KEY POINTS:
A glance at the scoreboard from this week's second test loss to England would suggest New Zealand's wretched batting performance in the third innings alone decided the outcome.
But it is not that simple and goes back to the players' appreciation of the nuances of getting into, and maintaining, winning positions.
It is something that takes time to learn, and this young New Zealand team have a power of learning to do.
We have become used to these collapses, which tend to be put down to bad sessions. One each at the Basin Reserve and Napier cost New Zealand dearly in their two test defeats to England earlier in the year.
But I believe they have come about as a result of New Zealand actually having to play extremely well to stay with England. At some point they have slipped up, and the results have been disastrous. Even as they have been competing well, there have been signs that all is not hunky dory.
A dam doesn't suddenly burst; cracks develop over time. Consider that in the first three innings of the series in England, New Zealand's batting has survived on one good score each time - Brendon McCullum's 97 in the first innings at Lord's; Jacob Oram's century in the second; and Ross Taylor's 154 not out in the first innings at Old Trafford.
You can argue that those were all that stopped New Zealand plummeting towards defeat well before that awful 114 on the third afternoon at Old Trafford. Over the past five years, New Zealand teams have often been playing well just to keep level pegging with, or slightly behind, the opposition. Against Australia, for example, we've had to play out of our skins to match them, and had the odd bit of luck, or dropped catch, or umpiring decision to help along the way.
But Old Trafford demonstrated how the pendulum can swing in a cricket match. New Zealand's players must have realised they were in a position to shut the door on England, but did not know how to do it.
The third innings of a match is the most important stage, where a team can press on to a winning position, or knuckle down to force a draw.
New Zealand teams are much more familiar with the second scenario. This is their natural habitat, scrapping to survive, in many cases knowing they were not expecting to win and walking away knowing they had done their very best.
The third innings for the team in charge - and with a first-innings lead of 179 New Zealand were totally in charge - is all about the equation of time and runs and knowing how to utilise it.
For example, had they got to 70 for two with careful batting, England would have been 250 behind and only barely in it. Get 300 ahead and England would have been on the run.
Obviously the further ahead you are the better your chances, but just as importantly you lessen the chances of the opposition being able to bounce back and win. As with all things, there tends to be a point where people surrender and the going gets exponentially easier as a result, and chasing 300 to win in a test match tends to be that point.
I'd venture to suggest had New Zealand declared at 114 for two, 293 ahead, they would probably have won because psychologically the upper hand and the momentum would have been with them, at a ground where the highest fourth-innings winning total had been about 230.
These are subtleties that can't be learned in five minutes. The nature of a loss, how things went wrong, is often more critical than the actual defeat, and the upshot is that New Zealand's chances of winning the third test at Trent Bridge next week are virtually nil.
They can draw it, especially if there is a bit of rain, but victory - given the relative merits and experience of the teams, and the events at Old Trafford - would seem beyond them. But if lessons are absorbed, something worthwhile will have come from the series.
