It's just a word to the wise, but a slogan to the rest

There is a danger in punditry circles of misconstruing the adjective "positive" as it applies to batting. It is bandied about almost willy-nilly, and a player who is not positive is deemed not to be doing the right thing by his team.

There is a danger in punditry circles of misconstruing the adjective "positive" as it applies to batting. It is bandied about almost willy-nilly, and a player who is not positive is deemed not to be doing the right thing by his team.

Positive, as it emanates in an endless stream from the commentators and summarisers, is often interpreted as trying to hit four every ball. Or six. But anyway being on the attack. This is not so and it is a view that is not only misguided but slightly alarming. That sort of positiveness could amount to recklessness.

Of course, being positive is important. But being positive, especially at the start of an innings, is getting your footwork precisely right. If you are defending it is about doing so fully by regularly addressing the ball with the full face of the bat, and if you are leaving the ball it is doing it with 100 per cent conviction. Equally, if you hit a ball for four you should do it as though you mean it, not half-heartedly. All this is what positive means, and the bowling side know it.

I have just begun to open the innings for the first time as a senior cricketer, and I could have done with making more runs in England's innings in the First Test. But I do know how I shall approach the task if, say, England were to bat first on the first morning of the match.

It is about building a platform on which others can thrive later. Getting through to lunch on the first day without losing a wicket is a vital part of the job. If by then you have received, say, 24 overs, it has got to be better to be say 60-odd for none than 80-odd for two.

A fielding side will always, no matter who they are, gee themselves up by stressing to themselves the importance of taking two or three wickets with the new ball. If they do not succeed, it has a debilitating effect. The batting side should always remember that.

In a Test match, getting to lunch on the second day with the score around or approaching 400 should be the objective. To do that may take care early on. The new ball can be moving around, but the plan has always got to be to assert your authority so that life opens up all sorts of possibilities for the later batsmen. These are principles I shall adhere to at Trent Bridge and, all being well, beyond. Being positive is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of Tom, Dick and Harrys have opinions about batting. Top bowling is not to be treated with a cavalier attitude, batsmen have to work out the pitch, the conditions and to sort out strengths: otherwise disaster lurks.

The series could not have started more wonderfully for England. It was the most clinical, well-rounded performance I have ever been a part of. The side played to their limits and, just as importantly, everything went our way. The third umpire, for instance, ruled in our favour twice, once to reprieve Alec Stewart, once to send Trevor Gripper on his way. From the moment we won the toss and Nasser Hussain, the captain, chose to field because he suspected Zimbabwe would fancy bowling, it went more or less smoothly.

We probably realise it will not happen like that again quickly. It is important not to get carried away, to realise that Zimbabwe, resilient cricketers though they are who have given England much to worry about before now, are not at the peak of their game. But we should also ensure we build on the exhibition at Lord's and move forward.

The season, having apparently started at last after a miserable opening in April, appears to have stopped again. All the Championship games last week were badly affected and the tables of whatever hue have taken on an artificial look.

The weather is hardly conducive to the sort of pitches that four-day cricket should be played on, having said which, the two that Middlesex have encountered away from home recently have both cut the mustard. Worcester and Northampton were similar, granting seam movement, but not sideways and without uneven bounce. This made it a good examination for both parties. The bowlers had to put it in the right place and the batsmen had to be vigilant. Importantly, both pitches also turned later in the match, as they should. At Northamptonshire, this allowed in Phil Tufnell for more than 20 overs. He might, of course, being Tuffers, complain about the workload, but inside he would have been delighted to get a long bowl.

He bowled beautifully, too, with perfect patience and control, hitting his line, giving nothing, making them play. Tufnell remains the best left-arm spinner in England by a country mile.