It’s not just their bowling that makes Carse and Atkinson so valuable

That was a really impressive performance from England. In winning the first Test, they put the tour of Pakistan behind them immediately and in these conditions look a very good side. Had they lost, it would have been four defeats in five, so the pressure was on.

I look around the Test game now and think that, more than ever, you can divide it into different regions. The ball is spinning a lot in Asia. New Zealand went there and beat India comfortably. But India go to Australia, where the conditions really suit them, and win well. It’s the same for England. They were thrashed in Pakistan because they do not play the turning ball well, but look much more comfortable in New Zealand.

There are teams who are good in certain conditions but I don’t see one team that really dominates everywhere, like Australia or West Indies did back in the day. Test cricket is really unpredictable at the moment, which is what great sport needs to be. And there are a lot of away wins happening, whereas a few years ago it felt like we were in an existential crisis over teams – not least England – never being able to win overseas. That has flipped.

These are England’s ideal conditions. Under Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum, England have played three games in New Zealand with the Kookaburra ball. They have won two and lost one by one wicket, because they got greedy with the follow on. But they have played very well in all three. They have a batting unit that really suits facing the Kookaburra ball. The good news for England is that they will play in conditions that should suit them until the end of the Ashes next winter. This win can be seen as a first building block.

The two key players for this win were Harry Brook and Brydon Carse, and both of them really suit overseas conditions, particularly these ones.

I love what Carse has brought to the side in a very short period of time. I am sure he would have played sooner if not for his gambling ban, because he fits perfectly in this side. Having been brought up on South African pitches, he is that aggressive fast bowler who just hits the pitch really hard, and so is perfect for flatter surfaces.

He and Gus Atkinson have been great finds this year – and not entirely for their bowling. Having guys like that down the order makes a huge difference to a Test team. It makes you very tough to play against. Before a Test I would always look through the opposition XI and my heart would sink when I saw they could bat all the way down. I think of South Africa having someone like Shaun Pollock coming in at No 9. You wonder how you will ever bowl them out twice. I would never underestimate the value of batting depth in Test cricket.

Chris Woakes has always provided that for England but he will not be in the side forever, but the emergence of Atkinson and Carse mean I no longer worry about the tail. They scored runs in this game, but they also played serious shots that intimidate the opposition and show they can really bat.

I would also say their presence right down the order allowed Brook and Ollie Pope to bail England out from 71 for four on day two. If the tail starts at No 8, it is so much more difficult to play with the freedom Brook and Pope did. They would have had to be more wary.

Brook is very special, a wonderful player. He has that rare gift of total stillness, of making the ball look like it is coming down at 55mph, when it obviously isn’t. He triggers so early and when the ball is released he’s almost like a statue. He has that wide stance, then triggers, leaning forward, and just seems to have all the time in the world. All that means that the massive risks he takes don’t look risky at all.

Yes, New Zealand were unusually ill-disciplined in dropping him five times, but I actually think Brook played his part in that. When a guy bats like that, you feel under pressure as a fielder and can tense up because you know you have to take your chances or the scoreboard will get away from you in no time at all.

As we saw in Pakistan, Brook’s only weakness is when the ball spins big. In these conditions, and against pace more generally, he is superb. I don’t think he needs to change much, looking ahead to India and Australia. There are two areas I’d bowl to him – wide of off-stump and at his left shoulder. But that is only because he is so aggressive that you might be able to tempt him into a mistake. When you are resorting to those sorts of negative plans, you know you are bowling to a really good player. The numbers bear that out. He has seven hundreds in 22 Tests, averages 60 overall, and 91 away from home, which is second only to Don Bradman.

Pope did a great job alongside him. After the Pakistan tour I said that Stokes should bat No 3, not Pope, and my view has only strengthened after this game. Stokes reminded us that he is England’s best “situation” player. He just bats, based on what’s required in the circumstances. The others attack remorselessly. Pope showed why he is such a good option at No 6, attacking while looking much more composed than he does at first drop.

I also think that simple swap is perfect for the year England have coming up. In one Test in Australia, I’ve seen live why England need another left-hander in the top three (Stokes, although Jacob Bethell may yet stake a serious claim). Jasprit Bumrah fizzily arcs the ball into the right-hander’s pads with the brand new ball, and caused absolute carnage for the likes of Nathan McSweeney, Marnus Labuschagne and Steve Smith. Left-handers are better suited to facing Bumrah.

It would be handy to have Stokes at No 3 in Australia, too, because the extra left-hander might tempt Australia to use Nathan Lyon earlier, which in turn means the quicks are not bowling in the short window that the ball swings. So this is not a pop at Pope, just a way of improving the team technically and tactically for the massive challenges that are looming.