Forget Flamboyance Here and Let Collingwood Show These Flighty Kiwis How to Win Ugly

The England selectors, with a faith that would be deemed commendable in some quarters but feeble in others, have opted to leave well alone and give the Test team the opportunity to demonstrate they are capable of digging holes in which to bury others rather than from which to extricate themselves.

Today in Nottingham, barring unforeseen circumstances, the same side will take the field for the third and final Test against New Zealand as has contested England's previous four matches, a situation that has not pertained for almost a century and a quarter. Given that it was not so long ago that the selectors were unable to go five minutes without changing their side, to not do so for five games on the trot represents the stability of a supertanker.

There is a case for saying that the side deserve this. Three wins in the past four Tests and no losses is a good run, and if each of these has been a scrappy victory forged out of adversity, then there is merit in that, too.

There was a time when England sides were incapable of reversing the tide of ill fortune, and to compile ugly wins is in itself a virtue. Imagine what they will do, the message is, when things eventually come together.

The opposite view, of course, is that England should be applying for charitable status, so readily have they accepted the benevolence of the Kiwis in conceding positions of strength ever since the remarkably complete performance in Hamilton, the aftermath of which was the last time the machete went through the England ranks.

In Wellington England were 136 for five before Tim Ambrose and Paul Collingwood, with the aid of inexplicably daft New Zealand bowling, added 164 for the sixth wicket, enough to give Jimmy Anderson the impetus to cut down the opposing batting.

In the series decider in Napier it was worse: four for three became 36 for four before Kevin Pietersen single-handedly hauled them out of trouble with a century. Ryan Sidebottom did the rest. The 179-run first innings deficit at Old Trafford scarcely needs revisiting, and it is almost as if the team members are testing themselves, a game of chicken to see how close to disaster they can get before jumping clear.

Fundamental to this is the batting, which in terms of setting up a strong competitive base has not functioned well as a unit for a year now. The spin tells us that the top six batsmen are the best there are irrespective of form, and that those who fail are just one innings away from a big score. We are told repeatedly that as individuals they have career averages in excess of 40, as if that were justification in itself, without mind to trends and whether in some cases this represents under achievement.

The most oft-quoted evidence against such cosiness would seem to be that one has to go back a year, 12 Tests in fact, to find the last occasion when England topped 400 in the first innings, not a winning score but one from which you would have to play badly thereafter to lose. It does not inspire confidence.

This is by no means a new trend for England, however. From August 1998 until January 2000, shortly after Duncan Fletcher took over as coach, they managed 13 successive matches without reaching 400 first-innings runs. And from November of that year until August 2001, they managed a further 11 games likewise.

There is a bit more to this than a bald statistic, though, for matches can be low-scoring but still successful. In the first case, however, against Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, England conceded a first-innings lead in all but one instance, won only twice as a result and drew four.

In the second example, with the opponents being Pakistan (twice), Sri Lanka and Australia, they managed a lead four times, winning five with one draw. In this latest sequence, low scores notwithstanding, they have gained a first-innings lead four times, winning three with five draws, losing just three times.

So it is easy to see how selectors prevaricate: high scores do not necessarily win matches nor low scores lose them. However, the end of the series and a gap for the one-day series before much tougher opposition arrives in the form of South Africa still gives a chance to reassess.

Whatever the outcome, England know that had it been the South African side who had them on the ropes , it is unlikely they would have survived. The performance at present may be adequate, but such things are relative.

Whether the sequence can be broken now is doubtful. Given the dampness that there must be following dreadful weather in which to prepare a pitch, it might be that sights need setting a little lower. This could be a match where flamboyance and run-rates go out of the window to be replaced by graft and bloodymindedness. If this is the case, then the faith shown in Collingwood may not be misplaced.The pitch is not as dry as it ought to be for the start of a Test. The ball should seam, and may even turn, and will certainly swing: for once the bowlers could rule the roost

Pitch Watch

Win toss and bowl

This may be done in the hope that things flatten out although denting could lead to variable bounce later in the game and batting last may not be easy

Weather

Today: Mixture of sunny intervals and light showers with a south-easterly breeze Temperature 19C

Relative humidity 44%

Outlook: Humid with showers tomorrow; dry, sunny and warm on Saturday and Sunday

TV Sky Sports 1, 10.30am

Radio 5live Sports Extra and Radio 4 long wave, 10.45am

England

MP Vaughan capt YorkshireAN Cook EssexAJ Strauss MiddlesexKP Pietersen HampshireIR Bell WarwicksPD Collingwood DurhamTR Ambrose wkt WarwicksSCJ Broad NottsRJ Sidebottom NottsMS Panesar NorthantsJM Anderson Lancashire

New Zealand

From DL Vettori capt JM HowAJ RedmondJAH MarshallLRPL TaylorBB McCullum wktDR FlynnJDP OramKD MillsTG SoutheeCS MartinIE O'Brien

Umpires Darrell Hair and Steve BucknorThird umpire Peter HartleyMatch referee Ranjan Madugalle