Yes, it was that sort of day. Feming was cool, calm, unemotional and out between 50 and 100 right to the end. As he said at the close of play press conference "it was fitting that I got out for 66, had I gone on to score a hundred it would have been an anomaly.

It is always sad when big figures go. You enjoy them whilst they are here and you never know whether the ones that replace them will be quite as good. Of course, they normally are. There were some nice touches towards Fleming. England gave him a guard of honour and his ast walk off was greeted warmly.

Broad was very, very good during an 11 over spell after tea in which he took 2-26. He was hostile, aggressive and accurate - good signs for the future. he seemed to thrive on the responsibiity. He continues to look the part.

The selectors, or at least Peter Moores, the coach, have handled Broad extremely well. They could have promoted him to the team at various times in the last 18 months but have bided their time. He has plenty of natural assets but he looks a smart bowler as well.
You hint that Fleming will be replaced and of course he will eventually because life goes on in cricket as ewrywhere else. But not in the short term he won't. New Zealand look as weak as they can have done at any time in the past 40 years. Without Fleming their batting order in England in a few weeks' time is going to be given a real mauling. A pity, because it's not good for the game

We could have our hands full explaining to people who some of these players are because people here do not expect Matthew Bell and Matthew Sinclair to tour either. Feming does leave a huge hole but in Ross Taylor, Jamie How they have a coupe of very promising cricketers. Even so it is difficut to see these players coping with English conditions in May.

I agree I think the seectors have handled Broad very well. There was a camour to get him involved some time ago and they wisely resisited. They appear to have learnt from Fetcher's time when Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood, fast bowlers with potential, were thrown in before they were ready.

Which leads us to another fast bowler, Jimmy Anderson. He lost his length again today and though two chances were put down off him in the last over he simply did not sustain a proper attack. It is maddening (and expensive) because he's clearly got something. If there was another Test in a week, I'm willing to bet he'd be dropped. But my view is that Anderson ought now to be given a run, something he has been denied throughout his career.

Just when you think he may have cracked it, after 5-70 in Wellington, he then puts in a performance ike this. I hope the England selectors do stick with him and I think they will but no bower can afford too many days like those he has had in this Test.

Even his good balls were conceding runs, and that, I suppose is the problem. On good pitches when the ball is not swinging he skids on to the bat too nicely at times. Batsmen can just hit through the ball. It is why height and bounce are so important. It is so much harder for a batsman to control a bouncing ball.

That sounds a bit ominous for Anderson. I know, for instance Angus, that bounce was one of your most potent weapons. Are you hinying that if the ball isn't swinging - as it wasn't today - that Jimmy is diminished so much that he may be a liability. I still think he has a wicket-taking ball or two in his armoury, if he can get the ball up there. Ignoring the obvious, if reduced claims of Hoggard and Harmison, one bowler whose jib I like the cut of is Chris Tremlett. He could rattle some Kiwi chins in May and June, I suspect.

Bowing as Anderson does he does not have much margin for error. Matthew Bell found him very easy to cut last night but he daren't over pitch because then he could be driven. If it is not swinging he has to be more accurate than a Broad, Flintoff, Fraser like figure, but at the moment he is not showing that.

In an attack containing Broad, Sidebottom and Panesar, who are all pretty accurate, Anderson can be tolerated as long as he takes wickets every now and then. It is when the wickets dry up his place is threatened.

The selectors really like Tremlett, as I do. If he gets it right no batsman in the word would feel comfortable. You would fee that every ba was about to hit you in the ribs. He has just got to stay fit. The trouble is it seems quite a big ask.

The bowling stocks look a bit fuller than the batting ones at present. Plunkett and Mahmood could still have a part to play, Graeme Onions of Durham is winning admirers and is serving a proper apprenticeship, and Steve Finn of Middlesex is, I understand, one to keep an eye on, since he too extracts bounce.
It would not be normal to approach the end of an England series without mentioning the wicketkeeping. Tim Ambrose, the latest model, seems to have done everything that has been asked of him. Equally, he seems to get up too early a lot of the time and this will begin to have an effect. And while his immediate predecessor, Matt Prior, was criticised for being too vocal, Ambrose seems almost church mouse quiet. There were a few (valid) lbw appeals from Monty Panesar today - batsmen padding up outside off - which went completely unsupported from behind the stumps and were therefore more or less immediately negated.

Ambrose has had a very good start but England have been here before so, even now, it is too early to make any bold statements. He seems competent enough behind the stumps to me but I am no wicket-keeper.

C'mon Stephen, you can't have a go at him for not appealing when the batsman was not out. I know what you are saying but that is part of the problem. Many fielding sides appeal for everything because they know they will get one eventually. It may be the way the opposition play but I do not like it. We criticise umpires for making the odd mistake but constant appealing makes their job even harder.

OK, wrists considered slapped. But in this case, I didn't like the padding up to Panesar. It's taking the micky batting.
Incidentally, Panesar bowled as well in Napier today as he has done all winter. Good to see.
There's no way, New Zealand can get out of this is there?

Panesar was very good. Did exactly the job you would want from your spinner in the fourth innings. He has bowled better here than in Sri Lanka, which is encouraging. He even seems to be taking notice of what other spinners are doing. He came round the wicket to the left handers, this creating the angle Patel did so well to right handers.

No, New Zealand are doomed, England to win an hour after tea.