Alastair Cook: 6.5. Never looked fluent but battled well for his first innings total of 60.

Michael Vaughan: 5. Offered nothing with the bat but captained with great imagination and variety in trying to eke out wickets on a very flat, unresponsive Lord's pitch.

Kevin Pietersen: 9. Would have felt different pressures and nerves playing in his first Test against the country of his birth and after a shaky start played tremendously well.

Ian Bell: 9.5. I may be his biggest fan and also his harshest critic as I rate him so highly. From ball one, he dominated and played in a most assured way. No-one can now doubt his value to the side.
(Following on from previous responses to my blogs, I would like you all to know that I write this as a neutral observer for the BBC and never take into account my position as a shareholder in a sports management company whose clients include Bell, Paul Collingwood and Matt Prior)

Paul Collingwood: 6. Have to give him a par performance mark as an appalling umpiring decision did not allow him to contribute with the bat when he knew he had to perform with the return of Andrew Flintoff imminent.

Tim Ambrose: 3.5. Failed with the bat again, but apart from dropping Smith off Pietersen kept wicket tidily with good concentration. He must be aware he needs to offer more if he is to secure his place.

Stuart Broad: 7. Batted exceptionally well and on an unresponsive surface bowled with great heart.

Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson: 6.5. Never gave up, bowled with imagination but this pitch turned into a quick bowlers' graveyard.

Monty Panesar: 6.5. Bowled well in the first innings but needed to bowl with a bit more flair and imagination in the second innings. Still plugged away manfully with the ball only really turning out of the bowlers' footmarks.

The pitch: 4. You always want a good, fair contest between bat and ball, and as the game progresses you want to see the pitch deteriorate so that a positive result can be gained or a hard-fought draw - especially when after day three one side is so far behind in the contest.

So fans of that brand of cricket who have been watching the first half of Sunday's play at Lord's would possibly be praying for more Twenty20 cricket.

But to me, this has been what proper Test cricket is about.

But when the contest becomes like a game of chess, that is still an important part of Test cricket.

South Africa's batsmen know they have an important job to do, which is to save the game.

I am sure that some people have thoroughly enjoyed seeing the contest of bat against ball on day four - attritional cricket - and there are some who would much rather see fours and sixes and a more dynamic style of the game.

Anyone who is new to the game, just an on-and-off follower of the game, would have found the first session pretty boring.

But there are also those who will be thinking no, this is brilliant, I've really enjoyed this contest.

It's not just about talent, it's about mental strength as well. Who's going to lose concentration first? Who's going to make an error first?

And should a wicket fall, will England be able to make the most of it?

Today BBC Sport broke the story about the possible introduction of a new T20 league to begin in 2010, which in effect is the English version of the Indian Premier League.

There will be more money, more exposure to the game, and I just hope that this is going to be long-term.

For me the most important thing is still international Test cricket. It always has to be a player's ultimate ambition to get a Test cap, because in Test cricket, over five days, your talent, your ability and your mental strength is tested, and only the very best survive.

However, Twenty20 cricket is here. It's exciting, it's exposing new talent and big money can be earned. So we have to find room for it, but not to the detriment of Test cricket.

The new T20 organisers say there will have to be 12 homegrown players in a squad, of which three have to be under-23. That would make it an appealing game to the up-and-coming youngsters.

And ideally, with the money that's coming into the game, whereas talented young sportsmen have previously chosen to pursue a professional football career, hopefully they'll go the cricket route.

Players have short careers and are not going to turn down the opportunity of playing in one or other of these leagues. So there have to be two windows created each year.

You would have a separate IPL season, and another window later in the year where there's no international cricket for the T20 to take place.

You can't have the situation next summer where Sri Lanka might be sending over a B team for the England tour because their main players - who I understand aren't centrally contracted to their board - are making their money in the IPL.

That situation cannot arise again. The ICC's future tours committee has to sit down and do what's best for the game now and in the future. If they do that properly there's room for everything.

I may add that I don't want Twenty20 cricket to flood the market. This year, each county has played 10 group games, and overal attendance figures for the competition are up because there have been more games.

But in the individual games I've witnessed the crowds are actually down compared to last year.

We want people to turn up because each match is viewed as a special occasion.Less is more.

Luke Wright
Still trying to find his feet at this level. Has talent, but must kick on. 4

Kevin Pietersen
Apart from his 100 at Durham and the 'switch-hit', just 23 in four innings is not good enough. 5

Ravi Bopara
Should be persevered with for his undoubted ability, but needs a big performance soon. 5.5

Paul Collingwood
Led by example with bat and ball and will return to the helm after his ban. His apology has been accepted by New Zealand. Time to move on. 7

Owais Shah
Now looks at home at this level and his position looks secure. A good personal series full of inventive batting. 8

Tim Ambrose
Offered nothing with the bat and missed two straightforward chances. A strong character who needs more consistency. 2

Graeme Swann
Impressive series with the ball and will grow in stature. Must work on his throwing at the stumps. 7

Stuart Broad
England's Man of the Series, in my opinion, Growing in stature by the game, and I can't speak too highly of what he's achieved to date. 8.5

Ryan Sidebottom
Injury hampered England's Mr Reliable, and he didn't quite reach his usual high standards. 5

James Anderson
Bowled well at times but must improve his consistency with the white ball. 4

Tremlett, Mascarenhas, Cook - didn't play enough to make a judgement....

Alastair Cook
Still searching for his best form. 2

Michael Vaughan
His captaincy skills were up to standard and again looked comfortable at the crease with the bat until a loose shot cost him his wicket. 5

Kevin Pietersen
Top-quality century from England's most exciting batsman. KP showed off his talent and got England out of a very sticky situation. 8.5

Ian Bell
Third-ball duck. Needs runs in the one-day series to keep his critics off his back. 2

Paul Collingwood
Presently out of sorts and low on confidence with the bat. Captaining the one-day side will hopefully clear his mind of the demons. 2

Tim Ambrose
Tidy performance behind the stumps and played an important role in his partnership with Pietersen. 8

Stuart Broad
Mature performance with the bat and the ball. Has a very bright future. 8

Ryan Sidebottom
Not at his very best in the first innings but returned to form in the second. Mr Reliable. 7.5

Monty Panesar
After his heroics at Old Trafford, a quiet game for Monty in swinging conditions. A poor umpiring decision cost him his chance of a maiden Test century! 5

James Anderson
Man of the match and career-best batting and bowling performances. High-quality swing bowling at good pace exposed the Kiwis' poor technique. 9

Once Flintoff has proved that he is fit and in the right form to return, by bowling the necessary overs for Lancashire and ideally scoring a few runs, he is a definite pick.

This will mean changing the line-up for the first time in the last five Tests. Who will be the player to make way?

Sidebottom has been the leading bowler for the last 12 months, Broad is full of promise and will in time be the team's lead bowler while Anderson has just taken a bucket-load of wickets here at Trent Bridge.

The decision will be a tough one should everyone stay fit and in form after the one-day internationals, but these are decisions that selectors have to make.

Flintoff to return at seven, Ambrose at eight and then leave out... the unlucky one!

Don't take the easy option of having Flintoff at six and Collingwood making way, as four bowlers have proved to be enough to win recent Tests and the fact that the batting has not produced a first-innings total in excess of 400 for 11 Tests is another selection issue altogether.

Respond with your team and solutions but if I had to pick a side today for the first Test v South Africa then the young Broad would have to miss out.

Who says being a selector is an easy job!

[Addition at 1652 after Broad's fourth wicket of the day] I may now have to revise my thoughts - how on earth can I leave out Broad...what was I thinking!!

Back to the drawing board for me!!!!

Back in the 1980s Kepler Wessels played for Australia and then his country of birth South Africa, and now there's the situation where Saqlain Mushtaq, the world-class former Pakistan off-spinner, is available to play for England, as is the prolific run-scoring ex-Australian international Stuart Law, who's now plying his trade for Lancashire.

With all the talk of Kolpak players and in football, the lack of qualified English players in the Premier League, should the ICC have more control over who can and who cannot play for their adopted countries?

Or is it OK, so long as we have the best players - regardless of where they were born?

Michael Vaughan has just joined Graham Gooch with a record-equalling six hundreds at NW8, and there are great names on the honours boards in both dressing rooms, but Shane Warne, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar and Muttiah Muralitharan are just some of the legends of the game that do not feature.

Other players I have played with and against were intimidated and were never able to show off their true talent. I think some people can get too uptight playing here, and therefore do not play their natural game. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the many different ways in which venues and situations can affect players.

Bad light has always been the bane of both players and spectators, and with ticket pricing going up by the series (I understand a single Ashes ticket at one ground next year could cost £103 just for a seat), is it now time to bring in permanent floodlighting so that spectators get better value for money?

It annoys spectators and it's frustrating for players as there is no continuity to the day's play. Batsmen have to get their eye in again, and bowlers have to find their rhythm.

As I write, ten minutes after going off... They are coming on again.

But with the overhead rainy and cloudy conditions I think Michael Vaughan did the right thing by putting an inexperienced New Zealand batting line-up in to bat.

It's a shame we did not have any play before lunch and it will be frustrating for the players.

They were getting ready to come out to play only for the drizzle to return again but that is part and parcel of being a cricketer - it's about mental strength as well as physical strength...

They will have spent the morning reading newspapers, watching TV and listening to music and just generally larking about but as soon as the umpires tell them when play will be starting, it's time to re-focus and get yourself loosened up.

On paper, England have a stronger side and, weather permitting, I expect them to win the series.

But I would also say we should not write New Zealand off as they will give their all.

As a national team we have not always given the opposition enough respect in the media, but New Zealand are not just here to make up the numbers.

They may have debutants in Aaron Redmond and Daniel Flynn but I reckon Brendon McCullum and Daniel Vettori would be good enough to get into an England team and Ross Taylor has also shown glimpses of what he is capable of.

I also think England were right to stick with James Anderson. When Matthew Hoggard was dropped after the first Test in Napier, I thought it was a harsh decision but the selectors' decision to choose Anderson paid off in New Zealand.

However he, and the rest of the bowling unit know Hoggard is bowling well and breathing down their necks should they put in a poor performance at Lord's.