Angus Fraser: Black Caps give abject England knockout blow

New Zealand 470 & 177-9d England 348 & 110 - New Zealand win by 189 runs

(GETTY IMAGES)

Before the postmortem the praise. Firstly, congratulations must be extended to New Zealand for producing such an outstanding display. Daniel Vettori, the Black Caps captain, was right to describe his side's performance in the first Test as complete. New Zealand's cricket was almost faultless and they completely outplayed England. Vettori's team were everything England were not. It was confident, vibrant, positive, organised and well prepared, and it thoroughly deserved its 189 run victory and 1-0 series lead.

Before the Test Michael Vaughan stated that his side were excited by the prospect of playing in New Zealand and they were determined to start playing good Test cricket. It did not look like it. With the exception of the admirable Ryan Sidebottom and some high quality catching England were abject. They were a nervous, almost scared looking team, lacking in belief and short of ideas.

It is scandalous that any player should arrive at the first Test of a series undercooked, let alone one as important as this, yet that is just what Matthew Hoggard and Stephen Harmison, England's most experienced bowlers, were. Neither was ready to play Test cricket, and their combined figures of 2-272 in 65 overs highlight just that. New Zealand's Chris Martin and Kyle Mills, in comparison, were magnificent taking 11-170 in 79 high quality overs.

The batsmen were not much better. Not one was brave enough to try and take the game to New Zealand's spinners. In the first innings the group dug a huge hole and in the second, as they were being bowled out for 110 in 55 overs, they fell in it. The pitch did not alter greatly during the course of five days, the only thing that changed was the attitude of the two teams. New Zealand grew in confidence and played to win whilst the other, England, faded like a cheap suit.

"This is probably my lowest point as captain," admitted a shell shocked Vaughan. "It is never nice when your team has performed to a level you don't expect. I did not see that batting display coming at all. I woke up sensing a victory but you don't win any games of cricket from 30-4 and we weren't good enough. For a batting unit like ours to be bowled out for 110 is unacceptable.

"There is a shortage of confidence in the dressing-room at the moment but the good thing is that we start the second Test on Thursday. It means we don't have too much time to dwell on it. But we have to make sure that we play and express ourselves in a batter fashion than we have here. It is not a matter of hard work because that has been put in. It is a matter of the players looking within themselves and making sure they are ready to play in Wellington."

England's lacklustre displays both here and in Sri Lanka before Christmas suggests that there is something missing, something intrinsically wrong with the team at the moment. It is hard to pinpoint a single issue, and it is more than likely to be a combination of several factors, but it is the responsibility of Vaughan and Peter Moores, the England coach, to find out what is wrong and correct it.

Losing is not a crime and neither Vaughan nor Moores would have been so deflated had England been defeated having played quite well. But to be so comprehensively outplayed over five days by a team with considerably fewer noted players and resources is extremely disconcerted. There is nothing unusual about one or two opposition players producing career best performance in a match, but when four do so in one Test? Jamie How, Ross Taylor, Kyle Mills and Jeetan Patel each had the best Tests of their careers. This used to happen when teams played against Bangladesh.

England were not beaten at Seddon Park, they were hammered. The first day was even but after that England were only in the game durng a crazy five over period on Saturday when Sidebottom became the eleventh Englishman to take a hat trick.

Accountability for England's predicament starts at the top and questions will continue to be asked about what Vaughan and Moores are doing and what they intend to do. Moores' position is bound to come under scrutiny because he is the most prominent difference between this side and that that won the Ashes. But blaming the England coach just yet would be wrong. Moores has only been in the job for 10 months and he is still picking up the pieces left by his predecessor. England's Test cricket has been in decline for quite some time and Duncan Fletcher may have chosen his moment to go wisely.

Moores has had to cope with Harmison as he is, age apparently catching up with Hoggard and no Andrew Flintoff. The averages of most England batsmen peaked about 18 months ago too. If there was the same feel about the one-day side as the Test then Moores would be more culpable. But there is not. The one-day side is upbeat, ambitious and full of enthusiasm. There was energy a fortnight ago, brought on by youth, which is not in New Zealand now.

And because of that Vaughan and the Test specialists must be looked at. With the exception of Monty Panesar each has been involved for more than four years and when sportsmen get older a defence mechanism kicks in, with the aim being not to lose what they have. The need to better oneself diminishes and remaining where they are becomes the motivating factor. There is a lot of money at stake and it would not be a surprise if some were secretly thinking that if they could play until the end of the 2009 Ashes they will pocket the best part of £750,000. The fear of losing such a deal, and the lifestyle that goes with it, can lead to players putting their own performance ahead of that of the side Such an approach does not drive a team forward. Moores job is to spot those with such an attitude and replace them.

Vaughan was asked about his leadership and he insisted that he was captaining the side as he did in 2005. It may be true but it is the wrong thing to do. The players under him have changed in the past 30 months. Their lives have moved on and they have different priorities, attitude, wealth, and possibly reasons for playing. If the same faces are around the captain should change with them, finding different ways to make them tick. If Vaughan is to get the best out of the current team, as he did with the 2005 team, he will have to alter his style.

It seems harsh to blame Harmison because he is not in great shape and should be replaced by Stuart Broad in Wellington, but the sight of him continually turning up on tour under prepared and distraught would have a demoralising affect on the team. It can lead to bickering and the divisive batsman/bowler stand-off's, where each blame the other for the teams shortcomings. Nothing irks a batsman more than the sight of his strike bowler bowling rubbish. The anger grows when he has to work his socks off for every run he scores, as England's have both here and in Sri Lanka before Christmas. It does not take long for caustic comments to be made and arguments erupt.

The challenge for Vaughan is to turn things around in three days. It will not be easy, and if he fails his future may rest in the hands of Moores and Hugh Morris, the managing director of the England cricket team, who arrives in New Zealand this week.