A feminist analysis of Homeworkgate

Homeworkgate: noun. A controversy in which four Australian players (Watson, Pattinson, Johnson and Khawaja) were dropped for the third Test after failing to provide coach Mickey Arthur with feedback on their own and the team's performance in the humiliating loss against India.


We've all read about it and we've all (with the possible exception of some Australians) had a pretty good laugh about it. But what, precisely, is behind it all?

It's obvious that it's about more than just the failure to complete a piffling piece of homework set by Mickey Arthur. If that was all it was, it would, indeed, be the "very harsh" punishment Watson considers it to be, and the ridiculously drastic move it has been labelled by commentators and fans. But that's not the whole story.

So what is it about? The key is this statement from Clarke, in a press conference yesterday:

"I want the public and the media to understand...it's not just about one incident. Firstly on this tour our performances have been unacceptable and there has been some stuff off the field [that has been unacceptable] for the standards an Australian cricket team needs to present itself to achieve what we are trying to achieve...In my opinion, for the four players to not do it, not only does it let the team down, it also shows a lack of respect for the head coach and in the Australian cricket team that is unacceptable."

In my view it's not the lack of respect for the coach that really matters here. Homeworkgate is symptomatic of a more significant problem in Australian cricket: a lack of respect amongst a not insignificant group of players, influenced by the media and the fans, for their captain. Why is it lacking? With my feminist hat firmly in place I can safely say it's about something pretty damn fundamental: masculinity.


As many have pointed out, this is not the first time that Clarke has faced issues with other members of the Australian team. Previous form has included the infamous confrontation with Katich, the ending of Symonds' career, and the rumoured fall-out with Hussey following his retirement earlier this year. Pat Howard has also alluded to "difficulties" in the relationship between Michael Clarke and Shane Watson prior to this incident. In the media coverage of and fan reactions to all these incidents, Clarke has faced continued criticism. He has more often than not been portrayed as the one at fault. Why? His lack of "blokey" credentials.

The Katich scrap is the perfect example. Apparently what happened was this: following a match victory, Clarke wanted to leave the after-party in reasonable time in order to spend the evening with his girlfriend. Katich felt this was unreasonable, so to try and prevent him leaving he GRABBED HIM BY THE THROAT, and the whole thing escalated from there. Does this sound like reasonable behaviour on behalf of Katich? No. But in almost every media outlet "Katto" was portrayed as "the ultimate bloke's bloke", defending the team against the guy who wanted to betray them all by leaving the party a little early. No doubt the term "under the thumb" was bandied around too. Then, when Clarke became captain and Katich was dropped, Katto was again the mistreated hero of the hour.

This is important because we're talking about a nation where the cricket captaincy is, more than most, historically associated with masculinity. Greg Chappell. Allan Border. Steve Waugh. "Hard-nosed warriors that would rather hammer a slab in the dressing sheds than go anywhere near a cocktail party", as this article from the Sydney Morning Herald in November last year suggests. Clarke just doesn't match up to that traditional idea of what it means to be Australian cricket captain. He dates models. He takes his shirt off for TV ads. For goodness' sake, this is a guy who CRIED in a press conference after Ponting retired. (This is presumably why a lot of Aussies didn't want him as captain in the first place.)

Clarke has consistently defied the critics since he took over as captain - taking Australia from fifth place in the Test rankings to third, and scoring a mammoth 1595 runs, including four double-centuries, in a calendar year. But an incident like this one, in the midst of a disastrous and humiliating tour, seems to have brought to the surface some of those old doubts about his fitness to lead his country. Doubts that some within the Australian cricket team seem to me, in refusing to complete Clarke and Arthur's assignment, to share.


Homeworkgate is therefore, at its heart, about Clarke struggling to assert his authority over his team. Unfortunately, he has chosen to do this through his insistence on the importance of "thinking" to one's place in the team:

"We were asked to do one thing from the head coach. It was giving information back to the head coach about not only improving your game - what you've learnt from the first two Test matches - but also how can you help this team turn things around and have success...It was a very simple task. Yes, it took a lot of thinking because you had to look at your game and where you thought you could improve, what you had learnt and what you could do to help this team level this series."

Why unfortunately? Because as has become obvious, most fans and commentators disagree with Clarke here: the general feeling is that players should be concentrating on training, playing and physicality more generally - the very antithesis of the intellectual exercise which has given this whole incident its name, "homeworkgate". Or to put it another way: the Aussies are in India to play cricket, not to fill out bloody forms.

This incident has therefore had the unintended effect of serving to detract from Clarke's so-called "masculine" credentials even further. Why? Because intellectuality and traditional conceptions of manliness just do not mix. Clarke is seen as siding with the intellectuals, and Pattinson as the guy who has bowled his heart out for his country and been dropped for not doing the paperwork.

This is of course a ridiculous dichotomy. Cricket is a game where self-analysis is fundamental to improving your performance. Ducking Beamers said it better than I could in his blog on the subject:

"Mickey Arthur...wanted his cricketers to reflect and think about their game. It's a very common exercise in coaching - 'Tell me what you think you did wrong' - as it forces you to get out of habit and to see your flaws...this wasn't really that ridiculous an assignment at all - if you want a bunch of players who can analyze their strengths and weaknesses and express them clearly enough, then this makes perfect sense to me."

In this respect, the best cricketers are often NOT the most "manly" ones. They are the ones with the best cricket brains. But Clarke is still, it seems to me, facing the challenge yet again of having his masculinity, and thus the respect of the players, called into question.

If this all sounds a bit far-fetched, just look at what Osman Samiuddin said about the incident on twitter:

"I want views of Chappell, DK Lillee and Rod Marsh on punishments for not doing homework. This feels like a seminal moment in Aus manliness."

Cricinfo later included this in their article with the comment: "Osman Samiuddin says aloud what everyone else is thinking".

Sadly, I think they're right.

Where is Australian cricket going wrong? It's nothing to do with the captain and coach now being a laughing stock the world over, and everything to do with the fact that some key players do not have the respect for their captain that they should, seemingly for the most stupid of reasons. Did Australia's Southern Stars win the World Cup because Jodie Fields was the blokeist captain? Errr, no. They won because they played the best cricket. Clarke is a damn good cricketer and the other members of the team, the cricket media, and the fans, need to have a bit more respect for that. Stop questioning his manliness, stop questioning his authority, and start trying to win some cricket matches.

But then, I'm a feminist. So that's what I would say, isn't it?

5 pioneer women cricketers (in honour of International Women's Day)

1. Molly Hide 

One of the best women's cricketers the world has ever seen - and she played the game at a time when women were starved of the best coaching and resources. She played in 15 Tests, including the first ever women's Test match between England and Australia at Brisbane in 1934, and captained England from 1937 to 1954, when she retired.

Her batting was both graceful and powerful. She made two centuries in her career, at a time when this was a rare feat in women's cricket - the first against New Zealand at Christchurch in 1935 (when she also put on 235 with Betty Snowball, in a match which New Zealand lost by an innings and 337 runs), and the second against Australia at the SCG in 1949, in which she finished on 124*, and in the wake of which her portrait was hung in the SCG's pavilion. She also hit five international 50s.

She retired with an average of 36.33 and remained involved with women's cricket, becoming President of the Women's Cricket Association in 1973.

Neville Cardus witnessed her 124* against Australia in 1949, and later wrote: " I was completely astonished. The stroke-play seemed authentic; in fact, there was a grace and freedom in Molly Hide's batting that rather improved on the congested utilitarianism of many a county professional."

Probably my favourite ever female cricketer.


2. Diana Edulji

Aside from Mithali Raj, India's best ever female cricketer, in my view. If Hide pioneered the game in England, Edulji did so in India. She began her cricket in the 1970s, at a time when the game was widely ridiculed in Indian society, and her name is probably still synonymous with women's cricket in India.

Her international career spanned the years 1976 to 1993. A left-arm spinner, she played in 20 Tests and 34 ODIs. In Tests, she took 63 wickets at an average of 25.77; in ODIs 46 wickets at an average of 16.84. In 1993, she took 4-12 in a World Cup match against England - her best ever bowling performance in ODIs, and it came against the side playing in home conditions, who went on to win the World Cup.

Her best ever performance in Tests came against Australia, the best team in the world at the time, in Delhi in 1984 - only India's fifth Test. She took 6-64, and in the process broke the record for most wickets in women's internationals. She is still the third highest ever wicket taker in women's Test matches.

In an interview in 1987 she was asked about her future, and her marriage prospects. "I am married to cricket", she replied. She has gone on to be an administrator in women's cricket, and more recently partake in one of my favourite activities - criticism of the BCCI's treatment of female cricketers.

At the height of her career, she bowled to visiting men's teams from England and the West Indies, and both Clive Lloyd and Ian Botham are on record as saying that they did not believe that a woman could bowl so well until they faced Edulji.

A true great of women's cricket.


3. Myrtle Maclagan

The first true all-rounder in women's internationals. She played in 14 Tests, including the first ever Test match in 1934 alongside Molly Hide, making a total of 1007 runs and averaging 41.95, as well as taking 60 wickets at an average of 15.58. In the first ever women's Test she took 7-10, which remained a career-best, and was instrumental in England's victory.

Her batting was truly special. She hit the first ever women's century in the second women's Test at Sydney in 1935, and hit another in the Blackpool Test against the Australians when they toured England in 1937. She also made six international 50s.

Her career can be aptly summed up by the Morning Post's assessment, published in 1935, following England's loss in the men's Ashes:

What matter that we lost, mere nervy men
Since England's women now play England's game,
Wherefore Immortal Wisden, take your pen
And write MACLAGAN on the scroll of fame.


4. Betty Wilson

Arguably the greatest Australian female cricketer of all time and certainly the leading woman cricketer of her day. She played in 11 Tests between 1948 and 1958. Her debut against New Zealand in 1948 was spectacular: she scored 90 and took 4 for 27 and 6 for 28. During the 1949 Adelaide Test against England, she made 111 and took 9 wickets.

Her best performance, though, was against England in the 1958 Melbourne Test. During this game, she became the first cricketer, male or female, to take 10 wickets and make 100 runs in the same match. This included the first ever hat-trick by a woman in a Test.

She finished her career with 862 runs at an average of 57.46, and a total of 68 wickets at an average of 11.80.

Beyond all this, though, my favourite fact about Betty Wilson is probably the fact that she refused a marriage proposal to play in Australia's tour of New Zealand in 1948. When asked why, she responded: "Why would anyone get married in preference to playing cricket for Australia?"

The Australian Under-19 Championship is named the Betty Wilson Shield in her honour and in 2005 she was awarded an honorary baggy green.

She deserved it.


5. Grace Gooder

Little is known about Grace Gooder. She only played one Test for New Zealand, against England at Auckland in 1949. (This was at a time when New Zealand were the minnows of the women's game, participating in only four Tests in the course of 20 years between 1934 and 1954.)

But in that one Test, her sole shot at international stardom, as it turned out, Gooder took 6 wickets for 42 runs in 23.2 overs. Her wickets included three of England's most dangerous batsmen - Cecilia Robinson, Mary Duggan, and Grace Morgan.

It remains the third best bowling performance by a New Zealander in women's Test matches ever - and all at  a time when New Zealand could barely draw a Test. They went on to lose this one by 185 runs.

Gooder should have played more Tests, but she never got that opportunity. I think of her as symbolic of a whole generation of women for whom that was true.


Cricket is a game where many fans have an above average knowledge of its history. Unfortunately the early internationals of the women's game are largely forgotten. Today of all days, we should take a moment to remember Hide, Edulji, Maclagan, Wilson, Gooder, and those like them - the pioneers.

10 ways to identify a Cricket Misogynist

A week on from "PoshTelGate", here are 10 ways to spot that (hopefully) dying breed, the Cricket Misogynist.


1. They use the term "batswoman".

2. They rave about how hot Ellyse Perry is. Then, when you ask them how many international wickets she's taken, they have absolutely no idea, and don't really give a damn either.

3. They persistently refer to women's cricket as "ladies' cricket", then when you reciprocate by talking about "gentleman's cricket" they look at you like you're insane. (I mean, really. When was the last time you heard Charlotte Edwards or Suzie Bates refer to themselves as a "lady cricketer"?)

4. They find it hilarious to make puns about "fine legs", "slips", and "maidens" (not realising these jokes were already old 50 years ago). They also find it hilarious that you DON'T find it hilarious.

5. They refuse to criticise any female players, because "gosh, I didn't realise women could actually DO that. We need to celebrate this fabulous achievement."

6. They ask if women's cricket is played with a tennis ball. (The correct answer is, "no, and if it wasn't for female cricketers, Jimmy Anderson would currently be attempting to bowl reverse swing underarm." Another correct answer is to punch them, but the former is possibly more effective in the long-run.)

7. They offer to move the boundary rope in for the players before a women's match.

8. They agree to umpire in a women's game, then spend most of the match offering the players coaching tips and "encouragement" in between deliveries (such as patting them on the head when they score 4 runs).

9. When a female clean bowls them, they smile and saunter back to the pavilion like they intended it to happen. They are, after all, a "gentleman".

10. "I could play for England Women", they tell you, as they struggle to stand up from the sofa, pie in hand.

Combatting the Critics

I've spent a lot of today on twitter, joining in the general chorus of indignation which has (happily) erupted as a response to an article by some bloke called Alan Swann published in the Peterborough Telegraph (yes, clearly an extremely famous and well-respected publication, ahem). I'm not going to put the link on this blog, because I've already increased traffic to the poxy publication far too much (and you can google it if you really want to), but here are the key sections relating to women's cricket:

Never before can so much screen time have been awarded to a sport that provokes as little interest as women’s cricket. I followed the World Cup on Sky Sports because local girl Charlotte Edwards is the England captain, but I hope she will forgive me when I say her sport is as dull as..... well pretty much every other sport that involves solely females. It’s a biological statement rather than a sexist one, but women just don’t push my buttons in a sporting sense. They aren’t quick enough, and they aren’t strong enough which should be enough to ensure that they aren’t as richly rewarded in terms of prize money or funding. England’s lady cricketers, have benefitted from some clever marketing in the past notably by staging Twenty/20 matches as warm-up encounters ahead of a men’s international. But such an innovation can backfire. Comparisons between the male and female versions of the game are inevitable, and unflattering to the fairer sex. True, the ladies have started to hit more sixes, but as the batters generally face a set of trundlers, it may not mean that much.The standard of ladies cricket looks pretty low to me. I wouldn’t expect any England player to be able to hold a place down in Peterborough Town’s starting XI for a Northants Premier League match. I know Arran Brindle once cracked a ton against Market Deeping in the Lincs Premier Division, but that’s a sub-standard competition and Deeping haven’t had a decent bowler since their groundsman’s heyday in the early 1960s. ...
Of course I’m certain to be accused of blatant sexism by the hard-of-thinking and the easily-outraged, but the viewing figures and live attendance totals will back my opinion up. Those numbers should also be taken into account when sports funds are allocated. Financial help should be determined by the level of public interest and not by the desire to chase a few cheap medals. Otherwise it’s just a waste.

(If you would like to contact the publication expressing outrage, please do so. You can tweet them at @peterboroughtel or email pteditor@peterboroughtoday.co.uk.)


Naturally, I hesitate to give this sort of drivel the publicity it does NOT deserve. However, some of the responses on twitter, as well as the very fact that the folks at the Peterborough Telegraph saw fit to publish the article in the first place, indicate that these kinds of attitudes remain both acceptable and common parlance in the world of sport in the 21st century.

Few people would describe the situation in as extreme a way as Alan "Sexist Pig" Swann, but I have heard many statements similar to the above expressed in everyday conversation regarding the women's game, and I'm sure others have as well. Additionally, even if such sentiments are not expressed outright, it is clearly still the case that women's cricket is severely under-reported and receives less exposure than it deserves. Cricket is still considered Blokey (I wrote a post on this a few weeks back, but I'm not sure anyone read it). Many journalists and bloggers who I deeply respect, and who are far more talented than me when it comes to analysis of the game of cricket generally, ignore women's cricket completely when a major tournament is not ongoing.

I therefore think that it is worth considering some of the issues which have been raised by today's debate, in a rational and considered manner (which is not generally possible in 140 characters), and establishing how, when faced with inaccurate statements regarding women's cricket, we as fans should respond.

Here goes:


Inaccurate statement #1: Women's cricket is dull, so no one should bother investing in it.

Though it's not often said outright, I actually think quite a few people would agree with this statement. In the era of "T20 is god" cricket, the fact that you don't see a ton of mis-hit sixes in every single women's game appears to devalue it as entertainment in many people's eyes.

How to respond? Well firstly, I'm sure almost everyone would admit that men's cricket is sometimes dull. The middle overs of an ODI? Watching a team amass 700+ runs on the first two days of a Test match on a batsman's paradise pitch? The last session on the fifth day of a high-scoring draw? I love all these things about cricket - but it doesn't mean that every moment is scintillating.

It is of course okay to find women's cricket dull. I don't watch football for precisely that reason. The key point is that it's a matter of opinion. Frankly, I'd rather watch a game where runs are scored through skill and tenacity, than one where the ball is blasted over the head of the bowler a few of times an over (that's why I will always prefer Test cricket). But that's up to me. One person's opinion of the sport should not dictate to others what they should and should not invest time and money in.

The reason why the Alan Swann piece is misogynistic, therefore, is not because he finds women's cricket dull, but because he concluded the piece by suggesting that his opinion of women's sport makes the whole shebang not worth investing in. This argument is based on several other inaccuracies, which I will now deal with:


Inaccurate statement #2: Women's cricket is not as good as men's cricket, so no one should bother investing in it. (This is often expressed in the form of "I could play for England Women", or some such similar claptrap.)

I hear this all the time - most recently regarding the whole Sarah Taylor hoohah. The point is, one isn't better or worse. They are DIFFERENT. The comparison is redundant - it's like showing up for a T20 match featuring KP, and having to sit through a day's Test cricket with Boycott at the crease. If you're expecting women's cricket to be exactly the same as men's cricket, you probably will be disappointed.

We need to stop with the endless comparisons. It devalues the women's game and gives people like Alan Swann a voice. The media should be covering the women's game on its own terms (and they also need to give it a damn sight more coverage, but that's a separate point).

NB: If you do end up in conversation with someone who implies they would fare well against a women's side, it's worth delving a little deeper. You may well end up finding out that the bloke in question's claim to fame is that he once scored 25 for Peterborough Town.


Inaccurate statement #3: No one turns up to watch women's cricket, so it clearly isn't as worthwhile as men's cricket and no one should bother investing in it.

Two key points here: firstly, it is completely absurd to suggest that the value of a sport is in direct proportion with how many people turn up to watch it. Seriously, what?! It's like saying all Test matches played in England are automatically better than those played in India, purely because tickets always sell out. Ridiculous.

Secondly, I will admit that yes, it is disappointing that so few people turn up to watch women's games, even World Cup games. But the answer isn't to say "oh well, it must be rubbish then" and bugger off to the pub for a pint. The answer is to treat the women's game with respect by giving it more publicity - both in advance, so that locals are aware a match is going on, and during, so that people can follow the sport properly. The lack of decent publicity has always been a problem for the women's game, and has meant that it has not been able to develop the same kind of fan base as men's cricket. As coverage increases, as we saw during the recent World Cup, the fan base will develop - and this in turn will encourage more people to turn up to matches in person.


Which takes me on to inaccuracy number 4:

Inaccurate statement #4: The media should not bother reporting on women's cricket because no one is interested.

This is one of those stupid circular arguments. As I've just argued, people will not be interested in a sport that they cannot read about, watch on TV, or follow in the media. On the other hand, if women's cricket is regularly reported, it will become part of the sporting map and people will accept it as such.

Look at what happened with English cricket during the 2005 Ashes series. A whole load of people became fans of the game who didn't give a rat's arse about Test matches before the series started. Do you think they would have suddenly become transfixed if the matches hadn't been televised, and the games hadn't made the front pages of all the newspapers? I don't think so.

Of course, that requires a high enough standard in the women's game to produce the kind of exciting matches we've just witnessed in the World Cup. Which requires investment - which brings me neatly back to finances:


Inaccurate statement #5: Because the standard is lower. female cricketers should not be paid as much as male cricketers.

This seemed to be the main point of the aforementioned article. Which just goes to show that he hadn't done his research. Nowhere in the world are women's cricketers paid anywhere near what their male counterparts earn.

This is, of course, nothing to do with the standard. It's because we don't yet have fully-professional female cricketers. Maybe we will one day, but in the meantime the financial situation in which the women's game finds itself leads to the final inaccurate statement of the day:

Inaccurate statement #6: Men's cricket subsidises women's cricket, and this is a waste of valuable resources.

The first part of this statement is obviously true. For example, in England, some of the revenue which men's cricket generates is used to enable female England cricketers to play semi-professionally.

However, as people have pointed out on twitter, Test cricket is also used to subsidise English county cricket. The logical conclusion of this argument would therefore be that county cricket is also a waste of resources.

The point is that it's not all about instant profit-maximisation - or it shouldn't be. The English counties develop the players who are the England match-winners of the future. Similarly, increased investment in the women's game in England enabled us to produce a team of world-beaters (in 2009 England's women won every match they played). Can you put a value on that in pounds?

I'd also say this: given enough investment, and media coverage, I genuinely believe that eventually elite women's cricket will pay for itself. What's required is a little bit of patience. Unfortunately, misogyny doesn't seem to allow for that.


Here's what I'd say to those of Alan Swann's ilk: It's okay to find women's cricket dull, and maybe even to pose some of the questions above. But it's not okay to use your own ignorance of and lack of appreciation for women's cricket to conclude that a game which millions play, follow, and are passionate about, should be consigned to second-class status. That is what Alan Swann has done in his article and that is what others have tried and will keep trying to do as long as they are allowed to. That is misogynistic. That is what we are up against.

And that, ultimately, is why I'm writing this blog.

15 Things We've Learned From This Women's World Cup

1. Trying to predict the result of a women's cricket match is now as impossible as predicting anything the Pakistan men's team will do, ever.

2. Australia's Southern Stars are indisputably the best team in the world (I write this through gritted teeth). On the back of their victory in the women's Ashes in early 2011 and the World T20 a few months back, they are now number one in all formats of the game. And after the way they've played in this tournament (more gritted teeth), they deserve it.

3. The BCCI doesn't give a damn about women's cricket.

4. The West Indies have arrived. Sure, they'd caused a few upsets before this tournament. But they've now beaten two of the top three teams in the world in the 50-over format for the first time, and fought their way to a World Cup final. We'll see them in another one before long.

5. Eshani Kaushalya's name. Enough said.

6. Charlotte Edwards is a legend. She's now made more ODI runs than anyone else ever in the women's game and has equalled the highest number of centuries ever scored by a woman in ODIs. When she does go, England will miss her. A lot.

7. It's possible to play in the team that finishes fourth in the tournament and still outclass everyone in the 3 teams above you. But only if your name is Suzie Bates.

8. It's also possible to be 17 years old, bowl like a superstar and look like a supermodel. (And make a ton of women the world over hopelessly jealous.)

9. If you support your team financially they do well. If you don't, they get knocked out even when the tournament is being played in home conditions.

10. Choking happens in women's cricket too.

11. If you give it enough exposure, people will realise that women's cricket is just as entertaining and just as much of a joy to watch as men's cricket. End of story.

12. Unfortunately, according to the ICC, it is still an either/or decision between securing TV coverage of women's cricket and securing local publicity. Or, in other words, it's not their fault (almost) no one showed up to watch.

13. The Super Sixes format is only of use to people who enjoy conspiracy theories. (No, Australia didn't lose on purpose. Get over it.)

14. True equality means simultaneous rubbish umpiring in both the women's and the men's game.

15. Ellyse Perry doesn't really need two legs.

Why England have lost their title, and what they can learn from history: World Cup Super Sixes review

I made two main predictions regarding the Super Sixes in my earlier blog post. The first is rather predictable, because it's what most people have been saying since the tournament began.

I'd like to hope we're on target for another Australia-England final.

The second is now rather more apt.

if there's one lesson we can take from this tournament...it's that cricket defies expectation and predictability. Anything could happen! I love it!

I feel like berating my past self for writing that, because “anything” has happened. The West Indies have beaten both New Zealand and Australia, and will play the latter in the final on Sunday. Fine, but in the process they have also knocked out England, the defending champions, and left Charlotte Edwards and a squad of England players, not to mention yours truly, pretty heart-broken.

It'll be the West Indies' first ever World Cup final, and it was their first ever victory against Australia in an ODI, just as that victory against New Zealand two days ago was their first ever ODI win against the Kiwis. I've already written about the fact that this tournament has contained some of the biggest upsets women's cricket has ever seen – it's worth checking out that post because it puts this tournament into some kind of historical context. Suffice it to say here that the women's World Cup final has previously always featured two teams out of Australia, England, New Zealand and India.

This isn't just a first for the West Indies, therefore. It's a first for the women's game full-stop.

England are out, and despite the comforting 15-run win against New Zealand today there will inevitably be numerous post-mortems. How do they recover from this? There is an obvious historical parallel here. The last time the World Cup was held in India was back in 1997. England were defending champions, having won in 1993, and went into the tournament as strong favourites to retain their title.

Instead, they lost their group match to Australia by eight wickets, and were knocked out in the semi-finals by New Zealand, losing by 20 runs.

Why? They could have blamed their crazy schedule (which involved a stupid amount of flights and train rides around India). They could have blamed the poor umpiring: in their semi-final match against New Zealand, they were fined one over of their innings for taking five minutes too long to bowl their 50 overs. The unfortunate thing was that the umpires neglected to tell them this until they had already batted out half their overs. Given the small margin of victory, that one over could have been crucial.

That wasn't the whole story, though. The truth was they were taken by surprise by two teams who had come on in leaps and bounds since the 1993 World Cup. In 1992 the New Zealand WCA had merged with the men's New Zealand Cricket Board and the benefits of such a move in terms of access to resources were rapidly becoming obvious (they went on to win the 2000 tournament). Australia meanwhile, under coach John Harmer, had been embarrassed by their performance in the 1993 tournament into becoming a thoroughly athletic and competitive side. They were still amateurs; they just happened to have developed the most professional attitude women's cricket had ever seen. Faced with the terrors of Fitzpatrick's bowling, with Belinda Clark, a captain who batted like a god and set the most ridiculously attacking fields, and with a whole bunch of sledging – let's face it, this was an Australian team in the 1990s – England crumbled.

They went home badly chastened by defeat, just as they'll be doing in a few days time. How did they respond? A few weeks later, at a meeting of the Women's Cricket Association, it was decided to accept the proposed merger with the ECB. That led to a whole load more money, time and staffing resources being poured into the England women's set-up, and to the basic acceptance that in order to become world-beaters again, a far more professional approch was required.

It took England a while to recover – they were knocked out of the next tournament without reaching the semi-finals. But they got there. In 2009 they raised the trophy again.

I think there are lessons there for this England side (aside from a caution against blaming poor umpiring for the loss). In 1997 they were surprised by Australia and New Zealand; here, they've been equally surprised by two different teams. Firstly Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan women have been a relevation at this tournament and when they did not fold instantly chasing England's total, England looked unsure how to react. They bowled poorly and did not take some important catches.

Secondly the West Indies. England beat them fairly easily in their group match and almost knocked them out of the tournament before the Super Six stage. But that's now irrelevant. Over the past few days the Windies have played exceptionally well, placing enough pressure on two of the world's top teams for defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory in both cases.

England have been outshone by two teams who, seemingly while England's back has been turned, have raised their standards so much that they are now able to defeat the world's top-tier teams. Clearly this is thanks to the increased funding and support they have received in their home countries. And just as in 1997 the overwhelmingly professional attitude of Australia took England by surprise, so the quality of the cricket which Sri Lanka and the West Indies have played at this tournament has surprised them here.

England still have a team of world-class players. They were knocked out of the tournament, essentially, by a 1 wicket defeat to Sri Lanka and a 2-run defeat to Australia. But the key difference between their performances, and the performances of Sri Lanka and the West Indies, is that these latter two teams were able to perform under pressure, to up their game when it really mattered. England have performed at their best often when it didn't really matter – like today against New Zealand. That suggests to me a slight complacency on England's part – even if this was subconscious – when faced with the so-called minnow teams. In the new era we are entering, there will be far fewer games which can be won easily. The times when it doesn't really matter will be fewer and further between.

Complacency was a key problem back in 1997 and England learnt from that mistake. They need to do so again.

Predictably, I'll be cheering for the West Indies on Sunday. For the first time this tournament, it seems, what's “good for the game” and what my English instincts want actually coincide. I want Australia to lose because I'm English. I want the Windies to win because it will prove that there are no longer easily identifiable top and bottom tiers in women's cricket, and that the women's game can throw up just as many exciting and unpredictable results as the men's game.

Though ultimately, even if the West Indies lose, I guess we might have already won that particular battle.

Questions for the ICC's CEO, from a Concerned Women's Cricket Fan

On twitter earlier, @sportdaggers indicated that TMS are attempting to get the ICC's CEO Dave Richardson on air to answer questions about the Women's World Cup. That prompted me to think about what exactly I would ask him if I had the opportunity. If there are question you would like added to the list, please let me know. Maybe we can even get some answers somewhere along the line.

On the World Cup so far:

Why was the BCCI able to move Women's World Cup matches from the Wankhede Stadium at such short notice? What steps will you take to ensure that this does not happen again at future women's tournaments?

Why has the tournament received such terrible publicity in India? Why has it been possible to be in India over the last month and not even be aware that the tournament is taking place?

Does it concern you that not all games have been televised, and that in some countries there has been almost no TV coverage?

Why has it been so difficult for some networks (notably the BBC) to broadcast matches from Cuttack?

What is the selection process for the umpires who stand in the Women's World Cup? Why are the same umpires not used for elite women's cricket as for elite men's cricket? Does the standard of umpiring so far in this tournament concern you?

In light of the fact that it is now probably advantageous for Australia to deliberately lose its Super Six game against the West Indies, will the ICC consider revising the tournament rules / structure in future?

On the ICC takeover of women's cricket:

How have you utilised the experience of the IWCC officials who ran the women's game up until 2005?

Does it concern you that there are so few women at the top levels of cricketing administration (for example, the BCCI has no women in senior positions)? How can the ICC act to improve female representation at this level? Is the ICC even bothered about this, given that very few women serve on its own Board of Directors or on any of its committees outside of the Women's Committee?
(Edit: Clare Connor (Chair of the ICC Women's Committee) sits on the ICC Cricket Committee and the ICC Development Committee.)

We often hear that the ICC has invested a lot financially in the women's game. Can you give exact figures? Where is the money going?

What steps has the ICC taken to ensure better media coverage of the women's game since 2005?

Overall what, if any, have been the benefits to the women's game since the ICC took over in 2005?

On the future of women's cricket:

Does it concern you that some national cricket boards invest so little in women's cricket? What steps will the ICC take to ensure that this is no longer permissible?

What will the ICC do to ensure better publicity for the women's game in future?

When, if ever, will the DRS be introduced in women's matches?

Miscellaneous (and mainly facetious):

Can you name a single female cricketer?

Please explain the Net Run Rate system in no more than 10 words.