Why England Should Have Enforced The Follow-On

On Tuesday England battled past New Zealand and, more prominently, the weather to secure a comfortable 2-0 series victory in their last test series before this summer's Ashes.

So if you hadn't been paying close attention to the series you could be forgiven for being confused about the fact that England have come in for some criticism following the match.

On Monday, having already posted a healthy 354 in their first innings, England bowled out New Zealand out for just 174 - allowing them to force the Kiwi's to bat again.

England, inexplicably in my eyes, chose instead to bat again themselves.

They were presented with the chance to kill the game off and they chose to play it ridiculously safe.

They knew the forecast for the next couple of days was not great and if the worst had come to worst England's decision to bat again could easily have meant New Zealand escaped with a draw.

We've heard the excuses, we've heard that victory means Cook's decision was vindicated.

I disagree.

England may have ended up winning this test match but they didn't do it because of Cook's decision, they did it in spite of his decision.

If England want to be considered the best test playing cricket side in the world then they have to do better.

Enforcing the follow-on was a non-brainer. 

Sure I’ve heard the arguments that Cook was confident his side could win irrespective of the decision. 

I’ve heard that he wanted to give youngsters Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow more time in the middle to preparing for this summer’s Ashes series. 

I’ve even heard that Cook knew the series was won anyway so was more concerned about practice for his team as opposed to the result but none of this is relevant.

No disrespect to New Zealand – they have some fantastic players in their side – but they are a side ranked 8^th in the world, just one place above lowly Bangladesh.

To be the best team in the world you have to put teams like that to the sword. 

Many of those who have defended the situation say Cook would not have done the same had the opponents been India or South Africa or Australia and I hope they are right. 

But that doesn't change the fact that I still feel Cook should have shown the ruthlessness necessary to be the Captain of the best test side in the world.

Australia’s dominance is not what it once – between June 2003 and August 2009, an incredible 74 months, they held the number one spot in the ICC Test Rankings – but they are still a formidable outfit and will pose a far greater threat than New Zealand did.

If Cook makes decisions like this in the summer then England will not be winning the Ashes for the third time in a row - something which hasn't been achieved in over thirty years.

England may be the most naturally talented side in the world at the moment and they could become one of the most dominating test nations cricket has ever seen.

They certainly have the potential.

But situations like this leave me questioning whether they have the ruthless aggression necessary to become that dominant team.