Things are never simple and it doesn’t help to get mad, But we get mad. We care. We maybe know a bit about the game. We get mad.

England’s chronic and prolonged capitulation was tough to watch. However mighty and magnificent this Australia side might be. We got angry at the scale of the defeat; how it kept on coming like some plague of horrors. Our language came over all disproportionate. Our body language fell back into a cruel, familiar, performative cringe. In private moments we may have burst out into the unsayable.

Best start by re-iterating some contraflows to that spirited, justified fan-burst. Either Goodly Things or Things We Really Should Remember.

This group – have no doubt – have been trying like hell. Both to compete and then to get better.

They will have been working physically hard and racking their brains, individually and collectively, to try to get to grips with errors, failures, opportunities missed.

The captain and the coach are people of integrity who care very much about the success and direction of their team.

The players on this tour are (actually) the best available for selection: right now there is probably nobody missing.

So how come we all recognise this (as the players will, privately) as a kind of sporting catastrophe? Just how come this utter mis-match? What the hell went on, with England?

There will be cultural and structural stuff, if we zoom right out. The pool of hardened, top-level players is smallish – smaller than the Aussies’. This is for many reasons, some of which are contentious. Australia does have a fabulous climate conducive to outdoor-living and bringing activity right into the centre of family life. This is a cultural advantage. It does not, however, explain away what’s happening at an elite level, where players have been a high performance environment for years. (It’s possible that it feeds into the debate about why our squad has come under heavy scrutiny – quite rightly – for its mediocre levels of athleticism, but we’ll get into that soonish).

Some argue that the structure of women’s cricket and the overwhelming concentration of activity within the shorter formats contributes to a lack of everything from stickability to durable batting. But plainly Aus have a near-identical framework. Others (mainly in my experience males) posture that girl’s pathways have denied young women the traditional ‘toughening-up experience’ of competing with and against young blokes. These ideas may be worthy of consideration but they do not feel immediately responsible for the failings -and I’m afraid we can call them that – of the senior England Women squad *on this tour*.

I’ve argued for years, possibly at some minor cost, that because the non-negotiables have stiffened – for example over conditioning/dynamism/fielding work – players simply have to execute to increasingly higher levels. That’s not been personal or vindictive or (god forbid) misogynist, it’s just come with the improving professional territory. Standards are waay higher: I’ve watched them from close quarters and that is wonderful. But clearly it means a) responsibilities and b) a profoundly competitive environment.

Competitive environments can and should be both thrilling and inspiring. They can and should be challenging but also powerfully and deeply supportive – how else can players risk reaching for glory and improvement? It’s the job of the coach to build such an environment. It’s a tough, complicated, wonderful job. You have to be a diplomat and a psychologist as well an expert on cricketing skills and tactics.

One of the most essential abilities for any coach at any level is to be able to recognise and blend personalities as well as cricketing skills, in order to find a team that works. This may not be your best eleven players but it’s a mix that functions and flourishes in a way that may not be measurable or predictable other than by your instinct and intuition as coach. Great coaches deal with people brilliantly. They know how to say stuff and when to say it, to whom. They mould and inspire or drive – sometimes with jokes, sometimes with the proverbial hair-dryer.

For me Jon Lewis has been unable to do this. The continuing failures to execute a variety of skills *under pressure* falls at his door, despite (obvs) being the immediate responsibility of his players. Shocking fielding is a failure of group mentality as well as individual skills. It’s tough on all parties but the coach – okaay, coaches – should be building confidence and competence and/or weeding-out those who don’t meet the required standards. All of that comes under coaching responsibilities in a competitive environment. There’s no place for Lewis or anyone else to hide from that.

It’s true that because England appear to have a relatively limited pool of genuinely international players so being ruthless around selection becomes difficult or impossible. But the aspiration still has to be there, towards brilliance: it has to be insisted upon. If there’s nobody better available INSIST that your players become excellent and confident, through repetition and skills work.

All of which brings us to the athleticism thing. Alex Hartley – whom I have been around, and like and respect – was fully entitled to call out or call for better athleticism and fitness. (Think she used the latter word, initially and do wonder if she was using it a little euphemistically, so as to avoid being personal around weight?) Wyatt-Hodge is an obviously outstanding fielder who coordinates and moves like an athlete. Who else? Ecclestone, Dunkley, arguably Sciver-Brunt, Capsey, Bell, Knight, Glenn, Bouchier, Filer. Do any of them move and flow and reach and throw like top athletes? How many of them can actually sprint?

We’re into dangerous territory but in this modern, fully-professional era your effective Best Eleven should overwhelmingly look like international athletes. Plainly, particularly in the field, England have a) been nowhere near and b) looked in striking contrast to their opposition, who yes, make errors too, but look at a different level of sharpness and flow. Lewis may not have time to address this entirely: he may not have had the option to bring in better athletes. But he had to drive, encourage or bundle towards manifest improvement.

Inseparable from England’s failures to execute skills in the field has been the issue around mentality. (I’ve been bangin onnabout this, too, for years. Apols to regulars). Lack of confidence is not the only aspect in play here. Lack of focus or concentration and sheer inability to ‘tough out’ moments of pressure or challenge have felt central to the WAshes whitewash but also to an extended period of what we might call willowy adventures. It’s felt *characteristic* of England Women… and this is not good.

Failures to execute skills can of course fall under multiple banners, from deficiencies in technique to the infamous ‘brain farts’ or fear-of-the-moment. Top players grasp the moment, pushing through, concentrating through high angst or pressure to get the thing done. England as a mob were shockingly weak – pejorative word, know that – at this, on this tour. Aus crushed them because they are obviously better – and better athletes.

The brutal truth is I can only think of one player who might reasonably feel she had a goodish tour. Lauren Bell. She too made errors in the field but her prime role of leading the bowling attack gets a significant tick. She executed with skill and consistency. Not true of Filer; not true of Kemp, who could not do that job when called-upon. Ecclestone inevitably bowled well and I again note her fabulous contribution as a team-mate but her fielding was bloody awful. Bouchier had an awful tour, too.

So to the future. Lewis was badly let-down by his players but he has to go. The drift backwards into fearful error and bewilderment has simply been too obvious for him to continue. Knight is almost certainly still our best skipper and one of few redoubtable souls but let the new coach decide if she stays in post or in the side. Many of us would be fine with the idea of a buncha kids coming in, if they had the vim and the focus but I doubt this will happen. Charlotte Edwards, being a) broadly excellent and b) a proud Inglishwoman may declare herself available to lead. I suspect she won’t make wholesale changes but she may have the clout and the quality to make the essential one: to restore some real and robust competitive energy.