It was clear that Ian Bell wasn’t feeling the pressure from the moment he came to the crease shortly after 11.30am. He immediately looked assured and busy. He drove his first ball firmly, nudged his second for a single. He stroked his fourth delivery, from Jeetan Patel, to the cover boundary.

This was Bell as his supporters like to think of him - expansive, positive and domineering. His 110 contained 17 fours and two sixes, more boundaries than he has hit in any Test innings save for his candy-from-kiddies hundred against Bangladesh in his third appearance back in 2005.

Bell played in exactly the manner that England wanted him to, moving briskly and classily to a century that helped raise their lead above 400 – it was over 500 by stumps – while still leaving plenty of time to bowl out New Zealand.

With Andrew Strauss standing firm at the other end, and on course for his best Test score, we finally got after 13 days what we had expected at the start of the series, England batsmen lording it over a B grade Kiwi attack.

But, in a way, Bell’s performance only highlighted what is perceived as his principal shortcoming, an inability to play important innings under really high pressure. Here the pressure was off (save for questions about his own recent sketchy form) and so of course, the argument goes, he batted like a god.

Of his six previous hundreds in Test cricket, only the one in Faisalabad in 2005 was forged out of truly difficult circumstances against a good attack. Bell batted at No4 that day, and went to the wicket with England in trouble at 39 for two.

Perhaps significantly, he had recently sought advice about exuding a more positive body-language on the pitch. By his own admission, he was too inclined to look like the junior pro when in fact he needed to give the opposition the impression that he was someone fully capable taking control of tight situations. That day, he stuck his chest out and never took a backward step.

He has too rarely done this and a balanced package of his Test career would have to contain reference to his cock-ups, such as the brainless run out on the final morning in Adelaide in 2006 when England spinelessly collapsed to defeat.

When he began last summer with an unbeaten 109 against West Indies at Lord’s and 97 at Old Trafford two matches later, Bell appeared to be on the cusp of a significant breakthrough from talented youngster to major force. But bewilderingly, he has trodden water.

Before this game, he had seven times since then passed fifty but failed to go on to a hundred. His overall conversion rate of fifties to hundreds is modest (seven centuries from 25 half-centuries), and nothing like as impressive as the records of Strauss, Kevin Pietersen and Michael Vaughan, all of whom on average turn every second fifty into a hundred.

More damningly, he went back to his bad old ways of failing to impose himself on situations. This winter had been one of enormous frustration for him. Two fine innings in Kandy ended with the job not fully done and England lost the game after narrowly failing to bat out time. In the next Test in Colombo, after England had won the toss on an excellent pitch, Bell’s timidity – he crawled to 15 off 62 balls – was directly identified by Mahela Jayawardene, the Sri Lanka captain, as the point at which England’s lack of ambition became plain.

Here in New Zealand, he has given his wicket away to soft shots a number of times - except on the last day in Hamilton, when he batted with infuriating ease when the game was lost.

This century in Napier will buy him a breathing space, but Bell still has to convince some that he is ready to step up to the very highest level of batsmanship.

Explore Cricket

• Counties