Stuart Broad channels his anger at Michael Vaughan's criticism to lead England's revival

Dermot Reeve used to reckon that just about every player he ever captained reacted better to the carrot than the stick.

So Reeve - captain of the Warwickshire side that won a treble in 1994 - would tell his players how marvellous they were and, in the case of his bowlers, would ensure the ball was returned to them by hand with a message of encouragement.

There was one exception. In Paul Smith he had a hugely talented allrounder. He was, for a while, the youngest man to score a first-class century for Warwickshire and he had the pace to claim two first-class hat-tricks. Had he been born a generation later, he would have made millions.

But, having enjoyed success as a young man, Smith sometimes found the day-to-day obligations of life on the county circuit something of a grind. And the temptations of a night out hard to ignore. So he would save his best for the big occasions - he bowled a spell in a semi-final that Allan Donald says was as quick as anything he witnessed and claimed the man-of-the-match award in the 1994 Lord's B&H final against local rivals Worcestershire - but sometimes go missing on quiet days. Or after long nights.

So Reeve, his frustrated captain, would tell him he was rubbish. He would throw the ball back to him at ankle height so he had to bend or over his head so he had to run and fetch it. He would do whatever he could to provoke a reaction, spark some resentment and unleash the talent that sometimes lay dormant. Smith needed, Reeve believed, to be angry to be at his best.

Maybe Stuart Broad is the same. Certainly here, with the vultures beginning to circle, he produced the performance for which his side had been crying out. Bowling markedly fuller than he had at Lord's - indeed, his first spell was the fullest new-ball spell of his Test career - he claimed both openers in that first spell and, having beat the bat regularly, was unfortunate to finish with just three wickets. He was, however, easily the pick of the bowlers.

It was similar in New Zealand. After suggestions that Broad could lose the new ball following a disappointing Ashes, he responded with his first five-wicket haul at Test level for two years in Christchurch. Just as it seems the thing he values so dearly - his new-ball role and, perhaps, his England place - is about to be snatched away, he provides the performance to secure it once more.

It's probably unfair to accuse Broad of complacency. Despite all the years of success, he had the determination to look anew at his action when he returned from Australia. At a stage when many fast bowlers might be starting to find the hard work a bit of a chore, Broad retained enough passion for the game to force himself through the gym and technical work once again. Some of his bowling for Nottinghamshire this season has been exceptional.

But he might have become just a little comfortable. The downside of the continuity of selection policy - and it's clearly a great policy in many ways - is that players may come to feel safe in the environment. And while that is, to some extent, a good thing, it might also rob them of just a bit of their competitive edge. It is telling that, after the best period of his career - a period that lasted from August 2014 to July 2016 when he took his wickets at 22 apiece and his strike-rate was under 50 - he then experienced the most modest period of his career. Between July 2016 and January 2018, his strike-rate was an eye-watering 79.20 and his average was 36.60.

So, while Broad denies it, England might owe Michael Vaughan some thanks. For Vaughan, the former England captain and now a ubiquitous pundit, has spent the last few days suggesting that there may be some merit in dropping Broad in order to "ruffle some feathers" in the dressing room. The suggestion clearly seems to have ruffled Broad - enough for him to phone Vaughan to express his disappointment - and produce a performance of channelled anger.

"I've come under criticism a lot in my career and a lot of it has been justified," Broad said. "You get used to it.

"This time, it did anger me a little bit. I thought it was a bit unfair and a bit targeted. It did put me under a bit more pressure this week, certainly going into this game, but part and parcel of our job is to deliver under pressure.

"So I called him and expressed my disappointment in his comments. I'm not going to hold a personal grudge - I'm friends with Vaughany; he was a fantastic captain to me, he gave me a great opportunity and he's great company - but I didn't feel I deserved it. It's [about] personal columns and radio shows that need 'likes' and air time, isn't it?

"I don't think it stung me into action. At this level you've always got a point to prove. But we didn't do ourselves justice at Lord's and we left there angry. And, with the pressure we've been under, to come out and put in that sort of performance will give the changing room a lot of confidence."

The key to Broad's performance was his fuller length. After England squandered helpful conditions at Lord's, Broad produced a much more incisive spell here that was rated the fullest new-ball spell of his Test career. While, on average, just eight percent of his deliveries in his first spell are classified as full, here the percentage pushed up over 40. And with conditions helping him generate movement, that full length - making the batsmen play far more often than was the case at Lord's - was lethal.

It was also in stark contrast to James Anderson who looked frustrated by a display that again underlined that, for all his virtues, he doesn't seem able to adapt to such conditions any more. Not a single ball in Anderson's first seven-over spell would have hit the stumps and, even when he bowled Sarfraz Ahmed, Hawkeye showed the ball would have passed down the leg side had it not hit the batsman's pads.

That was not atypical of England's fortune here. Sarfraz's decision to bat first upon winning the toss was perfectly reasonable: the straw-coloured pitch led to that conclusion. But the ball swung around lavishly throughout the Pakistan innings providing England's bowlers with perfect conditions. Broad later confirmed that England, too, would have batted had they won the toss.

And, without being churlish, it does have to be acknowledged that some of Pakistan's batting was fragile. While Asad Shafiq was the recipient of a fine delivery that demanded a stroke, bounced and left him, several other batsmen were complicit in their own downfall. Imam-ul-Haq, for example, chased a wide one and Sarfraz was punished for playing across one. Much of the discipline that they demonstrated at Lord's deserted them here.

The make-up of the slip cordon - which, in only missing one chance, was notably better than Lord's - also owed something to fortune. Had Ben Stokes been fit, he would have been at third slip but, as it was, it was Joe Root who claimed a sharp chance at third slip in the day's second over.

Broad even admitted that his full length owed something to fortune. Pointing out that Sam Curran's opening spell - notable for its full length and sedate pace - was full of very full deliveries, he explained that most bowlers struggle to adjust but he had relished the natural variation the conditions had created.

"The fuller length can be due to the Headingley slope," he said. "When you're running down the hill, it really takes you in, then the square levels off and your foot hits quite early. So it does sort of shock you into bowling a bit fuller. With the nip that was available today it was really worthwhile throwing it as full as we did but not every Test pitch is like that.

All of which should dispel any suggestion that, after one good day, all England's troubles are resolved. There were moments during the day - when Broad was out of the attack - when this was an oddly low-quality encounter between a batting line-up apparently determined to thrash their way out of trouble and a bowling line-up which interspersed beauty with the beast. At times it was less a high-quality fight and more a scrap in the pub car park.

But it was a step in the right direction for England. And with Broad inspired and motivated, England looked a far more dangerous attack. He may well find himself the victim of far more criticism from the team management as the evidence is starting to suggest it helps him find his best form.