Can New Zealand inspire a new England?

In a parallel universe, the Test series between England and New Zealand is being awaited with eager anticipation. An intriguing showdown between two well-matched teams on contrasting recent trajectories has captured the cricket-loving public, and people talk of little else in the pubs, bars, bus stops, law courts, playgrounds, police stations, laboratories, crematoria, temples, bare-knuckle brawling pits, opium dens, and farmyards of the parallel England.

In that universe, admittedly, things are a little different. It is a series of at least three Tests, not just a brief interlude in the unending Test deluge of England's cricketing year, nor does it involve players who have just stepped off an aeroplane and are expected to translate their skills instantly from subcontinental slugfests to the technical disciplines and patience of a May Test match in England. It is not being overshadowed by the looming imminence of a fifth Ashes series in the insanely condensed space of six years, nor is it coloured by the protractedly infantile squabblings of a cricket board and a former player. That player has not alienated himself wilfully from the team he is so desperate to represent via the medium of an unnecessary autobiography. That cricket board has not allowed its most compelling individual to become an outcast who felt he needed to write an autobiography.

Instead, as the parallel English public goes about its business in a post-election glow, revelling in the early days of Prime Minister Mike Atherton's rabidly popular government, after the Cricket Party won a landslide majority (albeit with only one seat in Scotland), the nation's focus is on the entrancing cricketing fascinations ahead. "Can New Zealand maintain their 18-month surge, in conditions in which they have traditionally struggled?" parallel children excitedly ask their parallel parents. "I don't know, boy and/or girl," reply the parallel parents. "I'm more interested in whether Williamson can confirm his status as one of the most complete players in the game, whether Cook can survive and prosper against Southee and Boult, and whether Root and Ballance are able to maintain their striking statistics when faced with a bowling attack superior to the ones they have plundered in the past year."

Parallel radio stations ignore the troubles of their parallel world - the feasibility of jetpacks for all by 2025, the banning of the inappropriate use of the word "like", and the plague of penguins that has surprisingly broken out in the Middle East - and hold four-hour-long discussions about whether Broad can still turn Test matches, and whether we will see the vulnerable McCullum who failed in England in 2013, or the scoreboard-dissolving titan of 2014.

In parallel Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth gently rocks her new great-granddaughter Beyoncé-Petula, whilst anxiously asking Prime Minister Atherton: "Is Guptill still the player who has averaged fractionally over 20 against other top-seven-ranked nations, and 85 against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies, or has he matured into a genuine Test force?"

"Ma'am," replies Atherton, admiring Her Majesty's full-scale golden statue of Darren Gough in the middle of his pre-delivery leap, "time will tell. And it will also tell us how far England are away from becoming a good team again. Which might be not far. Or quite far. Or very far."

"Thank you, Prime Minister. Your turn on the royal karaoke machine. No Abba. Anything else is fine. FYI, best I've ever seen was Harold Wilson's 'Born To Be Wild'."

Sadly, this universe is not paying quite such avid attention to the two-match microseries beginning at Lord's on Thursday. Happily, the above questions are still relevant, despite the various factors that may diminish the contest.

England have not been a cricket team as much as a soap opera plot over the past year and a half, lurching from crisis to crisis on and off the pitch. Both of their visitors this summer offer hope, blueprints for how a team can slingshot itself from the depths of underachievement with alarming rapidity.

As of November 2013, New Zealand had won five and lost 30 of their 50 Tests against top-eight opposition since April 2006. From December 2013 until now, they have won eight and lost only two of 13 such Tests.

Australia's abject capitulation at Lord's in 2013 all but secured a third consecutive Ashes loss for only the third time since the 19th century. After a ritual drubbing in India, and amidst scattergun selectorial madcappery, they had lost six successive Tests for just the third time ever (they had done so in the mid-1880s against England, and in back-to-back series with West Indies at their 1984 peak). Defeat in Durham was their seventh defeat of 2013, tying with Australia's all-time record for defeats in a year, with five Tests against a dominant England still to come. Seven months later, they had annihilated England 5-0 (if anything, the scoreline was a little unflattering to Australia), and won in South Africa.

This is not to say that England will do something similar. But they could do something similar. Conceivably. Broad's form will be a critical factor. Since the Brisbane Test in November 2013, when he took 6 for 81 in the first innings, he has taken 49 wickets in 14 matches, at a respectable average of 29.40. But he has taken four wickets in an innings just twice in that time. In his previous 26 Tests, from July 2011 until Brisbane, he had done so 14 times in 26 Tests (whilst taking 118 wickets at 24.52). Some of this decline is due to England switching from a four to five-man attack, but Broad's impact has significantly diminished.

The influence he exerts on Test matches when he finds his wicket-taking mojo is shown by the fact that in the 21 innings in which he has taken four or more wickets his average is 11.06. Of the 64 bowlers who have taken four in an innings 20 or more times in Tests, Broad's average in those innings is the best - fractionally ahead of Curtly Ambrose (11.09) and the legendary SF Barnes (11.11), two tidy performers in anyone's book. (And, of the 97 bowlers with 15 or more four-wicket innings, Broad's 11.06 average in those innings is second only to Jason Gillespie, who averages 10.78 in 16 four-wicket hauls).

This suggests that when Broad fires, he fires hard. For all the criticism hurled his way, and worrying speed-gun readings, his performances have been reasonable. But for England to have a successful summer, reasonable will be insufficient, and Broad will need to refind what used to make him exceptional.

● The individual Test rankings reveal much about the differing trajectories of the two teams. New Zealand now have three batsmen in the top 15 (Williamson seventh, Taylor 13th, McCullum 15th), England just one (Root, eighth, with Ballance the next highest at 20th). Two years ago, when the Kiwis last visited, England had four of the top 12 as the Lord's Test began (Cook sixth, Prior tenth, Pietersen 11th, Trott 12th), plus Bell at 17th, whilst New Zealand had only Taylor (13th then as now) and McCullum (19th) in the top 30.

In 2013, all of England's four-prong bowling attack were in the top 16 (Anderson seventh, Swann eighth, Broad 13th, Finn 16th); Southee, at 21st, was the highest-ranked Kiwi bowler. Now both teams have two in the top 10 - Anderson (second) and Broad (eighth); Boult (sixth) and Southee (ninth) - but no others within the top 20.

● Kane Williamson has averaged fractionally under 75 in 14 Tests since his and New Zealand's last tour to England (and 56 in ODIs). However, since the World Cup final on 29 March, he has faced 27 balls, the most recent of which was five weeks ago, during an entirely pointless IPL campaign.

● Brendon McCullum is, currently, the only man to reach 90 twice in Tests at Lord's without ever scoring a century there. He flies in from a rather busier IPL. The New Zealand captain had an extraordinary 2014 in Tests, in which he passed 50 a decent but unspectacular four times in 16 innings, but converted those half-centuries into a triple-hundred, two double-hundreds, and a 134-ball 195. He has converted his last five Test fifties into centuries; he had converted none of his previous 11 half-centuries into three figures.

● Since 2007, in 13 Tests in South Africa, Australia and England, the three toughest venues for visiting batsmen, New Zealand have passed 300 only once (381 at Old Trafford in 2008), and been bowled out for under 180 in half of their 26 innings. However, the most recent of those matches was on their 2013 tour to England, before their recent successful run began.

● From 1986 to 1999, New Zealand won three, lost three and drew seven of their 13 Tests in England, winning two series and losing the other two. In the 2004, 2008 and 2013 series combined, they have drawn one and lost seven of eight matches.

Confectionery Stall prediction: 1-1. Roughly.