I think we've done well, and are regaining the kind of confidence we haven't had since before winter 2006/07 - winning builds confidence and the wins we gained against New Zealand and the West Indies in 2003/04 were a platform for a battling performance against SA the following winter. Take us forward to 2005 and by then confidence was soaring and the team began to believe in themselves. So whilst we need to buck our ideas up in some areas we have done in others, and I don't believe we should be all British and beat our players down - a captain, management and country sticking by their team gives a team confidence and is far better than chopping and changing. Vaughan has restored my faith in his batting a lot, I'll accept I was wrong about his being better opening, and I like the look of our top three now. Ian Bell needs to learn to make runs under pressure but with experience he will, and is, and Paul Collingwood always fights on and doesn't deserve being dropped after one and a half bed tests. Nor does Tim Ambrose, or Stuart Broad with the ball. We've won, under a lot of pressure (NZ compete, and played above themselves this test), and that to me is praiseworthy. We weren't good enough, but we won anyway and will improve.

With that in mind I'd name an unchanged team and show faith in them, however the following should be learned so we can improve to anything near the level of confidence (the ability is absolutely there, more I'd say than Australia) we need to beat Australia:

Bell must make runs under pressure, and assert himself.
Collingwood needs a break and to recover from his shoulder injury, but after the third test.
Ambrose needs to make runs, but he deserves a fair crack.
Broad's bowling was not good enough this series, but his all-round contribution and potential plus his belief means he deserves a run. Hopefully his bowling will improve.
Anderson needs to continue gaining belief, and be used in shorter, faster spells which we all know he is capable of - he fought back this series and is beginning to become the bowler he should be.

Well done England, and well fought NZ, but where we under-performed we need to get our skates on and we have every opportunity to do that.

Thats probably because we were half hoping for a NZ victory. An England win will only gloss over the deficiencies in the team.

They were all good knocks and they did something that they haven't done for a while. They batted positively and to their strengths.
Strauss has gone back to his "old" game where he looks to be compact and work the ball around. Pieterson looked to be more positive and Vaughan showed the class we all know he has.

Agreed, at least it was a good test where either team had a chance of victory going into the last innings and a draw was out of the question unless weather intervened.

Unfortunately we will now get the same 4 picked for the next match.

Exactly, but I'm sure Moores will.

This says it all:

__________________
Mark.

You may well be able to coverup the teams short comings all summer because SA are not going to be able to show them up.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Hmmm... not convinced. Sure, Kallis towers over the other batsmen... but the batting should ensure competitive enough totals are posted even if it doesn't offer much prospect of SA batting England out of games... and the seam attack more than makes up for the comparative weakness of the spin bowlers.

It's a shame neither Pollock nor Langveldt will be touring... but the side should still be regarded as pretty heavyweight: more serious opposition than most Test nations can offer.

Meh - I'm chalking this one up as another one the 'one that got away' board. NZ should probably have won, and definitely should have not lost.

Again, NZ's lack of two-innings cricket nastily exposed...

__________________
never believe anything until it is officially denied . . .

I thought Vettori as captain was even more exposed.

He bowled 38.5% (66 out of 171 overs) of all the balls bowled to England in this match. A ridiculous situation when you have 5 bowlers in your side.

And with less than a 3 hour break between innings.

Notably he was not doing much late in his spell, he had bowled himself into the ground.

If Vettori is going to continue as captain I think New Zealand need a second spinner in their team, and he has to be prepared to give them the ball. For cripes sakes that battery of military medium pacers you Kiwi's seem to like selecting looks superfluous to say the least, I have noted Mills has only bowled 15 overs this match !

I also think having a spinner as captain and a spinner as coach (Bracewell) is also an unhealthy and lopsided situation. In my opinion that is an "either or" situation (keep Bracewell as coach but not Vettori as captain or vice-versa).

i think bond's absence in the team was severely felt in this match by the kiwis. i think good swing bowling at his pace in such conditions would have made it a lot tougher for england specially in the start of the second innings for them. the pitch didn't offer assistance to vettori like it did for panesar which would make me feel the kiwis were slightly unfortunate. all in all a good performance coming back after being down and out. a lot of positive intent by the english players, a good result barring the little hiccup towards the end where they a lost a few quick wickets. i think collingwoods poor form is something they will have to think about, he looked miserable out there...not a single ball played from the middle of the bat. a very good and exciting test match except for the understandable slow innings by strauss and vaughan, the highlight for me being ross taylors fantastic innings and panesar running thru nz.

Interesting point John... David Lloyd has made another good point in his Cricinfo column

The point about Plan B is important, yes SA do have possibly the nastiest and fastest bowling attack in world cricket, but that is all they have. They have two really world class batsmen, a superb Keeper batter, but not much else. I have never been convinced by Amla, and I think on a pitch that does a bit his terrible technique will be exposed, Prince is a fairly average player, and to my mind both players have found some success mainly due to the lack of quality bowlers in world cricket.

Steyn is an excellent player, and will cause problems, but what happens if he breaks down? Or what will they so when they get on a pitch that helps Monty, is Harris of sufficient quality to bowl England out, I doubt it...

I will second that OF - I have just thism moment magaed to log on to find England had won.

I have just read on the BBC that Flintoff probably won´t be fit for the one dayers, not looking good for the big guy.
Pleased for Strauss, and Panesar.

__________________
Ern

Glad to see that Ern, it was a shame that the captaincy thing was driven between Strauss and Flintoff during the last Ashes winter but I think that caused a few people to be harsh on him and the whole matter may have contributed to his loss of form, not saying you were one of them but it's good to see people returning to form (Strauss, Vaughan as captain and possibly with the bat) and hopefully fitness (Flintoff, Jones), and confidence (Bell, we hope, and Anderson) after a difficult 2006/07. I still think Strauss has time on his side to be a potential England captain again, especially if one of Cook, Bell, Pietersen doesn't step forward in such a way in the future.

I've been thinking on the Broad situation, he has bought us runs yes, but as one of a four-man bowling attack he needs to chip in and take wickets. I'll still side with backing him to come good at some point, but his performance with the ball at Trent Bridge will be under scrutiny in some quarters.

Interesting from the other thread on the fastest balls by Englishmen in the first couple of tests from Rachael's 'Simon Jones' thread (links therein) - Anderson topped 90 both times, Sidebottom hit 88 and Broad got up to 87. They can do it, they just need confidence and possibly in Broad's case a bit of either a) sustained extra pace or b) increased skill with the ball.

P.S. Anyone notice Monty now has 101 test wickets? After just 28 tests at 31 apiece, he has a long and bright future ahead .