KEY POINTS:
New Zealand did what they had to do against Bangladesh: they won; they won well; and, as expected, won very little.
How much can you read from the past month? Generally when a team lose you look for the positives to move forward with as much confidence as
possible so, conversely, following a comprehensive victory over a minnow, I should be permitted to look at the negatives without fear of being called a killjoy.
I concluded that a pessimistic approach to the evaluation of the New Zealand-Bangladesh series was appropriate when I began to ponder the positives: Matthew Bell and Jacob Oram's centuries in the first test; Chris Martin's threatening new ball attack; and the batting of Stephen Fleming and Daniel Vettori at Wellington. All of it pretty good so why the tone of concern?
Well they are positives that illustrate why this team struggle in test-match cricket against the better sides. At present the true strength of our test team still lies in middle-order batting depth and seamers who require assistance from the surface. Preferably going into a series against a top test nation like England you want faith in the top five to drive the runs and a bowling unit with strike potential on all surfaces. Actually, to be a top test nation that's exactly what you need.
Bell's knock was encouraging but even he would permit me to say let's not get cock-a-hoop just yet about the strength of our opening partnership. Craig Cumming, Peter Fulton and Mathew Sinclair didn't cover themselves in glory and, if anything, placed their positions a little in jeopardy. That leaves only Fleming of proven test-match quality in the top five. Since he's leaving anytime now the solution to play him at opener for the rest of his career thus allowing Scott Styris - and I won't have anyone tell me Styris is anything less than a proven test-match performer - to move into the team at four or five.
It might not happen as it will be seen as 'short-term thinking' so for now we search for a stable and proven top five, the supposed engine room of run scoring.
As for the bowling, Martin was impressive and made to look even better by a line-up that had no idea of where their off stumps were in relation to their feet and the ball.
It's my bet the English will make Martin look capable and adequate, quite good in fact, but probably not quite Sir Richard Hadlee or Shane Bond. If the wickets are flat as you would expect them to be in March and Bond is not present, then a lot of responsibility for penetration will fall to Vettori.
The English will not wilt under the pressure of Vettori's accuracy and variation to the same degree that Bangladesh did. With all due respect to Vettori, unquestionably the first man picked in my team, he is no Shane Warne or Murali. Against good players he needs support and pressure from the other end to generate enough batting mistakes to bowl a team out.
