Stephen Brenkley: Why Hussain must not walk away

Resignation talk is rife, but the rebuilding of England needs Nasser to stay on

The number of exclusive articles predicting that Nasser Hussain will resign as the England captain is now larger than the countries who have EU membership. This is not one of them. It is the Turkey among such stories: not yet, but in time you wait and see.

Hussain, it was revealed exclusively somewhere or other last week by an old pal of his who did not actually quote him, will resign after the World Cup. The piece fell almost exactly on the first anniversary of an item which, if memory serves, came from the same source and told the world that Hussain would resign as England captain after the next World Cup.

That in turn was followed by a quasi-denial from Hussain who said that his comments had been misinterpreted. He had merely been saying that he would review the situation after the tournament. It is clear, therefore, that the recent tale, similarly but not quite wholly dismissed by Hussain, takes us no further forward than we were a year ago. Or even from the day Hussain was appointed, since he will have to go some time.

But the moment now draws closer. It is probable that at the end of the World Cup (sometime in mid-February for England given present form) Hussain will resign and say that this had been his intention all along. It is vaguely possible, if the present plight deteriorates further, that he could leave before the World Cup, which would knock all previous exclusives into a cocked hat.

Nothing is certain. It seems perverse that as England's results have worsened, the call for Hussain to continue as captain has actually become greater. Not in every quarter, true. He has received a drubbing in the Australian press. (But they would do that, wouldn't they?)

Some of his predecessors who are now in the commentary box should be warned that they can expect to receive a visit from men in white coats if they foam any more at the mouth at perceived misguidedness in field placings and chats with the bowler. But any reasonable, objective analysis would surely conclude that Hussain has been a success. Maybe the tag of being the best since Brearley was premature, maybe it wasn't saying much considering the opposition.

His reputation is now at odds with his record. Of the 40 Tests in which he has led England, the side have won 14, lost 14 and drawn 12. Using the perhaps over-simplistic method of awarding two points for a win and one for a draw, making a total of 80 points available, he has a 50 per cent record. This is slightly worse than Bob Willis, Mike Smith, Ted Dexter and Mike Denness (who also knew something about being humiliated by Australia).

It is better than Ian Botham, whose 33.33 per cent reflects the facts that if he was not terribly good at the job he was also playing West Indies for most of the time, Mike Gatting and Tony Greig. Of recent incumbents, Michael Atherton's tally was 42 per cent (54 matches, 13 wins, 20 draws) and Graham Gooch's was 47 per cent (34, 10, 12). Hussain, partially because he has played Zimbabwe so often, has a better one-day record than either for the moment.

But the abject failures against Australia notwithstanding, it goes beyond results. Gooch and Atherton themselves would probably concede that Hussain has been the better England captain. His passion is transparent, the team are patently his, he has been blighted by a bizarre catalogue of injuries over which he could have no control.

If he truly no longer wants the job, it would be best for all concerned if he went off to spend more time with his family and Essex. He has looked dreadful these past few weeks, worn down by events. Almost past caring because he cares too much. Yet if some improved performances – which can be different from improved results – and an eventual period of calm reflection can help, there are sound reasons for persuading him to stay.

Some of these are negative. There is no obvious successor. Marcus Trescothick, 27 on Christmas Day, and Michael Vaughan, 28 last October, are probably around the right age and have the right experience to take over. Neither is a proven captain or strategist. Trescothick was a much lauded skipper of England Under-19s because he had that simple, elusive knack of persuading the players to play for him, and never mind his tactical unawareness. Vaughan is an assiduous follower of events on the field and has a sharp brain.

But what sort of side would they be taking over? What type of legacy would Hussain have left them? Where would they begin? If he stays, Hussain can forge the path to a smoother transition perhaps at the end of next summer or beyond. He could be one of the chief architects of building a new team, one that either Vaughan or Trescothick could take over more seamlessly. It is how Australia started on the path to pre-eminence, with Allan Border, on to Mark Taylor, to Steve Waugh and, very soon, Ricky Ponting.

Age is no real consideration here. Hussain will be 35 next March, the age that Mike Brearley was when he first assumed the captaincy and two years younger than Ray Illingworth. Both of those men led sides who won the Ashes. Hussain would be 37 when the Ashes are next at stake, a year younger than Illingworth when he masterminded his great triumph in 1970-71, two years younger than Brearley when he propelled England, Botham and Willis to victory in 1981. Vaughan and Trescothick might be the right age (certainly, as history proved, readier for it than Atherton at 25 in 1993) but either would be more prepared still if they waited a while longer.

It is possible that all this is hot air, that Hussain's mind has long since been made up, that all those resignation stories, all that surmise must have had a source and that has probably been the man himself.

He is far from a great captain but there is an overwhelmingly positive, non- exclusive reason to stay on. England need rebuilding and he is the man to do it.