Hussain faces a test of his loyalties

Indian winter ends with a dilemma - to stay with the new boys or return to old friends

Internal links

Frustrated, but England count the plus points

At last Flintoff can see a big future

Henry Blofeld: Lawmakers must stamp out the new 'Bodyline'

Hussain faces a test of his loyalties

England arrived in India with expectations on the downside of minimal and a team barely worthy of the name. If a 3-0 defeat in the Test series was a formality, the acquisition of respect was not. The validity of the concerns was merely enhanced by the heavy reversal in the opening match.

That was 16 days ago, but when the squad return home tomorrow they will be accompanied by aspirations on the upside of maximal and a whole new set of problems. Whatever the outcome in Bangalore this England, with a bowling attack so wet behind the ears it was in danger of being submerged, have acquitted themselves with determination, perseverance and skill.

They have had the better of the hosts in the last two Test matches and might have won the first of them but for the lack of a cutting edge and a sporting pitch, and were still being seriously hampered last night by rain in completing victory in the other.

Neither of these scenarios was in the compass of normal imagination and probably eluded the hopes of the England captain, Nasser Hussain, and the coach, Duncan Fletcher. It has not been perfect, and if their strategy with bat and ball has not defiled the game it has been ugly. But they have stuck rigidly to it and in doing so, in truth, have played to their strengths.

India , disappointingly, were flummoxed. They should have one of the world's best teams, yet contrived to look ordinary.

Flair and England are not bedmates, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Look where it got them against Australia last summer. There is perhaps a wider responsibility to the game and those who watch it. Anybody who says otherwise is living a fantasy, because people would eventually stop watching. However, it is quite as fantastic to expect Hussain to give orders to his fledglings to play with unbridled razzmatazz, to go for shots with abandon and to bowl positively at all times.

The main criticism has been their bowling against Sachin Tendulkar, which reached new lows of defensiveness in Bangalore. First, there was the sight of Andrew Flintoff coming round the wicket and bowling short. Then, most damnably, there was Ashley Giles delivering his orthodox left-arm spin over the wicket for over after over after over and directing it a foot outside leg stump, where the wicketkeeper, James Foster, was standing.

Tendulkar padded away, content to be strokeless for long periods, knowing he could not be leg before. England would defend their ploy by saying it worked, for eventually Tendulkar's patience snapped. He sashayed down the pitch, essayed a drive, missed and was stumped for the first time in Test matches. It was Foster's first Test stumping too, and if it was fairly regulation he executed it adeptly and will never, no matter how long he plays, have a better one.

But there is no gainsaying that England's tactics went beyond gamesmanship and safety first. They broke the laws. The new International Cricket Council regulations, introduced in September, make it clear: "For bowlers who umpires consider to be bowling down the leg side as a negative tactic, the strict limited-over wide interpretation shall be applied." Since we all know that anything down leg in limited-overs games is a wide, the umpires in Bangalore were not interpreting the laws correctly.

Hussain has had a wonderful press lately, which he deserves, but he may like to consider his wider obligations sometime. Equally, it should be said that suppose India applied the same tactic to England, if the latter possessed a Tendulkar (oh happy day), then Hussain would not complain.

England now have to determine what is to be done with this side. There are players, proven players, waiting to come back. Andrew Caddick and Darren Gough had opened the bowling for England in 25 consecutive Tests before this tour. If both return, what becomes of the estimable Matthew Hoggard in a side where the third seam-bowling spot may well go to an all-rounder?

All-rounders present another difficulty. Craig White and Andrew Flintoff have both had wonderful moments recently. The first is scoring runs, the second is taking wickets, but equally the first cannot take a wicket and the second cannot score a run. In a side of six batsmen (assuming Graham Thorpe eventually returns and England retain the badly served Michael Vaughan), there would be room only for one.

Similarly, Richard Dawson is not likely to play again in the near future. His off-breaks have been surprisingly mature, but England are not likely to play too many Tests with two spinners. Even Australia do not often do that.

The thorniest and most immediate difficulty may surround the wicketkeeper. After a nightmare start, Foster has demonstrated the rich promise his supporters always claimed that he possessed. This speaks not only for his talent but for his strength of character. He looks the part.

However, Alec Stewart has suddenly declared himself available. He has made it sound as though he is rushing to the aid of his country – having initially declined to tour this winter – but there may be a vested interest here. There is no doubt that Stewart is a better player than Foster, both as a keeper and a batsman. So he should be, as a 38-year-old who has kept fit and has played 115 Test matches.

The selectors must ask themselves two overriding questions. Is Stewart likely to help England win back the Ashes next winter; and is he then likely to help to win the World Cup in South Africa? The answer to both is, of course, a resounding "No". That negative applies also to Foster, but he will be around for the Ashes and World Cup after that and after that. He has displayed enough of his wares now to keep his place. Anything else would be folly.

Nobody should labour under the impression that England are formidable, but they have gone to a land which was strange to all of them and competed to the end. They have made certain that there will be competition for places. For that, it was worth a touch of tedium.