I am still struggling to take in what happened today. There are games when you just sit there shaking your head wondering what on earth is going on out there and this was one of them.

The batting, as it has been for most of the series was appalling. Yes, Ryan Sidebottom bowled well but the strokes New Zealand's batsmen played were as bad as those by England yesterday. Very few players seem prepared to battle things out these days. Is it a result of the 'i want it all and i want it now' attitude to life.

England are strong favourites but they barely deserve to be. With the exception of a few players there has been some very ordinary cricket played in the series. These two teams deserve to be where they are in the rankings.

Vaughan's shot was an absolute shocker. I have no idea what he was trying to do. I have a theory though. He played a similar shot at the start of Engand's ill-fated run chase in Hamilton in the first Test.
I think they were the shots of an angry, slightly embarrassed man. Vaughan is no fool and on each occasion I think he waked out to bat feeling sightly embarrassed about his side still being in the game after playing so badly for lngthy periods. It is as if he is trying to show everyone that his side can play good positive, dominant cricket but it backfired horribly.

I agree How did well before driving loosely, as did Fleming, whose dismissal started the collapse. Oh to have been a half decent bowler in this Test, it has been like the last day of the sales, with wickets having an extra 50 per cent off. Sidebottom cannot believe his good fortune.

Yes, it is still nice to see old-fashioned virtues still work in the modern game where change is deemed to equal improvement. As Geoff Boycott said when off microphone. 'The modern game might be more exciting but don't even contemplate saying it is better, cos it isn't' and he is right.

Sidebottom is magnificent. He just gets on with it. No fuss, no drama, just plenty of effort and good application of well trained skills. Good on him. Nobody could possibly begrudge him his success.

Broad did come back well after a ropey start, bowling a 13 over spell either side of tea. What Anderson was up to heaven only knows.

What about Marcus Trescothick. It's a shame but I am pleased for him. There are many more important things in life and hopefully he can now go on and enjoy them. He has a record to be proud of and he owes nobody anything.

That should be, of course, Trescothick, Langer and Hildreth to bat - and Caddick to do the bowling.

His sad departure means further break-up of the Ashes winning team of 2005. There aren't many left now. If Andrew Strauss, who played with real determination this evening, goes on tomorrow and Ian Bell gets some too the calls for change in the batting may be ignored. But they shouldn't be, I fear.

As you know, I help Ian B with his column and it was difficult to believe what I was hearing. Either they are in denial or some things are best kept for dressing room consumption only. England should win here - although this match .... - but the selection for the First Test of the summer will be fascinating. There is a chance to layu down the gauntlet. South Africa are on their way in June, don't forget.

Lucas, our names appear under what we have written. Stephen helps Bell write his column so I will let him answer that point.

As far as the Aussie bowling goes. Yes, Lee is in the form of his life. He seems to be relishing the chance to lead the Australian attack.

But I don't think I agree with you on Clark. Gillespie was a fine bowler. Cark has had a good start to his Test career but he is no McGrath. I would imagine he will end up taking his wickets at an average of 25-27. Gillespie took 259 wickets at an average of 26.

The aussie bowling attack is not what it was as India showed this winter.

Apologies Gus, I had misread the author of the comment re Bell. Stephen - any response?

Re Clark v Gillespie - let's see. I think a lot of people didn't rate Clark when he came into the Australian side - poor man's McGrath and all that (you still seem to suggest this) - but the fact is he's taking his wickets at 21.88 so far. And even if you argue he's not quite as good as Gillespie in his prime, he'll certainly be way superior to Gillespie on his last tour to the UK in 2005 - an annus horribilus for Dizzy.

In order, I hope.

Lucas, there is a thin dividing line between allowing players to say what they think and allowing them to make complete twits of themselves. If a player, for instance, said all Australian cricketers were cheating sledgers who needed to be taught a lesson for their own good and that he was the man to teach them there might be a case for asking him to rephrase. When Ian B spoke yesterday he did so instinctively and from the point of view of personal preservation in terms of his place. In the past, as it happens, he has been far more willing to engage in self-reproachment. I suspect he knows the knives are out. Equally, he may feel he can't be seen to be showing vulnerability. But I can't pretend that when Ian spoke I didn't know what he was letting himself in for. But it is his column and I shall defend his right to say what he thinks.

On Stuart Clark, it's possible Gus was being a little uncharitable. Like Ryan Sidebottom, Clark had served a long and invaluable apprenticeship and he is a thinking bowler. But he can never be the leader of the attack as Glenn McGrath was. Against India in the winter he took 14 wickets at 28, perhaps his benchmark. But he can definitely do damage on English pitches next year. He has accuracy, bounce when he needs it and like McGrath knows that aiming to hit the top of off stump is the simple but elusive key.

And Boycott. Well, the BBC love him, the public love him and the man knows his cricket. Two points: Boycott pulled out of Test cricket for three years partly because he wanted to, partly because he did not fancy playing under the appointed captain, Mike Denness. And he scored his runs at 2.13 an over, which might have represented a kind of technical perfection but wouldn't get them through the turnstiles these days.
Everything that Harmison said in his comments about Boycott had some truth but the old curmudgeon, while possibly lacking in self-awareness, knows his cricket. It is a pity that he is not reminded more often that he did not play as he talks. He is perfectly right in saying that Test cricket is played to a lower standard (at the moment - though see the 2005 Ashes series of recent vintage for the real stuff) than in his day but nobody would be watching the way he played it.

I'd suggest that though Clark is a good bowler, he got a lot of mileage out of bowling in the same side as McGrath and Warne. That meant no easy stuff for batsmen to use to break the shackles, and so they had to go after him. Not an easy thing to do with an accurate bowler with a bit of bounce. I think that the early figures flattered him a bit, and that now he is making his own way a bit more, it is not surprising that the average is rising.

On Boycott, I don't know that the public at large do love him. There is a curmudgeon fan club, but I know plenty of people who find Boycott offensive, if not positive misguided on a number of issues. The Shaun Tait case was one, and I felt strongly that Boycott should have been sacked and barred from commentating until he publicly apologized. You just don't make fatuous and arrogant comments like that about someone's psychological struggles. Imagine if he had done it Trescothick - do you think that would have been tolerated? No, he said it and got away with it because Tait is Australian, and so fair game for a rabid British press that doesn't give a damn about these issues, so long as it's only foreigners. Sorry, but I think the bluff old Yorkshire left long ago, and now we have a tedious and ill-informed caricature of Colonel Blimp with a Yorkshire accent and a loathsome attitude.

I reckon there's a small room in hell awaiting sinful cricket lovers, and from one loudspeaker you hear Boycott, and from the other you hear Willis. Occasionally there's a change of personnel, and you get Greig and Gavasker instead.