it is a boon for Somerset and the county game, both of which should benefit from his runs and high-profile. Potential England opening batsmen and bowlers are also in plentiful supply, Joe Denly and Billy Godleman looking to add themselves to a congested queue for batting places, with their more experienced colleagues Rob Key and Owais Shah not out of contention either. On the bowling front, Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions should aim to advance from promising to consistent performing, with the younger James Harris and Steven Finn also on the march. Ultimately, with a souped-up Twenty20 competition in the pipeline to respond to the IPL and radical ideas being tabled, it is a season which should be enjoyed and savoured. It may never be the same again.

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.

England black out in game of Russian Roulette

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

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

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

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

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