A Black Caps side minus their best bowler – Shane Bond – and their premier batsman – Stephen Fleming – courtesy of the Indian Cricket League and retirement respectively, shouldn't be any match for the hosts who will be short-price favourites to win the series.

The main issue, as has been the case far too often, is whether Andrew Flintoff will be fit to take his place in the starting XI.

Since his star turn in the Ashes series of three years ago, Flintoff's appearances in an England shirt have been frustratingly spasmodic, mainly due to a chronic ankle problem that has required four operations at the last time of counting.

There is little doubt that England are a far better side with Flintoff available and it is obviously very tempting for those in charge to pick him at the first opportunity.

However, this is where the problem has laid in the past.

Picking someone for a Test match when they are less than fully fit is a gamble at the best of times but when it is one of your main bowlers who has a history of breaking down it is doubly so.

England have been guilty of restoring Flintoff to full duty too soon on more than one occasion and his erratic appearance record has been the reward.

That said, if he is playing for Lancashire and the medical experts say he is ready to go then, quite simply, England have to select him.

Although he has made his reputation as an all-rounder, it is his bowling that will be the chief factor if he is selected.

Stuart Broad looks like he will be around the England set-up for years to come but if it comes down to a straight choice then it is no choice at all.

Alongside Ryan Sidebottom and Matthew Hoggard, Flintoff would form a seam bowling trio capable of winning games.

With whichever spinner is selected and the back-up of Paul Collingwood, England would have the ammunition to cause the Kiwis all sorts of problems.

Even if Flintoff isn't picked, England should win but if I was Michael Vaughan, I would feel more comfortable knowing that one of the country's few world-class players was taking the field behind me.

FA review is wishful thinking
Short of nothing better to do, the Football Association has produced a 50-page document detailing a review of national team performance and issuing targets for the future.

One of these, as you have no doubt seen, is that England should be reaching the last four of European Championships and World Cups in the next few years.

Nothing wrong with that you may think.

Certainly, what is wrong with a bit of ambition?

The answer is there is nothing at all wrong with having some ambition but when it is a hollow pledge in a thick piece of corporate rambling it loses some of its impact.

The unfortunate thing is that, rather than sounding like the well-considered view of a forward-thinking board, it has the traits of a one-eyed fan.

Rather than being based on the evidence available, it is based on the principle that, if enough money is thrown at a target then it should be achieveable.

The FA are giving the impression that, if it comes to the worst and their goals aren't met, the excuses will already be in place.

It is the natural reaction of a supporter to issue ridiculous demands.

It shouldn't be the behaviour of a governing body.

Success should be judged on whether our national teams show signs of improvement.

Of course, we would all like to see England challenging at the 'business end' of tournaments but history shows us that this has only rarely been the case.

The main flaw in the FA's demand is not that their mission statement is mission impossible but that there are plenty of other countries who would quite like exactly the same thing.