Ben Stokes's decision to enforce the follow-on was right - although Freddie Calthorpe might have disagreed

The England captain asked the hosts to bat again after they were dismissed for 209 in reply to England’s 435-8 declared, the Kiwis making a much better fist of things second time as they battled to 202-3, 24 behind.

Stokes has got little wrong in his captaincy career - England are chasing their 11th victory in 12 Tests since his appointment, after all, and their seventh on the spin.

But was he right to take up the option in the morning session in an effort to win the game - and the series - inside three days?

As ever in such cases, opinion was split.

Sir Alastair Cook, speaking on television, said that he wouldn’t have gone down the Stokes route.

“I wouldn’t have enforced the follow-on,” he said. “I didn’t often do it as a captain, and I feared a little bit for this (New Zealand’s second innings recovery).

“Suddenly the wicket flattens out and you’re asking your bowlers to keep on going and going and going.

“However, England are still in a very good position to win this game, and I still expect them to win this game.

“I just thought more time off the legs and slightly fresher bowlers - yes, the pitch might be slightly flatter, but that’s the way I’d have gone about it, but there’s no complaints from me for going this way.”

Paul Collingwood, in contrast, the England assistant coach, defended the tactic as an attacking ploy.

“That’s the approach of Stokesy and Baz (McCullum, head coach),” he said. “They want the aggressive option and (intended) hopefully to win the game today.

“It didn’t turn out that way, but we’re still in a really good position.”

My own view on this, for what it’s worth, is that Stokes was right and that sides are generally too cautious these days when it comes to enforcing.

Some of that can be traced back to Kolkata in 2001, when India famously beat Steve Waugh’s team after he chose to enforce, which seemed to trigger a collective panic in the ensuing years, along with an increasing trend for back-to-back Tests, which puts increasing strain on bowlers.

However, if a little flippancy may be permitted, and why the devil not, perhaps the main reason why I like captains to enforce is because it raises the prospect of an early finish and a day/days off.

Indeed, I well remember the collective groan in the press box - it’s not just me, Your Worship - when Gary Ballance chose not to enforce despite Yorkshire leading by about three squillion runs in one game, which put paid to hopes of an early getaway for the journalists present, especially those staying far from home.

Still, the inclination of some captains not to try to press home their advantage quickly but to seek to add to that advantage first is responsible, I think, for one of my favourite tales from the game’s rich history.

In 1930, England were playing the West Indies at Kingston and entirely dominant over then feeble opponents.

England racked up 849 in their first innings, the Surrey opener Andy Sandham scoring a then Test record 325, and followed up by dismissing West Indies for 286, giving England a lead of 563.

It was a ‘timeless’ Test, the last of the series, and although the match was then in the closing stages of day four, Freddie Calthorpe, the England captain, was minded to give spectators full value for money.

“We’ll have another bat,” announced Calthorpe, who then allowed the England second innings to run to 272-9 before declaring, leaving West Indies 836 to win - “an appalling task”, understated Wisden.

Thanks to some stubborn resistance en route to 408-5, followed by rain on days eight and nine, West Indies escaped with a draw, the Test not so ‘timeless’ that England could afford to miss the boat home.