Who should succeed Hussain?

THE STRATEGY

Should England just pick their 11 best players – and then select the captain?

Nasser Hussain's decision of to resign as England's one-day captain, following his side's early exit from this year's World Cup, has left the national selectors with a huge dilemma. Hussain has already been invited to lead England during their seven Test matches against Zimbabwe and South Africa this summer, but selecting his successor in limited-over cricket is far less straight-forward. The selectors will want the man they pick to take over eventually as Test captain. Their verdict is scheduled to be announced next Tuesday.

Several strategies are open to David Graveney, the chairman of selectors, Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, and Geoff Miller who will make this important decision. The first depends on whether they feel England should have, or need, their strongest possible side on the field for every game. If they do, a method employed by Australia until recently will be used. In the past the Australian selectors would pick their strongest side and then make the player with the best credentials captain.

The obvious advantage to this approach is that you play your best possible side. For a team like England it is an attractive proposition because, as recent performances have highlighted, they cannot afford to carry passengers. It does, however, make light of how important a good captain is to a side and suggests it is a job anyone could do. The ideal scenario, which is the case in the England Test side under Hussain, is that your chosen captain is good enough to be selected on merit.

... or should they take the "Brearley option" and risk playing with 10 and a half men?

In 1981 England, captained by Ian Botham, had a side full of outstanding cricketers but they were still getting beaten by Australia. After the second Test, in which he bagged a pair, Botham resigned with England 1-0 down and Mike Brearley was brought back to captain the side. On merit Brearley did not deserve a place in the team. At the time he had a Test batting average of 23.65. He was, however, a magnificent captain, probably the best England have had. Under Brearley, and with a little help from Botham, England turned the series round and came out 3-1 winners.

Nasser Hussain was correct in the winter when he said that England were a better side under his leadership. Therefore the importance of a good captain should not be underestimated. It is difficult to put a value on a captain's performance, though. Is an inspirational leader who tactically makes the correct decisions and gets the best out of his players worth 10, 20, 50 or a hundred runs per game? Brearley proved in 1981, when he averaged 17.6, a first-rate captain can easily make up for a lack of class. With the one-day captain soon becoming the Test captain are England prepared to pick a side containing a player who may not be up to it?

And, anyway, is it right for England to have separate one-day and Test captains?

With the volume of international cricket constantly rising and the demands on players, particularly the captains, growing, there is a strong case for lessening the work-load of this pressurised job. The two forms of the game differ so why not have alternative leaders? Looking at Australia, where Steve Waugh leads the Test side – who are the best in the world – and Ricky Ponting the one-day team – who won the World Cup in March – it appears to be working. However, the difference this makes to their side is hard to judge. Australia are so much better than the rest.

England tried this strategy in 1997-98 when Adam Hollioake captained the one-day side and Mike Atherton the Test side. It ultimately failed. It is inevitable that one of the captains will undermine the other. I know Atherton did not enjoy the situation and I have a strong suspicion Waugh doesn't either. When clear direction is needed matters will become confused because the public and the media will not know who represents the England Cricket Team.

That Hussain resigned and was not sacked gives this arrangement a chance, but power sharing will make both captains continually wary of each other. The Test captain is the more important, but having two suggests, as with Atherton, Waugh and now Hussain, that your days are numbered.

THE CANDIDATES

Would the captaincy affect Michael Vaughan's batting?

In the last 12 months Michael Vaughan has been the leading batsman in Test cricket. The England opener is not just a fine player, though. He is also a top man. He is popular with his team-mates and at ease with himself. Though Vaughan looks a contented cricketer, one should not be misled by his mild manner and gentle features. On the field the 28-year-old is tough and possesses a ruthless streak.

Vaughan has experience of captaining sides in his youth but has not performed the job for a while. If he were made captain, and it is difficult to see this not happening, his style would be different from Hussain's. It is difficult to visualise Vaughan as an inspirational figure either in the dressing-room or out on the field and one wonders where the passion will come from. In the field he has shown a tendency to drift and occasionally seems to switch off completely. As captain this cannot happen because you have to live every ball, as Hussain does.

The biggest fear is that captaincy will affect his batting. Scores of 150-plus that Vaughan compiles win Test matches. If the job tires him mentally, such innings will be reduced and that is something England will be desperate to avoid.

Adam Hollioake may be an excellent captain, but is he a good enough player?

It was probably the fact that Hussain and Adam Hollioake didn't really get on that robbed the Surrey captain of a place in England's 2003 World Cup squad. In one-day cricket Hollioake is worthy of a spot in the England side and at 31 he should still be fit enough to play in the next World Cup. With the selectors wanting the captain they name to succeed Hussain, that begs the question: is Hollioake good enough to play Test cricket?

Hollioake's success as a leader is as impressive as his positive style. His side play aggressive cricket but give the impression they are enjoying themselves. Surrey were a side full of talented cricketers that underachieved until he took over. Under him they have won the Championship three times, the Benson and Hedges Cup twice and the National League once. Surrey have become a team and are comfortably the best side in England.

The all-rounder may have taken only two wickets and scored 65 runs in the four Test matches he has played but, along with Mark Alleyne at Gloucestershire, he is one of the two outstanding captains England has. Reverting to Hollioake as Test captain would be like returning to 1981. The fact that Surrey, even with all their stars, have recently been an indifferent one-day side does not work in his favour; nor does Fletcher's close relationship with Hussain.

Are England prepared to gamble on an outsider?

If the selectors decided to look further afield, the first name mentioned would be that of Marcus Trescothick. Until this winter the Somerset opener was being touted by Fletcher and Hussain as England's next captain. However, like his batting, Trescothick's star has faded. At this moment he needs to sort his game out. On the rare occasions he has led England – on tour matches between internationals – he has also failed to impress.

Other names have been mentioned, but it is difficult to see Andrew Flintoff, Paul Collingwood and Mark Butcher from the current squad, or David Fulton at Kent and Glamorgan's Matthew Maynard, being talked about seriously.

FRASER'S VERDICT

Michael Vaughan