������Ƶ

England’s dramatic loss to India at the Oval by six runs, when well set for victory on Aug. 4, prompted thoughts about where that failure sits in the pantheon of batting collapses.

There is a general understanding that a collapse occurs when, from a healthy position, wickets fall suddenly in quick succession. They can occur in any format of cricket and in any innings and are usually dramatic. Some are recovered from, others are terminal.

How many wickets need to fall in what space of time and for how many runs to constitute a collapse is a matter of conjecture. Yet, everyone involved will know that they have experienced one.

At the Oval, England reached 301 for the loss of three wickets in pursuit of a target of 374 runs. Thereafter, seven wickets fell for the addition of 66 runs. The collapse became even more pronounced after the fifth wicket fell at 332, the remaining five wickets falling for only 35 runs.

What was unusual about this collapse was that it occurred over three sessions of play. It began before the tea interval and into the next day as rain and bad light caused play to be stopped toward the end of the evening session.

As highlighted in last week’s column, the drama was heightened by England’s last batter arriving at the wicket with a strapped-up dislocated shoulder. There was already enough drama.

It was the fifth and last test of the series, the last innings of the series that would decide if England would win the series 3-1 or India would level it at 2-2. A case could be made that the truest of batting collapses occur in the final innings of a Test match.

One example of this took place at Old Trafford, Manchester, in 1961. Australia had set England 256 runs to win in 234 minutes. The series stood at one win apiece. At 150 for the loss of one wicket, England looked set for victory.

Australia’s captain, the shrewd Richie Benaud, who went on to become a commentator of the highest repute, decided to bowl his leg breaks into the rough areas outside of a right hander’s leg stump, caused by bowlers’ footmarks. Initially this was an attempt to restrict scoring opportunities.

It turned out to be a master ploy. He reasoned that if he could break the second wicket stand, the rest of the team would have a predicament, looking to press for victory but having to take chances on a worn pitch and without time to settle in.             

Quickly, he dismissed Ted Dexter who had galvanized England’s gallop to what looked like victory. Then, shortly afterward, he bowled England’s graceful captain, Peter May, around his legs to stunned silence around the ground. The ball had pitched outside May’s leg stump, he tried to sweep it, missed, the ball turning sharply into his stumps.

Somehow, the crowd knew that an English collapse was about to happen. Seven wickets fell for 43 runs, England falling short by 55 runs, with 20 minutes of play remaining, Benaud claiming six wickets, including a spell of five for 12 from 25 balls. Australia went 2-1 up in the series and a draw at the Oval in the fifth test confirmed their series victory.

Benaud’s bowling qualities and his leadership were decisive through his ability to make his players believe that they could win when the cause looked hopeless.

At Headingley, Leeds, in 1981, a Test match, which is probably the most talked about ever, took place. Despite Ian Botham’s audacious innings, Australia only needed 130 runs for victory. In pursuit, Australia reached 56 for the loss of one wicket and then lost the next nine for 55 runs, Bob Willis claiming eight for 43. 

If this was not enough, a fortnight later at Edgbaston, Birmingham, on an unusually parched pitch, Australia had reached 105 for four in pursuit of 151, looking well set for a 2-1 lead in the series. Then, suddenly, Australia’s obdurate captain, Allan Border, was dismissed. An opportunity appeared, the ball was thrown to Botham, who proceeded to take five wickets for one run in 28 balls, Australia losing six wickets for 16 runs.

Later, Botham observed: “I had bowled well — fast and straight — but on that wicket it should not have been enough to make the Aussies crumble that way. The only explanation I could find was that they had bottled it.”

There are various explanations for batting collapses. Pressure is one. An exceptional individual performance is another, as was the case with Benaud. And Willis, who would not have had the opportunity if it were not for Botham’s brilliance.

India’s recent victory at the Oval was ultimately supercharged by Mohammed Siraj’s five-wicket haul, but the collapse was induced by England’s recklessness in shot selection. Deteriorating or changed pitch conditions can also be a cause, partly the case for Benaud in 1961.

Five years earlier, in 1956, also at Old Trafford, Australia suffered another final innings collapse. In the previous, third Test, England’s spinners, Tony Lock and Jim Laker, took all but two of Australia’s 20 wickets, prompting suggestions that the pitch had been prepared in favor of the home team.

These fears intensified in the fourth Test when two days of heavy rain were followed by sunshine and a rapidly drying wicket. The Australians reached 114 for two wickets on the final day before succumbing to Laker, losing eight wickets for 91 runs.

Laker took all 10 wickets. When added to the nine he claimed in the first innings, his 19 wickets in the match for 90 runs remain the best bowling figures in Test history. In the first innings, Australia’s collapse had been even more precipitous, falling from 48 for no wicket to 84 all out.  

The atmosphere in a dressing room and between team members when a collapse is occurring at Test match level can only be imagined by those not present. Many of us will be familiar with how it feels in a club environment.

Panic, uncertainty and blame all surface. It becomes difficult to stay relaxed and calm. The mood becomes tense and nervous. Casual conversations or light-hearted remarks can be perceived as a lack of care at the seriousness of the situation.

An air of incredulity and embarrassment can develop, even a feeling of inevitability and a desire for it to be over and forgotten about. It is put down to being just one of those days, undone by a brilliant performance or a poor pitch.

This may explain why batting collapses can be so difficult to stop. Batters become tentative and indecisive in shot selection, disappearing into a shell of inaction, failing to have a clear plan of action.

England’s players, by their own admission, were guilty of this against Benaud in 1961. His form had taken a downturn and he freely admitted that had his gamble not worked it may have been a sad way to end his international career.

Batting collapses produce drama and bowling heroics. They also require victims, the batters, who are caught in a web of doubt, uncertainty and indecision or who, sometimes, are the architects of their own downfall.