So we’re on the brink of a big tourney: that always brings out The Opinions. I have a few here, and – I hope – some medium-rounded thoughts about where England Women lie (as it were) as they go into a home World Cup.

Being home is MAJOR. Good support; familiar surroundings; less travelling. It’s just easier and of course you’re competing under playing conditions that you grew up in. You probably know the grounds well – their slopes, their foibles, their advantages.

England have probably the best and most sought-after female coach on the planet – Charlotte Edwards. She is tough, experienced, shrewd. She is a proud Englishwoman who *will know* that her side are or should be about second or third favourite to win this event and that they have work to do to make good on that expectation. Edwards commands respect both for her hugely distinguished career and what we might call her fitness for leadership. She does have presence (without being remotely extrovert) and will make players listen.

Those of us on the outside can only throw in our hunches but it seems likely that Edwards can both drill into people and put the proverbial arm around. Given the widespread suspicion that England have been (to be blunt) less tough than is necessary, historically, that combo of ‘personal skills’ and timely rockets will have been tested throughout her stewardship. She will have been angry at the extended period when the group’s fielding was mediocre or mixed. She will have eyeballed individuals, *had words* and demanded better. There will have been conversations – some across the playing squad, some discreetly with other coaches – to drive urgent improvement.

Edwards will be as aware of the rest of us that several of the first team couldn’t sprint or couldn’t move and coordinate like an international sportsperson. In the wider context of a developing game, where players have been thrown forward pretty quickly into a different, fully professional environment, it was perhaps inevitable that some individuals wouldn’t be immediately at the level required. Speed, repeatable and repeating fielding skills – the sort of athletic brilliance coaches and now more critical paying customers will want to see – do not land overnight.

When Edwards walked in, all of Bell, Ecclestone, Dunkley, Capsey were very much works in progress, in the field. (One could go on). And Bouchier, despite being a good athlete, was making the sort of crass errors that the coach probably felt (and possibly said?) had no place in an England side. There was masses of work to be done but plainly and visibly – especially post the outstanding win in the third IT20 against India – improvements are happening. Performances get better for it: the spectacle (and therefore the game itself) gets better for it.

We are already seeing the connect between sheer, persistent hard work – well done, Eccles/Belly etc etc – and authentic international-level sport. Edwards has plainly been driving towards that. Over time, she will want more players in the Linsey Smith mould; women who can execute their primary skill (in her case, bowling) but also dart around the field compellingly and with confident intent.

In terms of selection, the coach has been clear that Knight remains a fixture in the side, despite her relatively mediocre form of late, and those fears about lowish strike rate. I’m with Edwards on this. The former skipper is in there as much for her mentality and durability as her batting prowess – which we saw was undimmed, at Taunton. It’s about balance. This batting side is susceptible to pressure. Knight makes collapses a whole lot less likely and she can clear the offside circle and reverse better than almost anyone else in the squad. But she is in there for her grit, as much as anything, and the squad needs that.

Patently it’s the batting group that’s the most pressing concern, for England – the line-up. There are strongish arguments for not selecting Dunkley, Wyatt-Hodge and Nat Sciver-Brunt(!)

Dunkley, like Bouchier before her, has arguably spent 18 months or so playing her way out of the team. If her way of playing had consistently gifted scores and results then yes of course we fans, coaches and purists could forgive the ‘orrible aesthetics. But Dunkley not only looks horrible, in terms of technique and purpose, she looks lost, confidence-wise. Edwards has a hell of a job on her hands to restore her… but I suspect that the coach will be trying. (I’d be dropping her, I’m afraid, and offering her berth to Capsey, or perhaps opening with Knight and Wyatt-Hodge. They have the skills and experience to know what level of risk – and run-rate – is required, in the power-play and beyond).

Amy Jones is the left-field candidate for elevation up the order. A) She does have quality and experience. B) She’s opened with some success in 50 over cricket. I thought it was a good and healthy challenge for her to open in the ODI’s, partly because it felt Jones was under-achieving and this might be a way of re-energising her batting. It would be a bold call from Edwards to sling her in to the upcoming World Cup as a top order player but I wouldn’t object. Who Knows? Maybe that’s been the plan for months?

Nat Sciver-Brunt is a world-level player but does she walk back in, with barely any cricket? (Two warm-up matches, I believe?) This in itself is a gamble: expect the coach to take it. Whether or not NSB slots back in to that no. 3 spot is an interesting one. Might that be best left flexible? Capsey/NSB/Knight or even Kemp, according to the state of the game? Edwards is entitled to keep the opposition guessing on that one, I reckon. Plainly England are not settled, re their batting line-up – although to be fair, the coach may well have been clear on this for months. Injuries have meant changes; the need to ‘explore’ means changes. Now Edwards must provide clarity and belief: her players then must execute.

I suspect that both Kemp and Gibson will start and the bowling group beyond them will pick itself – Bell, Smith, Dean, Ecclestone. Wong is likely to be unlucky, given her capacity for brilliance and mischief, but she remains a genuine player, and she may yet have her moment. Tilly T-C may also get what we might call a strategic run-out: horses for courses and all that.

Finally, the very recently-emerged debate (which may not be a debate all) about the captaincy. Charlie Dean has looked the part: Nat Sciver-Brunt often hasn’t(?) Combine those notions with NSB’s return and you have a situation where Dean gets the nod. I would do that… but I’m not Charlotte Edwards. NSB has been named as skipper.