Photos: England v NZ, third testKEY POINTS:
"We're A young team; we're learning."
It's a mantra that has been adopted as fact by New Zealand, this time parroted by Jamie How. But, after a train-wreck of a day two at Trent Bridge, it needs closer analysis.
As for the "learning" bit, well that's tenuous at
best, given how many times this team has collapsed in recent years. If there is an education to be had from this, it remains at the remedial stage.
Unfortunately the "young" claim is questionable too. Two players only, Ross Taylor, 24, and Daniel Flynn, 23, are younger than 25. Chris Martin is 33; Iain O'Brien and Gareth Hopkins are 31; Daniel Vettori, Jacob Oram and Kyle Mills are 29; Aaron Redmond is 28; Jamie How is 27 and Brendon McCullum a year younger. That might be young if you're turning up for dinner and dance at your local RSA, but it's not young for an international sports team.
It is certainly inexperienced, as was all-too-clearly evident here at Nottingham, but that is nobody's fault except the New Zealand selectors, whose policies directly contributed to a mass emigration of experience from the changing room over the past two years.
It left them selecting a team for what should be the marquee tour of a player's lifetime that rather embarrassingly has "development" written all over it.
Even in the event of an anticipated New Zealand fightback overnight, the likelihood is the best they can do is force a draw, giving England home-and-away series victories, despite New Zealand outplaying them all those weeks ago in Hamilton.
"It was testing conditions and Jimmy [Anderson] bowled well," said How after their second top-order collapse in as many test innings, "but we should have played better.
"A few guys are disappointed with their dismissals, myself included. There's plenty of work to do.
"Losing wickets in clumps doesn't help. When Jimmy gets his tail up and the ball is swinging around in the gloomy light... it wasn't easy out there."
How is right: New Zealand were hard done by being on the end of a rare Dukes' ball that actually swung, and to have to face that in gloomy light after the first day had been bathed in sunshine was a double whammy they didn't need.
That would have provided a test for a proven test line-up, let alone arguably the weakest New Zealand top six since the 1960s. They batted like you'd expect a unit that, outside Taylor, does not have a single test century against opposition other than Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.
Redmond's difficult transition to test cricket continued, with Anderson knocking his off-pole out of the ground as the opener looked to play too square. McCullum, batting at No 3 after failing twice at No 5 at Old Trafford, repeated Redmond's mistake.
Taylor (21) and How (40) were the only two to get starts and both will feel they sold their wickets too cheaply, the former driving uppishly and the latter prodding at a wide delivery.
Flynn has spent next to no time in the middle since way back at Lord's and he was little more than a sacrificial lamb as he was caught on his crease.
Oram completed the day two miseries when he fenced at a delivery.
So New Zealand, with debutant Hopkins and captain Vettori at the crease, were left to meekly accept an offer of bad light - the ultimate embarrassment considering they need all the time they can get to attempt to win the match and square the series.
It led to the curious sight of New Zealand pulling all the blinds of the changing area and you can assume some choice words were being spoken.
If they weren't then it is a clear sign this team has become too used to losing.
"It was still pretty positive in there," How offered, though you had to wonder why.
One person not there to address them was batting coach Mark O'Neill, who bizarrely flew home following the capitulation at Manchester.
Oh well, never mind, New Zealand's batsmen might not know where they're going wrong but at least the sports psychologist is here to make them feel better about it.
