He set sensible, occasionally innovative fields for the bowlers, allowed spinner Graeme Swann the licence to make his own choices, encouraged suitably and then watched helplessly as three catches were dropped allowing Jamie How, Daniel Flynn and Scott Styris to make decent contributions.

Worse followed during the final 10 overs when poor bowling allowed Jacob Oram and Styris to plunder 96 runs, lifting New Zealand from a workman-like total around 230 to an imposing 266. So that meant if England were to win this match and level the series at 2-2 it would rely on the batting.

Rarely does a team win based on just one of the three disciplines and it was a task made harder by some naivety at the crease that should have long been eradicated considering the number of games the top order have played. Ian Bell is a master of deception. He appears a wonderful player, technical, composed and possessed of an elegance the envy of many, but once again he made a start and then played a weak shot to get out. Since the enforced absence of Marcus Trescothick, England have searched for a partnership and style at the start of the innings. Should they blaze away seeking early momentum or consolidate as attempted in the last World Cup? The truth is the plan does not matter. Both have proved ineffective and that is because the players are simply not good enough.

Alastair Cook, Bell's opening partner, is suffering some technical deficiencies that need work if he is to succeed in international cricket. Simply, he needs to bend his front leg more into the shot when playing forward, to bring his bat down straighter and less from off to leg and, finally, to have a stable platform when playing back rather than the current hop that leaves him wafting at the ball with nothing in contact with the ground. But most of all, along with Bell, he must realise the value of a solid opening partnership.

They started reasonably on a good pitch but were dismissed within 14 balls of each other. The scoring rate had been fine. The only way New Zealand could prevent the game running away from them was wickets and Bell and Cook gifted theirs far too easily.

Pietersen then strode to the crease to a rousing reception. He may be hard to love as a character, his brash self- interest clearly evident, but his talent marks him potentially as one of the games greats. If he is to achieve that, however, he needs to do more in more games. A winning century as captain would have been ideal, instead he was somewhat muted before slashing a catch to backward point. England's hopes realistically left the field with him.

Ravi Bopara was a pugnacious fighter last year but is struggling to dominate from his higher batting position of four. He played a few handsome strokes but always looked slightly unsettled, although he did at least succumb to some superb bowling by Daniel Vettori, the subtle changes of pace by the left-arm twirly man breaching Bopara's defence. In the 25th over, England had stuttered to 101-4. The bowling had been below the standard required, the fielding equally culpable and now the top order had continued the mediocrity. England languish at number seven in the rankings. It is not undeserved.

Victory from such a parlous position would mean Owais Shah, impressive throughout the series, had played a substantial innings and one that would have ensured his continued selection for the coming Test series against South Africa.

The likelihood was another defeat and a rethink by the management. They have plenty of these but like the England side of the early nineties it seems that nothing ever changes. The same personnel are selected, the same faults perpetuated with the same dismal results.