England's victory over New Zealand at Old Trafford might statistically have been one of the great Test wins but the result should not be allowed to mask a very shaky performance.
There is no denying that turning a Test match around from the perilous state England were in after the first innings (179 runs adrift) takes skill and a whole heap of character. But New Zealand threw the game away as much as England won it.
Let us not forget that this is a very moderate New Zealand side, missing their most experienced batsman (Stephen Fleming who retired in March) and their best fast bowler (Shane Bond who is banned for playing in the rebel Indian Cricket League).
And for Michael Vaughan, statistically England's most successful captain, to hail the result as one of his best ever wins is to miss the point.
England have now won three Tests out of four against New Zealand and they have fielded the same XI in all those four matches, a level of selectorial consistency not seen since the first four Tests of the 2005 Ashes.
So, in theory, everything bodes well, doesn't it? A youngish side, under Vaughan's astute direction, learning and developing nicely towards a full-throttled Ashes campaign in 2009 - sounds good, doesn't it?
But the reality is somewhat different. The second-innings turnaround by Andrew Strauss, in particular, hides a worrying failure of batsmanship that is undermining England's ability to set the tone, to shape the game to their liking and force home an advantage.
In the first innings England batsmen looked collectively as though they playing for their place which, in some cases, they were. They defended themselves into a standstill, allowing New Zealand to build increasing amounts of pressure that eventually forced a stunning collapse.
How that contrasted to the positive way in which England batted on the fourth day to pursue a daunting target of 297.
Nasser Hussain, the former England captain, made the point in his TV commentary that when England have a target in front them and they know what they have to do they can be positive and decisive.
But when it is down to them to shape the innings, to dictate terms they are not able to do it. We saw it in Sri Lanka before Christmas and we saw it in New Zealand as well in the second half of the winter.
The problem is not that England have poor batsmen, it's just that their line-up lacks balance and variety. With each passing match, the self-imposed exile of Marcus Trescothick matters more and more.
Trescothick is a domineering batsman, at times brutal. His partnership with Strauss was a perfect marriage. Trescothick bludgeoned while Strauss carried on at his own pace.
Strauss has admitted that his poor form last year was in part down to the pressure he felt to score quickly. His opening partner Alastair Cook, excellent player though he is, is not a natural dasher like Trescothick.
Kevin Pietersen is England's only natural dominator at the moment and one senses that the burden to be the pivotal figure in every innings is starting to tell. Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood, at five and six in the order, are accumulators rather than dashers.
It is pointless to get batsmen to play unnaturally but England have a problem with their batting that is not obviously going to go away. Collingwood has been struggling for form and fitness - he has a shoulder injury that will need serious attention sooner rather than later.
Maybe now, on the back of a win, is the time to re-introduce the talented and mustard-keen Ravi Bopara, of Essex, to the Test-match fold after his brief, ill-fated spell in Sri Lanka.
What do you think? Post your comments below. READ MORE Football headlinesMore BladesMore OwlsMore SpireitesMore RoversMore RedsMore MillersMore Ice HockeyMore rugby leagueMore rugby unionMore boxingSports columnistsAll sport categoriesThe full article contains 679 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
