BJ Watling whittles away at England's overseas resolve

Rising sea levels will probably get us all eventually. Or maybe it will be a meteorite. Either way, for much of the third day here, it seemed both posed a more immediate threat to New Zealand's batsmen than anything offered by England's bowlers. Just two wickets fell in the day; one to the part-time off-spin of Joe Root.

Let's be clear: this has been a pretty joyless surface for seamers and spinners alike. The sort of slow, begrudging pitch that could persuade bowlers they should have been wheelwrights, switchboard operators or coal miners; professions with a future by comparison. The dismissal of Kane Williamson, the victim of the one delivery in the game that has seriously misbehaved, looks more bizarre by the session.

Would such a surface be justified if it resulted in a dramatic finish on the final day? Maybe. Not so long ago, there was little unusual about it and the England camp certainly have no complaints. In this day and age, though, with so many competing attractions and shorter attention spans, you do wonder if such pitches - and the continued use of the Kookaburra ball - are helpful. A rock fall might make dramatic viewing; it doesn't necessarily make the 10,000 years of erosion that caused it great entertainment.

Either way, New Zealand have made the best of it so far. BJ Watling has provided a masterclass in batting in such conditions. He has shown England exactly what they should have done on day two. While England's batsmen lost patience and, as a consequence, their wickets - think of Ben Stokes' charge down the pitch and his edged drive against Tim Southee - Watling was wonderfully patient and ruthless. This was his eighth Test century - that, by comparison, is two more than MS Dhoni in 26 fewer Tests - and, in the course of it, he steered New Zealand away from trouble and into the lead. Only three men (Adam Gilchrist, Les Ames and Andy Flower) have scored more than his seven Test centuries as keeper; only four men (the previous three mentioned plus AB de Villiers) have higher batting averages among those with a minimum of 1,000 runs. He probably deserves more plaudits than he receives.

In such circumstances, any criticism of England's bowlers does have to be measured. Maybe a truly great spinner, the likes of Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan, might have found something from this surface. Or maybe one of the great seamers, Richard Hadlee or Malcolm Marshall, would have found a way. But even they had tough days and it is likely even they may have had to settle for a day of patience and damage limitation. Whatever the scorecard may suggest, England really didn't bowl badly. They just lacked some potency and some plans for such situations. But this was a really tough day and we might reflect that it wasn't so much that their bowlers underperformed as that their batsmen didn't take full advantage of the surface the previous day.

John Inverarity, for many years Dennis Lillee's captain at Shield Level, was asked during his period as a coach in county cricket how Lillee would have reacted to a particularly unhelpful featherbed. The answer, in general, was that Lillee would have delivered a metronomic line and length in the first innings in the hope of producing some wear in the surface. He would then have looked to exploit that area in the second innings. It is a tactic that requires immense skill, however, and, perhaps, the right sort of pitch. Maybe it's worth noting that Lillee hardly played in Asia, either.

So, what could England have done differently? Well, they did turn to the policy of attrition really quite early. Indeed, they opened the bowling with Sam Curran and Stuart Broad in the morning. Broad, in particular, was immaculate. His first spell, of five overs, cost just one run and he hardly bowled a loose ball throughout the day. But the tactic was a bit of a surprise simply because Jofra Archer had troubled Henry Nicholls the previous night - including inflicting a sickening blow to his head - to the extent there was some doubt whether he would be able to resume in the morning. You can imagine that New Zealand were a touch relieved not to have to face him.

Equally it seemed odd that Stokes was only asked to bowl four overs in the first two sessions. The England camp insisted he was fit and his record, not least in Sri Lanka (he was magnificent in the Colombo Test), suggests he might have had the skills - maybe simply the character - to make a difference. When he struck with the first ball after the tea interval, albeit with something of a long-hop that was cut to gully and outstandingly well held, it rather highlighted Root's delay in calling on his vice-captain.

Even at the start of the day, with 29 overs to go before the new ball was available, there was a sense that England were playing for that new ball. And then, when it proved not to be the panacea for which they hoped, they didn't really have anywhere to go. Suffice to say, they have a huge amount of work to do on their flat-pitch, Kookaburra game.

Maybe Archer could have been given that new ball, too? But Root's logic for not doing so was reasonable: Broad is vastly experienced and has had a fine year - albeit with a Duke's ball - and Sam Curran may need that new ball more to aid his swing. Archer has shown previously that he can be dangerous at any stage of the ball's lifespan. There is no guarantee things would have worked out better for England had he done so.

Besides, Archer is a perplexing cricketer. There are times, such as when he suddenly went up a gear here in mid-afternoon, when he looks so full of talent that anything seems possible. And perhaps, because of such moments, our expectations are unrealistic. This is just his fifth Test, after all, and his first with a Kookaburra ball. Even David Bowie had a dodgy early album.

ALSO READ: Watling masterclass turns tables on England

But what is it about Archer that, a little like Andy Caddick a generation ago, he seems to perform in such unpredictable fits and starts? Why was it that here, in his 21st over, he suddenly generated the sort of pace - 90 mph and more - that render him such a precious talent? It was from a similar stage of the game he generated the most extreme pace at Lord's in that spell when Steve Smith was so inconvenienced. But what it is about Archer that means he struggles to generate such hostility at the start of the innings when the game can be shaped? We simply don't know and, from the look on Root's face, he doesn't either. This was not an easy day on which to be a fielding captain.

Archer's fielding was a bit disappointing, too. On a hot and increasingly disappointing day, he was not the only man to misfield. But he did so on a couple of occasions and he did so to the obvious irritation of his teammates.

Everyone makes such errors, though. And it was Stokes, as fit and committed a player as England have, who made the most damaging error; dropping Watling at slip off Root when he had 31. These things happen. As long as the players are satisfied that their colleagues have put in every effort in training and in the game, there is no reason for these things to fester.

Most of all, Watling and co. deserve credit for the way they played. For it's not really England's bowlers he showed up; it's England's batsmen. They could learn plenty from his hunger, his discipline and the way he made them pay. It was admirably ruthless.