England out of answers as ODI rot extends for another series

Why are England bad at this?

A batting line-up full of talented cricketers with proven international records. A world-class fast bowler leading the attack, and a wrist-spinner who's considered one of the best of all time. It's a Sainsbury's Taste the Difference list of ingredients, producing Sainsbury's Basics results.

Defeat in Hamilton was England's sixth series defeat out of seven. It was their ninth consecutive away ODI loss: the most they have ever lost in succession. For years, there have been valid caveats for England's poor results in the format. The line was, 'wait until they're back at full-strength and all will be fine'. Well now they are, and now it's not.

On paper, automatic World Cup qualification is in doubt. Ranked eighth in the world, they still need to drop below Bangladesh and West Indies for that iceberg to appear on the horizon. It's a fate they have plenty of time to avoid ... but the same was said last year. They've since lost 11 out of 15.

"It's a tough question to answer," Harry Brook replied, when asked why it's all going wrong. "We've got some of the best players in the world and we just haven't performed as well as we could have done. New Zealand have just outplayed us."

There are two strands here. An underperforming batting line-up and an incomplete bowling one.

There is no doubt that England's top six is the best they have to offer. The option to shuffle the deck would be to return to one of Phil Salt or Will Jacks, or instead turn to either Zak Crawley or Jordan Cox. That's it. Gone are the days of England's white-ball batting riches. The lack of a domestic 50-over competition in which the best one-day players can prove their worth is unquestionably a hindrance on developing the next generation. But that criticism doesn't hold for the settled line-up that has played this year. They are more familiar, recently at least, with the format than their opponents. Only one of New Zealand's XI ahead of the first match of the series had played a 50-over game in the preceding six months.

Nevertheless, in England's eight away ODI matches this year (of which they've lost the lot), they have been bowled out before their allocated overs on seven occasions. Brook is adamant that he wants England to be aggressive, citing Jamie Smith's dismissal today where he looked to hit over the leg-side only to be caught at point, as a preferable method of dismissal than nicking off defending all day. That is fine - and to go all live, laugh, love on you for a second, England's strategy has long been to aim for the stars and if you fail, then fall in a cloud. But they are just falling.

It is a bewildering series of events, in which a batting line-up so comfortable at cruising at five-runs-an-over in Test cricket get themselves in such a tangle trying to go at sixes against the white.

"It's hard to say," said Rachin Ravindra, a player whose flowing style would be welcomed into the England team with open arms, explaining the shift between formats. "Naturally for me, the way I play, I like the tempo of 50-over cricket the best. I can play good cricket shots without having to force anything. It just requires a bit of knuckling down [when the ball is moving] and then you make it up in the back end."

Safe in the knowledge they were only chasing 175, New Zealand were 17 for one after eight overs. Ravindra himself on five off 19.

"It's a hell of a challenge," he said of countering Jofra Archer with the new ball. "You know if you can get through that, you can get through most spells in the world.

"If you're not taking wickets up top, you're chasing your tail then with four guys out when it's easy to score."

England lost their first three wickets at Mount Maunganui after two overs, and lost their first three wickets at Hamilton after 12.

The bright red flashing light is whether England's top-order can deal with the moving ball in more than one way. That was the criticism yesterday, and it is the criticism today. Nothing in the first two matches of this series, and with the Ashes to come on similar surfaces, has been down to dissuade that.

Counterintuitively, however, England will arguably consider their bowling the greater area of concern. The batting unit is underperforming and failing. And that is bad. But the bowling unit is underperforming and at par. And that is worse.

Between Brydon Carse, Archer and Adil Rashid, England have 60% of an excellent bowling attack. But the age-old question remains: how they will take middle-over wickets without relying on Rashid to produce a moment of magic? Jamie Overton and Sam Curran bowled eight overs between them today, a direct indication of where Brook believes his wicket-taking threats lie, and where they don't.

Overton, to his credit, produced a beauty to remove Kane Williamson in a moment that will help his cause greatly. Between his batting, fielding and towering 6'5" frame, he is so close to being the perfect cricketer to balance this team at No.8. His sample size is still small, but the fact of the matter is that, in his nine ODI matches, England have lost seven.

Curran, meanwhile, is enjoying a renaissance as a T20 cricketer and feels a natural fit at No.6 in that side. In the shortest format, his addition of a moon-ball and left-arm angle makes him a wicket-taking threat when batters are going after him. However, when his job is to make a dead-ball leap off the surface in the middle-overs of a one-day game, his all-round package diminishes. In the T20I team he bats six and is the third seamer; in the one-day team he bats seven and is the fourth. His relative value is laid out as soon as the team sheet is submitted. As ever, though, who are you picking instead? England tried Jacks at seven against South Africa with only four specialist bowlers. That didn't work either.

Ultimately, England have one problem they don't understand, and a second problem that they do. Both need to be solved for the rut to end.