The Hussain legacy: a team and a crisis

England are in a mess. It was obligatory to reach that conclusion after their anticipated early departure from the World Cup, and the way things are going it might not be worthwhile taking preparations for 2007 much beyond practising handshakes for the opening ceremony.

The condition runs somewhat deeper than mere failure to become a Super Sixer in South Africa. It is rapidly becoming part of the tradition that England arrive and, shortly after, leave. It has now happened in 1996, 1999 and 2003.

When they went this week, however, they were accompanied by the distinct anti-pathy of much of the rest of the cricket world, were viewed as appallingly managed – perhaps unmanageable – and were heading for a disturbing future. All World Cups act as watersheds for their participants, but England may have nowhere to turn.

These matters are always relative, but the playing side is almost healthy. Nasser Hussain's team, as they were then, were two measly wickets away from beating Australia last Sunday, progressing to the next stage, and who knows what after that. But they could not finish the job, and because of that the suffering grew worse. Andy Bichel, Australia's hero in Port Elizabeth, may not yet know what he has done.

Hussain resigned two days later, conceding that he was no longer good enough but expressing a desire to continue as the Test captain. The jockeying for position began almost immediately. It was not quite like the starting line at the Grand National, but there were plenty of names and not many, it was possible to think, had a chance of getting beyond the first fence.

Whoever takes over will be operating in a grim climate. The refusal properly to embrace the one-day game 10 years ago – no real appetite for the stuff, old boy, no willingness to innovate – continues to cost the side dear. Everyone who comes into the side is still playing catch-up.

There were some signs of optimism in South Africa. The win against Pakistan, which was genuinely stirring, and the general stubbornness against Australia were indications of better things to come. If some of the team were there by accident more than design, it was possible to think that careful handling and appropriate experience might still yield rewards.

But it will probably not happen like that. The team have been strangely run this winter. Hussain has been a passionate public voice who has frequently trembled with the emotion of it all. This is in direct contrast with the coach, Duncan Fletcher.

During his valedictory news conference, Hussain described Fletcher as a great man. If that is so, it is time Fletcher began showing it beyond the dressing-room door. He is polite and not discourteous but he is uncommunicative. He does not like interference in the running of the England team, but he does not lead it in public.

England became a laughing stock because it was difficult to know who was in charge. Fletcher must change. He takes taciturnity to new levels. All other teams have a named manager. Maybe there is a case for saying that Fletcher is a great coach, but his last five tournaments read like this: NatWest Series, lost in final; Test series against India, drawn after being ahead; Ashes, lost 4-1; VB Series, lost 2-0 in final; World Cup, out at first stage. Some time a coach has to start winning.

But issues other than playing performance could yet have a catastrophic effect. First, there will be the repercussions of the decision not to go to Zimbabwe. Fletcher, born and bred in Zimbabwe, had a part to play in that but has steadfastly refused to make any public utterance. Perhaps that is because he still has family in the country, which he left 20 years ago, but it is not redolent of greatness.

Some time after the World Cup, the International Cricket Council will walk round from their offices at Lord's and knock on the door of the England and Wales Cricket Board opposite. They will demand several million pounds in compensation for the refusal to play the group match in Harare.

The ECB might fight their corner, but they eventually dropped the case in South Africa after an increasingly embarrassing stand-off. Although they squealed to the bitter end that they had a sound legal case they, like every other country, had signed the Participating Nations Agreement. Nobody doubts, however, that there is still plenty of fertile ground for the lawyers.

The initial repercussion of the Zimbabwe affair is that England are unpopular. It was not that they did not go but that they wanted everybody else to understand that they would not go. The longer it went on the dafter it became.

In the weeks since, the players (and the ECB have not exactly rebuffed them) have implied that they stayed put because of some grand moral crusade. It was no such thing: they cited safety grounds which were frequently rejected. It will take years for England to be fully restored in the cricket family.

By then, few in England may care one way or the other. The World Cup is the most important and significant tournament in the game, yet not a ball has been seen on terrestrial television in England, save for the odd clip on the news. BSkyB have been thorough – if not always painstaking or lively – in their coverage, according to reports. But watching cricket via satellite is almost a specialist occupation. Cricket, like all sports, needs television, and it needs terrestrial television.

The ECB's partners on earth, Channel 4, did not bother with a highlights package. They may not be saying so publicly, but with three years of their contract still to run they are cooling towards cricket. If they do not bid next time, the BBC will have a clear field. Yet the BBC have made it clear that they do not see cricket as a television sport.

Thankfully, Auntie deems it fit for radio. There seemed to be more wireless chappies in South Africa than players at one stage. Cricket should not spurn this, but television coverage sustains much of the domestic game.

To make matters worse, sponsors are hardly lining up to be associated with the domestic competitions. It was welcome news that Cheltenham and Gloucester have extended their link with the county knockout cup, but the new 20-over competition, to be known as 20:20, which was devised to encourage young spectators, has not persuaded marketing men to form an orderly queue at the Lord's gates. Nor has the one-day league yet gathered a backer.

This makes the outlook for players' pay packets bleak. Yet counties are still throwing contracts at iffy overseas players, especially fellows who hold European Union passports but are not eligible to play for England. The Professional Cricketers' Association will be along to take a stand against that while telling us that their members should have more money and never mind grassroots development.

The game needs leadership desperately. It also needs vision. England lost one man last week who provided those commodities. Hussain may not be everybody's idea of a nice guy, but he cares and he led. Adam Hollioake may bring similar qualities to the one-day team.

Candidates on the inside

Michael Vaughan

England's best batsman leads the nominations for the vacancy, although Duncan Fletcher has indicated that he is not ready. His previous experience was successful when he led England A four years ago. Calm and respected, and would bring a more placid approach. His intermittently quirky fielding oddly suggests, given his batting, that his concentration wavers.

Marcus Trescothick

Once the apparently anointed successor, it would be folly to pick him now. His form remains in decline and he is in the process of completely rebuilding his technique. Nor has he convinced observers in his brief forays into the job that he is strategically smart. As England Under-19 captain, however, he was virtually worshipped by his team, which is always useful for a leader.

Andrew Flintoff

Somewhere underneath the genial exterior there lurks a shrewd cricket brain. His all-round duties may preclude him from office, and his inherently benign personality could make it difficult to make the tough decisions. He would also need to temper his occasionally gregarious (though essentially harmless) off-field activities. Counterbalancing all that, the job might be his making.

Paul Collingwood

He is not only the best fielder in the side, he is also the most committed. His will to win and determination to compete shine through his every deed. He has grown into the side's middle order and is an unflappable cove. Whether he would be resourceful or forceful enough is another matter, though. He is a sound character but would be of unknown calibre.

Candidates on the outside

Adam Hollioake

He has already had the job once and there are many who say it should never have been taken away from him. His leadership skills are unquestioned and he has edge. He is good enough, just; at 31 he is not old but he has been out of the side a long time. His appointment to the post as a one-day specialist might make life harder for the Test captain.

Mark Butcher

If there is a plan to make him the next Test captain, or if it is intended to replace Hussain in both roles now, he might be the man. He has the nous and is a player with a sound sense of the team ethic. But sometimes you have to wonder whether he is singleminded enough about the game. Interestingly, he has also never played a one-day international.

Analysis by Stephen Brenkley