After any high-profile loss like England’s first Test against New Zealand, it is inevitable that the squad will be scrutinised by selectors and fans alike, all searching for one of the eleven to single out as ‘letting the side down’.

Coach Peter Moores and Captain Michael Vaughan seemed to reach the conclusion that the two to blame were bowling veterans Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard who, although having not performed overly well in Hamilton (bar perhaps Ian Bell and Ryan Sidebottom it is probably fair to say no one did) did not go wicketless, bowled zero no-balls and only one wide between them in the whole match.
England’s victory in the second Test seemed to justify a decision which could have backfired horribly.  

James Anderson’s five wickets in the first innings set the tone for the match and put England well on their way to victory. Clearly Anderson’s selection was good thinking on the parts of the captain and coach but were Harmison and Hoggard really the ones letting the side down the most in Hamilton?

'Clearly Anderson’s selection was good thinking on the part of the captain'


The attention being paid to the bowling department draws eyes away from England’s less-than-spectacular batting performances. England’s top six have been all starts and no big finishes in New Zealand so far. The first innings of the Hamilton Test saw each and every one of England’s top seven pass the 20-run mark and yet fail to make a century.

In fact, the top score of England’s first innings was Paul Collingwood’s 66 - with seven good starts that should not have been the case. Sadly, seven 20s and no centuries was a problem England would have longed for in the innings that followed – only Bell, out of 11 batsman, passed 20 at all.

The second Test ended in victory for England but the top six once again, boasted eight starts of 20 of above and no centuries between them. England’s victory saw this inconvenient truth swept under the carpet but it could easily come back to haunt them in the deciding Test.

It is not a single person letting England down but a collective mediocrity from the top six. Bell, perhaps, can stand immune but has still failed to make three figures. The absence of a row of terrible scores accredited to any particular player makes it difficult to single any batsman out, instead it seems to be something of a collective effort – or lack of.

Singling out one player and dropping them for a replacement is all too often a quick fix, a band aid on a gun shot wound and if England want to regain their status of 2005 they need to look to a long-term solution.

In 2005 Michael Vaughan claimed that his side had won (and, at Lord’s, lost) as a team. Instead of singling out a player here and a player there, perhaps England should show the same confidence in their selected side as they did then and work that chosen side into the winners they have the potential to be.