Of all the losses England are battling to withstand — the absence of Simon Jones, Marcus Trescothick, Troy Cooley and Lady Luck — by far the most serious is the unavailability of Michael Vaughan as captain.

If he had been fit and in charge for this momentous series, his players would not have suffered such a collective failure of nerve.

While blame must be attached to Duncan Fletcher, the coach, for mistakes in planning and tactics, the mood of the team comes primarily from the captain. That is how Fletcher has arranged it: he describes himself as consultant to the skipper’s chief executive.

It is possibly a treasonable offence to suggest that someone might do the job better than the nation’s lion, Andrew Flintoff, but because he has a superhuman capacity for absorbing pressure, it may be that he failed to appreciate quite how this series was playing on the minds of his players, only three of whom had previously appeared in Ashes Tests in Australia.

Flintoff need only look at what has happened to Kevin Pietersen, whose good judgment has deserted him as the kitchen got hotter. Yesterday he was lucky to get away with a rash stroke against Brett Lee before he fell victim to another aberration from Billy Bowden, the man Martin Crowe once dubbed Bozo the Clown.

Vaughan’s instincts would have told him of his team’s anxieties. Indeed, his instincts did tell him this. That is why he is in Brisbane now. He has been careful not to tread on Flintoff’s toes and has kept out of the way of the team while coming and going from the nets and working on his comeback from knee surgery.

But he has felt the need to be here, rather than in Perth, where the rest of England’s reserve players are, for a reason. He wanted to be on hand, just in case help was needed. “I’ll be there,” he told me a few weeks ago, “in case anyone wants to chat over a coffee.”

Their tongues may have been tied before the game, but his players may soon be beating a path to his door.

The England management’s line is that Vaughan will not play in this series, while indicating that the position is open to change.

What this team has so swiftly surrendered is not just an opening victory but all sense of the strategy that delivered England the Ashes last year. Then, they were aggressive in everything they did after overcoming a fitful start at Lord’s — although even there they hit Australia hard in the first session, ripping out five wickets and leaving their dressing room resembling a casualty ward.

Where is the aggression this time? While Australia’s focus, as always, was on seizing the initiative in the first session on the first day, England were unable to execute whatever plans they had. When their mental stamina dipped during the home season, they assured us that everything would be all right, that they were aiming to peak for the Ashes, and would be able to.

If they reckon they have scaled peaks these past few days, they must think they have come to Holland.

Flintoff has bowled with hostility, and Ian Bell’s bat was stout in defence, but England’s approach has been extraordinarily timid in so many ways.