Once more, things are not going as smoothly in a Test as England would like. Just as New Zealand, dressed up in English minds as the easily digested hors d’oeuvre ahead of the South African main course in high summer, scored more runs than expected in their first innings of the first npower Test at Lord’s, so they did here in the second at Old Trafford.

It is now almost a year since a Test match panned out as England might have hoped. In that time, their bowling has often appeared laboured, as it was yesterday, and their batting has spluttered like a badly tuned engine with no first-innings total in excess of 400. Their only two victories in that time, both in New Zealand, came after turbulent starts with the bat.

If bowlers win matches, then England are not going to be winning anything soon, at least not until Andrew Flintoff returns. Their attack was treated with insolence yesterday by an inexperienced but gutsy New Zealand outfit thriving on its underdog status. They not only made 381, which might have been many more but for two foolish run-outs in one over of morning madness, but they did so inside 91 overs at the rattling rate of 4.2 runs per over.

The role of skewerer-in-chief of English superiority was played by Ross Taylor, whose unbeaten 154 from 176 balls was as fine a Test century scored by a visiting batsman to England in recent years. It was also the highest-ever score for New Zealand in a Manchester Test.

For all that, England can still chase the dream of winning this match. With Andrew Strauss providing solidity at the top of the order, England passed 100 for the loss of only one wicket and on a good batting surface can aim to finally top 400 against a New Zealand attack as dependent on the swinging ball for success as their own.

The ball has stubbornly not swung here. Old Trafford pitches tend to last well too, which means England should not unduly fear batting last. Australia held out for a draw here in 2005 and last year West Indies were dismissed for 394 in the fourth innings, having been set 455 to win.

Their first task is to satisfy Michael Vaughan’s demand that two batsmen score centuries in the first innings as the basis for a commanding total and Strauss’s dismissal for 60 - to a fine catch by Brendon McCullum diving onto his bruised left arm - set back that aim considerably.

England’s meagre tempo of less than three runs per over did not suggest a team charging for the victory line; nor did it meet Vaughan’s preseries claim that we would see more confident batting from his team now that they had a series win behind them. They remain a nervous, introspective batting unit. By the close, England had lost four wickets, with Vaughan, Alastair Cook and nightwatchman Ryan Sidebottom also falling. They resume today on 152 for four.

England’s shabby performance in the field confirmed two things. One is that Vaughan was right when he said before the series that a four-man attack would only work if the four bowlers were operating to a high level. When he was talking, Vaughan was thinking of Flintoff as among his quartet but here, without his most dependable bowler, Vaughan struggled to maintain order.

England’s captain had conceded that four bowlers might struggle if they were required to bowl first and Monty Panesar, his spinner, was working with an untrammelled surface. Panesar had made the occasional ball turn on the first day, but his influence remained marginal, as figures of one for 101 from 22 overs suggest. He did, though, account for the key wicket of McCullum.

The second view that was upheld was that James Anderson is not a bowler who can be trusted at Test match level. If the ball swings, he can be dangerous, if it does not he is a needless luxury. In a recent interview, he gave the game away when he said that he had to make sure he did not panic if his rhythm eluded him. Anderson, who has spent more of his England career panicking than playing well, is the new Mark Ram-prakash. Yesterday his panic extended to his fielding as he misjudged a catch off a skyer off Jacob Oram at deep mid-off.

As chance had it, Anderson finished with four of the seven wickets that fell to bowlers, but he was flattered by such a return. Had Anderson not cleaned up the tail, with three wickets in his last four overs, his figures would have fully betrayed his profligacy. He went at almost six runs an over, a scandalous rate given the bounce at his disposal, but Anderson rarely asserts the kind of control that a Glenn McGrath or Shaun Pollock would regard as a base requirement.