The statistics for the series between New Zealand and England paint an interesting picture. England spent much of this series playing catch up, and were at times lucky not to lose. Their tactics were often very defensive, and it shows. New Zealand by contrast played very positively for much of the series. In some aspects, it was very close, as the 0-0 scoreline suggests. However, given that the gulf in rankings was so vast going into the series, perhaps 0-0 can still be considered a win for New Zealand.
Matches and Rankings:
|Team||Won||Lost||Draw||Tosses||Pre Series Rank||Points||Post Series Rank|
New Zealand batted much more aggressively throughout the series, as a result of being in better match positions. Much of their accelerated run rate can be attributed to McCullum, who upped the tempo whenever he got to the crease. England batted poorly by their standards, but when it mattered they found a way to survive.
|Team||Runs||Average||Run Rate||50s||100s||Team High Score||Key Batsman|
|New Zealand||1569||42.16||3.22||7||3||460||P Fulton (347 runs at 69.40)|
|England||1572||34.93||2.60||6||5||465||M Prior (311 runs at 103.66)|
New Zealand missed opportunities to win matches by not cutting through England efficiently enough. They bowled far more overs, but at a lower strike rate. Bruce Martin, who started so well, ended up being particularly unsuccessful at nipping batsmen out. Williamson, by contrast, proved his credentials as a part timer with a golden arm. England will be disappointed with Panesar, who in the absence of Swann is the only credible test spinner.
|Team||Overs||Maidens||Wickets||Strike Rate||5WI||Strike Bowler||Miser||Workhorse|
|New Zealand||604.1||171||44||82.3||1||K Williamson (6 wickets at 35.8 SR)||B Martin, econ 2.29||B Martin, 171, 56, 393-9|
|England||483.5||115||37||78.4||2||S Broad (11 wickets at 58.0 SR)||J Trott, econ 2.25||M Panesar, 130.2, 46,350-5|
New Zealand won the battle of the partnerships, and were more able to effectively build totals through good teamwork. England were slightly better when it came to rearguard actions, but that was somewhat irrelevant given their middle order frequently failed.
|Team||Highest Partnership||Best Opening||Average Opening||50||100||Average lower order (7th-10th)||Best lower order||Sessions without wicket loss|
|New Zealand||181 Fulton & Williamson||158 Fulton & Rutherford||54.40||8||4||24.45||77 McCullum & Martin||3|
|England||231 Cook & Compton||231 Cook & Compton||54.40||6||3||25.06||83 Prior & Finn||2|
As was alluded to before, England often found themselves deep in a hole during this series. This is shown most clearly by the team first innings stats. New Zealand, for once, put up large first innings scores, and also bowled well early in matches. This left them chances to win games, or at least, this denied England the chance to win games.
|Team||Average 1st Innings||Best 1st Innings||Average Lead||Cumulative Lead||Follow On Enforced|
|New Zealand||385.67||460||+107||+321||0 *1 opportunity|