In every other part ofthe world except England it, rather than Test matches, is what draws the big crowds. But timing is everything.This series against Sri Lanka has probably come at the wrong time. It is at the end of a long winter and on the back of a tough, memorable Test rubber. The feeling of a certain anti-climax is hard to avoid.It is not one-dayers’ fault that this happens. There is an air of inevitability about it which huge crowds and the immediacy of the game cannot erode.

In general, I would suggest the one-dayers would be better before the Test matches: a curtain-raiser, a scrumptious appetiser. Having said which, this winter’s itinerary might profitably have been arranged differently. The one-dayers in Pakistan could have come at the end of that tour and the ones in Sri Lanka at the beginning. There would have thus been a block of matches, which would have enabled the team to settle into that mode.I happen also to advocate a similar system in domestic cricket in England.

All the one-day cricket could be played in a block in, say, July and August That way players know what they are doing. The constant changing is bad for method and technique.England at least are getting there. This summer the NatWest triangular tournament falls between two Test series – an improvement surely on splitting a Test series, as happened last summer. And next winter I understand there is a possibility that the onedayers in India will be played following a break after the Test series and the team will then go straight on to New Zealand for one-dayers there.That surely is the way to go, but two more points about one-dayers. Although those of us who played the Test matches here have a natural inclination to want to go home – as some of our team-mates did – we are aware of our responsibilities to our specialist colleagues. And it is worth mentioning that despite all of the above, England still do not play enough one-day international matches.