New Zealand have a very good attack for English conditions, Southee, Boult are good bowlers and Henry's looking pretty tidy as well.
As NZ have said themselves, they deserve more than just a 2 test series.
I think the New Zealand attack has been vastly oversold to be honest. Effectuve in limited overs cricket, but Southee really isn't anything special as his record against decent nations shows, Henry I don't really know much about in fairness, and their spinner is just the next in a long line of poor temporary replacements for Vettori. Only Boult I would say is really anything to shout about. And even his speed was well down today.
England have been very conservative with the bat ever since I've been watching them - even their ODI sides are based on the conservative approach with mavericks like Stokes and Hales discarded. Strauss did have plenty of success using these methods though - they were painfully slow upfront but had the likes of Pietersen and Bell in the lower order to capitalise later in the day.
Stokes didn't get a particularly brilliant ball today - he just misjudged it - even Joe Root played at one he should have left.
One of the great myths that has emerged from the world cup is that of the dropping of Ben Stokes being wrong. Stokes was genuinely awful for about 10 games in a row, possibly more. As in he was constantly getting out for under 10, and in very few of those games did he end up bowling his allotted overs, with his economy often being well in excess of 6. A all rounder who is no use with the bat or ball is not going to be selected. You can say he has talent and should have been taken but when someone repeatedly blows their opportunities for a year, well, the only thing to say is that Ben Stokes made himself unselectable. His was less a loss of form and what frankly looked (and may still turn out to be) genuine failings.
Also worth noting Hales' average of 21 with a strike rate of 77 from his 10 ODI's hardly screamed selection either.
