I never thought I’d say this, but… Australia have an Ellyse Perry Problem.

Perry with the bat: superb, glorious, a run-machine. Batting at number 4 for Australia she averages 83.83.

Perry with the ball: nothing special. She has 5 wickets so far in this World Cup, all of which came against West Indies and Sri Lanka. Against New Zealand, Pakistan and England her figures were 0-58, 0-24 and 0-31 respectively.

Four years ago, at the 2013 World Cup, Perry was Australia’s star bowler. Her 3 wickets for 19 runs in the final, as she limped in to give everything for her side, were crucial. As recently as the 2015 women’s Ashes series, she was their leading wicket taker.

She is no longer the same bowler.

This Ellyse Perry can only bowl in 3-over spells. This Ellyse Perry has to bat at 4, sometimes (like yesterday) even at 3, and she is tired. Too often since she was promoted up the order the weight has been entirely on her shoulders: opening the bowling, and then coming in when the openers have both been dismissed cheaply, and doing the hard graft.

Meg Lanning – the consummate professional in press conferences – denies there is a problem. “She can bowl long spells definitely,” she says. “[Bowling her in short spells] is more about the game situation really… It’s just the way that it’s panned out so far.”

Wrong. There is a problem, and Lanning knows it.

Yesterday, bowling in the nets before the England match, Perry couldn’t even muster a run up – she just stepped in off two paces to deliver the ball.

Yesterday, Perry went for 31 runs. She only bowled 7 overs – the last one the 34th, when she was tonked for six by Tammy Beaumont.

Does it matter? It hadn’t before yesterday. Australia had 4 wins from 4 games at this World Cup. But it is starting to.

Australia’s weakness coming into this World Cup was always going to be their pace bowling. Lanning may deny it, but the retirement of Rene Farrell in April and the injury to 18-year-old Lauren Cheatle means they are not exactly overrun with pace options right now. Effectively, with Perry struggling, they are one pace bowler short – quite a burden for Megan Schutt, who wasn’t even selected against Pakistan.

Who are Australia left with? Elyse Villani, apparently, who in the match against England yesterday leaked 42 runs from her 5 overs. Out of options, Lanning even brought her on to bowl the 50th. It went for 13 runs (including 2 wides).

Elyse Villani is a part-time, couple-of-overs-in-the-middle if you want a bit of a change bowler. She is not, and never will be in a million years, a death bowler. Using her as one frankly suggests that all is not rosy in the Australian camp.

So what’s the answer?

Of course you don’t drop Ellyse Perry. If there was one rule of thumb in women’s cricket, it would be: you never drop Ellyse Perry. But why not play her as a batsman only? As Lanning herself acknowledges: “She’d hold her own in the side as a batter.”

It may mean bringing in Sarah Aley, who is probably good enough to enjoy a late-onset international career. It may mean bringing in Belinda Vakarewa. Maybe it means focusing on spin, at the expense of pace. It does mean that you stop tasking Perry with something which she isn’t doing very well anymore. Something which just seems to be making her tired.

The loss to England should tell Australia something important: if they’re going to go on and win this World Cup, they need to sort out their Ellyse Perry problem.

And they need to do it soon.

At the half-way(ish) point in this World Cup, who’s top of the class… and who is in the corner with the dunce’s cap?

Australia
The Southern Stars head the table, having won all their games, but somehow without ever looking entirely convincing. Their saving grace is their long batting line-up – even if they find themselves 5-down, they’ve still got Alyssa Healy to come in and smash a half century at a Strike Rate of over 150, as she did against Pakistan; but sooner or later they are going to come up against someone who won’t let them off the hook for scoring just 18 runs in the powerplay, as Pakistan did that day. In fact if I was an Australian fan, I might actually be hoping that they lose to England this weekend, because this team have a loss in them somewhere, and if it isn’t now, it might just be at Lords in two Sundays time!
Grade: A

India
India played 14 ODIs in the 12 months leading into this World Cup, losing just one of them, and it shows! Yes, they were mainly against lower-ranked sides, including 3 hammerings of a very young Ireland team in South Africa; but winning is a habit, and one that has continued here, as their opening victory against England has set the tone for 4 wins and no losses. Then there is Smriti Mandhana – she only played 3 of those 14 ODIs, due to injury, but she has come back with some big, classical runs; and if anyone looks ready to grace “The Home of Cricket” in that final, it is this 20-year-old prodigy.
Grade: A

England
England were lucky with the program after the opening loss to India allowed them to regroup with matches against the two weakest sides coming into the tournament, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The real test was South Africa, and their batsmen passed it with ease – plundering 373 runs from their world-leading bowling attack. But… but… their bowlers then proceeded to allow South Africa’s most-definitely not world-leading batting lineup to take over 300 off them in return; and it is clear that overall the bowling – particularly the much-vaunted opening partnership of Shrubsole and Brunt – is not quite hitting the high notes for whatever reason, and that has to be a worry when it comes to the crunch.
Grade: B

New Zealand
After a slightly scratchy opening win against Sri Lanka, where they looked rusty in particular in the field, New Zealand are starting to come together. Yes, they lost to Australia, but it was a close-run thing in the end, and there were big positives to take from that game: the bowling of Amelia Kerr – no one will ever play her without a little trepidation again, after the way she did Meg Lanning and Elyse Villani; and then their win against the West Indies, where Rachel Priest got things back on track with the big, quick runs that the White Ferns need from her.
Grade: B

South Africa
The Women Proteas are another side who have played a lot of ODIs in the past year – a whopping 31 of them prior to #WWC17. (England played just 9 in the same period.) They have a bowling attack which actually merits the word “attack” and their slaughter of the West Indies for 48 has shown that you can’t underestimate them; but are they the unlucky team that have the best bowling unit in a batsman’s World Cup? The weather gods probably did them a favour by handing them a draw against New Zealand, but New Zealand have already ground-down the NRR advantage the big win against West Indies gave them, and they still have Australia and India yet to play, so a semi-final spot remains a big ask; but what they have done here already is prove that they indeed belong among the “Top” sides.
Grade: B

Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka… if they were honest with themselves… probably expected to be bottom at this stage of the tournament, so in a way they have definitely over-performed, despite not winning a match. Chamari Atapattu hit a half-century to make a game of it versus New Zealand, and then followed-up with that huge 178* against Australia – currently the biggest knock of #WWC17. They put on 200 against England, and then came closer than India would have liked to causing an upset in their match, finishing just 16 short.
Grade: D

Pakistan
After coming close to taking advantage of South Africa’s batting fragilities in their opening game – the closest match of the tournament so far – they have struggled. They are very, very dependent on Sana Mir to prop things up with both the bat and the ball, but at 31 she won’t go on for ever, and what they do then… goodness only knows!
Grade: E

West Indies
Who could have predicted that the West Indies would be taking an early flight home from #WWC17? Well… to be fair… anyone who looked at their recent stats, which make the World T20 win look more like a blip than the start of something – and so it is proving here. Their stars – Stafanie Taylor, Deandra Dottin and Hayley Matthews – aren’t firing – none of their batsmen has hit a 50 yet; whilst their bowlers can’t buy a wicket – they have taken just 7 in the tournament so far.
Grade: F

It’s been a rather eventful World Cup thus far (Wednesday’s washout at Derby not withstanding). We’ve even seen two “upsets” – India beating England in the first match on Saturday, and yesterday, India beating West Indies by 7 wickets.

Both times the media have swooped down upon the result and devoured it like hungry ravens. England’s loss to India, in particular, created some stark headlines in the mainstream press (headlines are not, it’s worth remembering, written by the journalists actually reporting on the game):

Similarly West Indies have now lost 2 games by very wide margins, and it looks increasingly unlikely that they will make the semi-finals.

But is any of this really so surprising?

England are a young side. They have many weaknesses: one of which is that they are NOT good at chasing. India, meanwhile, have enjoyed an incredibly successful few months – including 10 wins out of 11 ODIs that they had played in 2017 prior to the start of this tournament.

It was always likely, therefore, that England’s game against India would be a potential banana skin for them in this tournament – just read Syd’s piece here.

Unfortunately, given England’s thumping of Pakistan last summer, expectations tended to ignore the reality of the situation.

What of West Indies? Here is another case study of where media hype around a team comes into its own. Because if you take performances by West Indies in isolation – their victory against Australia in last year’s WWT20 final, their status as finalists in the 2013 World Cup – then of course they look like a good bet to do well in this tournament.

If, however, you dig a little deeper, it becomes apparent that West Indies are the most inconsistent side in global women’s cricket. They were about a gnat’s whisker away from being knocked out before the semi-finals of last year’s WWT20. And their ODI performances have been all over the place in the last 4 years, as I pointed out in my preview piece here.

Actually you don’t even have to dig that far. Just listen to what captain Stafanie Taylor said on the eve of this tournament:

“If I don’t play in a game, the team seems to struggle. I have to remind them that you guys do have the belief and you’re talented, and you can do it. A lot of us lack that belief, so it’s [my job] to remind them of that.”

When you take England’s loss to India and West Indies’ poor start to this tournament in context, then, neither are really “upsets” at all (hence my use of inverted commas).

In fact, to label them as such is actually rather lazy journalism. The trouble is that a lot of those covering cricket only bother to watch the finals of women’s tournaments, and / or the few games a year that happen to be televised. Very little attention is paid to what happens in between.

We want more media coverage of the women’s game, of course we do – and this World Cup is doing a brilliant job of that. But what we also need is well-informed journalism, based on a more than surface-level knowledge and understanding of the global women’s game. Unfortunately, as we’ve already seen in this World Cup, we haven’t quite got to that stage yet.

Let’s keep pushing for it all the same.

Pakistan captain Sana Mir has been sanctioned for a slow over rate during Pakistan’s loss to England yesterday at Leicester.

Pakistan were ruled to be just one over short of the required target, after time allowances were taken into consideration.

Mir has not been fined (fines are only applicable to men’s matches) but if she receives a second sanction during the World Cup, she will be suspended for one match.

Having caught up with the highlights of yesterday’s England game, here are Raf Nicholson and Syd Egan’s thoughts:

Negatives:

• Are England capable of chasing down a total of 280+, of which we are going to see plenty more of in the next few years? Knight said in the press conference: “we backed ourselves to chase that total” – really?! All recent history suggests that England are weak at chasing, and even weaker at chasing big. Although the conditions might have pointed to a “bowl first” day, England need to be wary of allowing teams to post a total that they just can’t chase.
• England are a bowling team, but yesterday it was the bowlers who failed to control the game, and that doesn’t bode well going forward. India’s decision to take the powerplay early clearly got inside Anya Shrubsole’s head – England need to be able to deal with whatever the game throws at them, not simply have a pre-prepared plan and go to pieces when something happens that isn’t in that plan.
• England haven’t really solved their opening dilemma in the absence of Lauren Winfield, who they really missed yesterday. Chasing 6 an over, Winfield would have got them closer to the kind of start they needed, and that in turn would have massively reduced the pressure on the other batsmen coming in – as it was, the run rate seemed to keep on creeping up, and that made things very tricky for the middle order. Also, given events of the last year, is it really fair to put Sarah Taylor in to open? We know it’s not her favoured position. Winfield won’t be back for Tuesday’s game vs Pakistan at the very least, so perhaps England should think about putting their captain in at the top – if Knight is going to be the backbone of an innings, she’d be better off doing it from the outset, rather than coming in when the required rate has already risen and the pressure is starting to tell.

Positives:

• Fran Wilson’s batting. In very difficult circumstances, her 81 shows that Mark Robinson was absolutely right to bring her back into the squad last year from what was essentially the wilderness – an astute call by an astute coach. Plus, if it really was the case that she wasn’t going to play until the Winfield injury, presumably she’s made a point now that she deserves to be an automatic selection for the rest of the tournament.
• Katherine Brunt’s batting. Not content with just being one of the world’s best bowlers, Brunt has also now become a big asset with the bat. It wasn’t quite enough yesterday, but it does show that – were England slightly closer to the total by the time she came in, or even in a situation where they required end-of-innings acceleration in order to pose a more commanding total – she can play the number 7 role that they need.
• Sarah Taylor is back playing international cricket. Still one of England’s biggest assets, it was a solid reboot to what England will hope will be a second flourishing to her international career – because by goodness do they need her.

And finally…

• We’ve come a long way from the first game of the 1973 tournament, which was played on a tiny village ground at Kew Green. But given that this was the biggest women’s cricket tournament this country has ever seen, given that it was England, it was India, it was a Saturday and the weather was good – the crowd at Derby (c.2500) was a bit disappointing, particularly as we’d been promised a “sell-out”.

If you could pick one side England would NOT want to face in their opening World Cup game, who would it be? I think it might just be India – a game England probably HAVE to win if they are to avoid the unseemly Net Run Rate scrap in 3 weeks time for the 3rd and 4th semi-final spots.

India are the strongest of the middle-tier sides, having taken the honours recently against both South Africa in the World Cup Qualifiers and the West Indies in India; and while it is true that West Indies qualified directly for the World Cup ahead of India, that was only because politics forced India to forfeit their series against Pakistan.

So a game against India would be a definite proverbial “banana skin”… which is unfortunate because India are exactly who England face at Derby tomorrow!

England would have been planning to go into the World Cup with a well-balanced and mainly settled side, the bulk of which were automatic picks; but the injury to Lauren Winfield does make things a bit interesting.

1. Tammy Beaumont – Having had a chequered England career under the previous regime, “TB” was the success story of last summer, filling her boots against Pakistan and adding two more half-centuries, against West Indies and Sri Lanka, over the winter. Although in some ways the jury is still out on her ability to compete at the highest level against the Australias and the New Zealands, this is her chance to put those remaining doubts to rest.
2. Heather Knight – Knight vacated the opening spot when she inherited the captaincy last year; but with Winfield out, it looks like she might have to step back up – Knight has never scored an ODI century, so now would be an ideal opportunity to change that by leading from the front! Knight was also England’s leading wicket-taker in the Women’s International Championship; but she has been bowling a lot less recently, and the likelihood is that she will just fill-in two-or-three overs here and there during this World Cup, especially if she is opening the batting.
3. Sarah Taylor – Taylor’s return is potentially the difference between an England who will be “there or thereabouts” and an England who will challenge for the trophy. Certainly the only England player in this team who is already a nailed-on “All Time Great” – though that isn’t to say others might not later add themselves to that list!
4. Nat Sciver – Sciver has quite quietly become a pivotal player for England recently. Having made her debut as a back-up bowler just 4 years ago, her batting has since taken centre-stage, but her role as a bowler is still rather important. She isn’t quite good enough to open the bowling (she did the job when Anya Shrubsole was injured over the winter, and her limitations were exposed) but as a “We Need A Wicket” change option, she is England’s go-to, and she will probably bowl close to her allocation in most matches.
5. Fran Wilson – Having made her “re-debut” last summer, after a false start to her international career back in 2010, Wilson was probably competing for a spot with Georgia Elwiss – the former is a better bat; but the latter offers a few overs with the ball. However, with Heather Knight set to move up the order to open in Winfield’s absence, it now looks likely both will play.
6. Georgia Elwiss – See above!!
7. Dani Hazell – Hazell’s position in the squad is an odd one – she is the unofficial “reserve captain”, having done the job in Sri Lanka over the winter and in one of England’s warm-up games, even though the official “vice captain” (Anya Shrubsole) was playing; and yet she isn’t guaranteed a place in the side, with Robinson seemingly preferring Laura Marsh as the right-arm compliment to Alex Hartley’s left-arm spin. But with Danni Wyatt misfiring more often than not with the bat at the moment, there is a good chance that Hazell – a solid batsman, who can definitely chip-in if and when things get tough – will get the nod, especially as it would take the pressure off Heather Knight to bowl as well as opening the batting.
8. Katherine Brunt – The Hardest Working Woman In Cricket-Business, as Anya Shrubsole recently put it: “With Katherine, every ball’s an Effort Ball!” Injury worries mean she probably won’t play every game – especially if England have already qualified by the time their final group matches come around – but there is literally no one else in the women’s game you’d pick to open the bowling; plus she can also hit the kind of quick runs down the order which can turn a good total into a big one.
9. Laura Marsh – Just over a year ago, it looked like Laura Marsh’s England career was over – playing through pain, plagued by a chronic shoulder injury, and dropped for the World T20 in India. But after flying out to India as a late injury replacement for Dani Hazell, she grabbed her opportunity and now seems to be Mark Robinson’s first choice right-armer; though it is likely that the plan was to rotate her with Hazell, which is something we may see ultimately presenting a dilemma if England reach the final!
10. Anya Shrubsole – Shrubsole of course needs no introduction as the other half of England’s opening attack; but she is a very different bowler to Brunt – looking to get movement in the air where Brunt gets it off the deck – the variety just one of the reasons why they are so intimidating as a partnership. The vice-captain will, also like Brunt, have to be “managed” so perhaps won’t play every match, but she will play all the important ones.
11. Alex Hartley – Variety is clearly something which Mark Robinson sees as the spice of life, and he tried two left-armers last summer in the search for adding something different to a mainly right-handed mix. Despite a tough introduction to international cricket last summer, Hartley was selected ahead of the much younger Sophie Ecclestone for elevation to the contracted squad, and repaid that faith over the winter, particularly in the West Indies, where she took 13 wickets – a record for England in a bilateral series – ensuring that she goes into this World Cup as England’s first-choice spinner.

Lauren Winfield has been ruled-out of England’s opening World Cup match against India tomorrow; and will probably also miss the second game against Pakistan on Tuesday.

The opening batsman injured her wrist in the warm-up against New Zealand. Having also kept wicket, she opened the batting in that match, but retired hurt on 27 after facing 10 overs.

This leaves coach Mark Robinson with a big headache – Winfield has opened the batting in all the ODIs England have played since last summer, and her partnership with Tammy Beaumont has been a foundation of England’s recent 9-2 winning record in one-day cricket.

The logical choice would be for Heather Knight to return to the opening role she vacated when she inherited the captaincy – it isn’t a role she wants; but sometimes needs-must!