It is one of the cricket world's great mysteries as to why a team can perform well in first class cricket but poorly in the one-day game.

In recent years Sussex have made considerable strides forward in four-day cricket but since winning the division two Sunday League title in 1999, and with the odd NatWest or Benson and Hedges performance aside, our one-day form has regressed alarmingly.

It can be the other way around, of course. Gloucestershire have been the most successful limited overs outfit in the last five years but they have never made it out of the second division in the championship.

Likewise, certain individuals find that they have more success in one form of the game than the other.

The most obvious example is Michael Bevan. His one-day batting for Australia has been rock solid. For nearly a decade now he has averaged considerably more than any other player on the planet.

Yet when he was given a go at Test match cricket he experienced problems with his technique and was soon dropped, never to be given another chance.

Conversely, his compatriot, Justin Langer, has played many Tests for Australia but has never been considered for the one-day team.

It is difficult and probably not very constructive to think about in which game it is better to perform.

There is more money, exposure and hype surrounding the one-day game but, as the Gloucestershire's accountants will tell you, this does not always translate into profit. They have struggled as much as any county in the last few debt-ridden years of county cricket.

As teams like Surrey, Warwickshire and Kent have shown, it clearly makes financial sense to achieve good results in both codes of cricket.

One of the reasons it is easy to get into a losing rut in one-day cricket is because the result is so finite. You either play well and win, or badly and lose.

One moment of stupidity, or lapse in concentration from fielder, batter or bowler and the contest can be lost. In this way bad form cannot hide.

In the longer version of the game, these lapses can be absorbed into the day's play and cancelled out by other moments of brilliance. In this way it is possible for some members of the team to perform badly but for the team to still draw the game and come out with credit.

We are in a pothole and I'm convinced it is the mental, not physical side that needs working on. We practice well and hard. We have a team full of exciting talent and skill, which always seems to look better on paper than our opponents.

Moreover, on the few occasions we have got it right the results are spectacular - witness our demolition of Middlesex at Lord's and Somerset at Taunton this year.

It is possible to climb out of the hole. Surrey were in a not too dissimilar a position from us five years ago - riding high in the championship but unable to focus challenging in the one-dayers.

They are now dominant in both and the whole club, from players to members, are reaping the rewards. They are the benchmark for us, we just need to find the way to get off the floor and reach that mark.