Chris Waters: Saturation of one-day fixtures only dilutes appeal for crowds

Namely, was anyone in the slightest bit interested in the series? Did anyone actually give two shakes of a lamb’s tail what happened?

Well, our brave boys did, quite obviously, along with the backroom team and coaching staff, but what about the ordinary bloke in the street?

I mean, do you think he’s got over it yet – the result, the drama, the unremitting razzmatazz?

Or do you suspect it rather passed him by, like one of Nick Knight’s commentary stints on satellite television?

My guess – and it’s only a wild hunch – is that he has forgotten already the series took place.

“What did you say the score was again? 5-0 to India? No, I didn’t see any of it, to be honest.”

Of course, writing as the cricket correspondent of Yorkshire’s national newspaper, and favoured with the benefit of a satellite dish, you might imagine that I at least tuned in to have a look at the action.

Well, you could not be more wrong. Now, let me see, what was I doing?

Oh yes, during the first ODI I was washing my hair, during the second I was cleaning the car, during the third I was at the supermarket, during the fourth I was cutting the lawn, and, during the fifth, I was putting out the bins.

Oh, what a pity, I missed all five of them. Never mind, at least I was able to catch up via the agency reports in the Yorkshire Post.

Of course, there might have been a bit of harrumphing in the shires that England were whitewashed again, but I think most of us got over it in a couple of nanoseconds.

For the fact is, one-day international cricket has ceased to become relevant to a good many people.

Granted, there will always be those who take pleasure from the format, but the sheer saturation of one-day cricket has taken away much spectator interest.

There are too many one-day games, too many games with nothing at stake and the concept has become jaded and dull.

Not even sundry tinkerings with power plays and fielding restrictions have served to lift matters above the mundane.

Of course, that does not mean questions should not be asked following England’s latest humiliation.

Many are wondering how a side who are top of the world Test rankings can perform so poorly in the shorter game, for there remains a stark contrast between England’s efforts in five-day and one-day cricket. This cannot be down to a lack of preparation; on the contrary, our cricketers have never been better prepared than they are nowadays.

Everything is analysed to the nth degree, so there can be no excuses on that score.

So might it boil down to a simple lack of talent?

England certainly have some good one-day players, but many of their rivals have better ones, and England have no divine right to be top of the tree.

When everything comes off, they can beat the likes of India on home soil as they proved last summer.

But every time they go to places like India, the wheels seem to come off in spectacular style.

The facts would appear to speak for themselves:

England have won only one of their last 18 one-day games in India.

They are a miserable fifth in the International Cricket Council ODI rankings.

They have never won the 50-over World Cup.

That is not the record of a side likely to become world No 1 in all forms of the game any time soon.

Might it be that the stark contrast between England’s Test and one-day performances is not so curious after all? What I mean is, are England as good a Test team as people seem to think?

Of course they are the best in the world at present, there is no disputing that, and they have done superbly well in recent times. But how strong is Test cricket in general? And where are all the great fast bowlers? Are England not the best of a mediocre bunch?

One does not wish to belittle their efforts for one moment, but let us see how they get on in India and South Africa before we evaluate their standing in the five-day game.

And recent history – ie the aftermath of 2005 – tells us to be wary about getting too carried away.

Although England have a settled Test side, I am not sure they have got their selections right in one-day cricket.

There appear to be too many bits-and-pieces players, while I remain unconvinced that Alastair Cook is the right man to captain the team.

I would prefer someone like Kevin Pietersen, who I know would not be to everyone’s taste but who I still think could do a good job.

I disagree with Graeme Swann’s view that Pietersen does not have the skills to be a good captain.

I still think there is a captain in there somewhere and that leadership brings out the best in Pietersen at a time when his one-day future is up in the air. The South African will have learned from his fall-out with former coach Peter Moores and perhaps it is time to have a re-think.

Of course, there were some glaringly obvious reasons why England crumbled in India.

Their batsmen did not to adapt to the slow, turning pitches of the sub-continent and allowed too many dot balls to pass by.

England’s boundary count was not unimpressive but their ability to rotate the strike was hardly the best, enabling the Indian bowlers to build pressure.

Jonathan Trott, for instance, did not score enough singles at the start of his innings, and one-day cricket is as much about the ability to nudge and nurdle and keep the scoreboard ticking as it is about smashing the ball out of the park.

None of these issues, however, would have been news to those charged with finalising England’s preparation for the tour.

That would suggest that talent – rather than tactics – is a key issue here and that England, first and foremost, must work on their skills.

Beyond that, we should also accept that one-day cricket is simply not an important part of our culture in England.

It is not embedded in our psyche as it is in countries such as India.

One-day cricket remains a second-class citizen in this country and a poor relation of Test cricket.

It does not capture the imagination and is never likely to while administrators are hell-bent on playing more matches than there are days in the week.