England enjoyed an improbable amount of success and luck for the first 89.2 overs of this Test, but when Michael Vaughan fell to the last ball of the first day, Australia knew - as did England's jaded fans as they staggered off to a ruined morning's work - that the end of the innings was uncomfortably nigh. With that in mind, today was a desperate disappointment for England, but not exactly a surprise. Let's look on the bright side for the moment - neither Matthew Hayden nor Justin Langer reached 50, Steve Harmison looked sharp on his Ashes debut, and Richard Dawson settled into an early rhythm and might easily have picked up a couple of wickets. The fielding was erratic but enthusiastic, the field-placings were imaginative - especially the ring in front of square to Matthew Hayden - and a close-of-play score of 247 for 2 wasn't half as bad as it had been at Brisbane.

There, however, the plaudits end. Let's gloss over, if it is possible, England's continued impotence with the new ball. Andy Caddick's shortcomings have been sprayed around the papers as often as his short balls have been clattered around the park, while Matthew Hoggard's arcing inswing is meat and drink for a pair of left-handed openers who love both width and leg-stump deliveries. No, England's real problems began before the match had even started.

Not so long ago - at The Oval against New Zealand in 1999 to be precise - England fielded what has commonly (or should that be comically?) been recognised as their most inept tail in living memory. The dubious merits of Ronnie Irani at No. 7, followed by Caddick, Alan Mullally, Phil Tufnell and Ed Giddins. These five mustered 37 runs between them in two innings, as England slumped to an 83-run defeat and the unofficial title of "Worst Team in the World". The common consensus, as Duncan Fletcher arrived to rake over the embers, was "never again".

But somehow it has happened again, and this time the opposition are not the gritty Kiwis but the all-conquering Aussies, and at the critical point of an Ashes series. These days, England are wearily used to having their plans decimated by injuries, but their surrender of seven wickets for 47 runs was inevitable and reeked of selectorial arrogance. The end result was that Vaughan recorded England's highest innings Down Under for 27 years, but still felt that his job was not just incomplete, but barely incepted.

Even if John Crawley had been fit to take his place, the side would still have comprised six batsmen including the wicketkeeper, and five bowlers, because of Nasser Hussain's obsession with taking 20 wickets. But against opposition of this class, England's only hope of doing so is to put 450-plus runs on the board, and put Australia under some pressure.

It would be wrong to blame England's tail for their failures - including Craig White, who tried to redeem himself with the ball but is batting with so little conviction that he would barely displace Andy Bichel at No. 9 in Australia's order. Except for Caddick, who will always be a law unto himself, each man sold his wicket for as high a price as they could barter. Dawson played sensibly for his 6 from 39 balls, Hoggard survived 21 deliveries and outlasted Alec Stewart. But they were never going to out-haggle a side containing such ruthless businessmen as Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie.

Australia know only too well that when England are five-out, they are all-out. In fact, given that the fifth wicket has provided a series total of three whole runs, Australia have been sharpening the knives at four-down. England's selection is not fair on the few batsmen who succeed, nor the bowlers who have lost the initiative by the time they get a new ball in their hands.

What are your thoughts on England's selection? Click here to send us your feedback

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd