'It's fine to ban ruthless talk, but England should never be careless'

Hamilton once had a statue of Richard O'Brien.

The former host of the Crystal Maze is immortalised in his role as Riff Raff in the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The statue is now in storage, so in its absence England served up their own horror show.

The second day of the third Test against New Zealand was by far their worst of the tour. Tardy in dealing with a last-wicket partnership, scuttled out for 143, ending 340 runs behind and the chance of a clean sweep all but gone.

The watching-through-the-fingers started before the match began. Following England regularly is to know captain Ben Stokes is disdainful about the idea of being "ruthless". A local journalist was unaware of this Stokes trope, and very reasonably asked if England were going to be ruthless in their pursuit of a 3-0 series win.

"I hate the word ruthless," said Stokes. "It's a word that is said at the conclusion of something. We go out there to win, every game.

"You have good days, you have bad days, but on the bad days it doesn't mean you're not being ruthless. If we win, it doesn't mean we're being more ruthless than when we lose."

For those paying close attention, it might have been spotted when Harry Brook said something similar after the second-Test win in Wellington.

"We don't like that word, ruthless," said Brook. "We just go about it the way we usually do, and hopefully we can get another win."

One wonders if "ruthless" has been placed on a list of banned words inside the England dressing room, alongside Bazball, bogey and Ollie Robinson (the old one).

There is some logic to it. Victories and defeats cannot simply be attributed to varying levels of ruthlessness. Winning = ruthless and losing = not ruthless is unfair.

If to be ruthless is to show a lack of compassion or pity, then it can be understood why Stokes is no fan, given the caring, nurturing side of his character is a super-strength of his captaincy.

Perhaps the display in Hamilton should be put down to carelessness.

Stokes said the selection of Matthew Potts was a result of the series being won. That is no slight on Potts, who has been the pick of the bowlers, just the hint that England may not have made the change had the series still been live. They did the same with Josh Hull against Sri Lanka at The Oval.

The captain admitted his decision to field first on winning the toss was made on the spur of the moment. It was a missed chance to have New Zealand bowl first, not the hosts' preference given an attack of two spinners and only three seamers.

England's passive tactics on the second morning, allowing Mitchell Santner to shield last-man Will O'Rourke was far from their "take the positive option" mantra. An extra 32 runs added, an hour in the field and a perfect recipe for the batting implosion that followed.

On a pitch that turned for Santner, Shoaib Bashir was ignored until the 157th over of the match. Prior to that, Bashir had failed to back up Jacob Bethell's throw. He could have been forgiven for forgetting he was actually playing.

Hamilton is continuing a trend. Whereas England under Stokes and Brendon McCullum generally start series well, they finish them badly, usually because of batting collapses.

Prior to this, they have lost three final Tests in their four series this year. This will make it a third loss in four dead rubbers.

Against India in Dharamsala in March, England were 195 all out in their second innings in 48.1 overs, including a collapse of 5-49 after another of 7-83 in first innings.

At The Oval against Sri Lanka, it was 156 all out in 34 overs in the second innings, including a collapse of 7-62 after 7-64 in the first innings.

In October against Pakistan it was 112 all out in 37.2 in the second innings, an entire slump of 10-97 after 6-62 in the first innings.

On Sunday it was 143 all out in 35.4 overs, this time the slide reading 6-88.

Whichever way you cut it, that is a pattern.

There will no doubt be the suggestion that England are phoning this one in, perhaps understandably in the 17th Test of an exhausting year. If feels like a lazy accusation, and almost every pro would bristle at the insinuation they are not giving their all every time they step on to the field.

But there is also no denying New Zealand have more to gain than England in Hamilton. The tourists' job of winning the series is done, the Black Caps are desperate to avoid only a third 3-0 defeat on home soil. There is the extra motivation of Tim Southee's final Test.

At the very highest level, that extra 1% can make a huge difference. If the series had still been on the line, would England have skipped their training session two days out from this match? Probably not.

None of this is meant to provide England with an excuse. If, for example, we criticise them for being nowhere in the World Test Championship, they cannot be given a pass for losing their mojo at the end of a series, dead rubber or not.

As discussed at the beginning of this tour, England's ethos can be their biggest strength and their biggest weakness. A relaxed environment can bring the best out of players, not sweating the small stuff can give the freedom to find peak performance. But overlooking the small things can result in carelessness – there's that word again.

For better or worse, it is a pervading attitude in English cricket. McCullum is about to take over the white-ball team. The culture he and Stokes have created is being replicated in the Lions and down through the age groups.

The England men's surrender of two World Cups in the past year-and-a-bit were rooted in a lack of attention to detail. The women's failure at the T20 World Cup included not practising fielding at a Dubai ground with unique floodlights and off days spent at boat parties.

Stokes' Test team have the opportunity to build a legacy over the coming year with landmark victories over India and Australia. Neither will happen without due care and attention.

It's fine if England want to ban talk of being ruthless, but they should never be careless.