View Single Post
Old November 10th, 2010, 12:30 AM   #29
scoundrel
Super Moderator
 
scoundrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,167
Thanks: 162,213
Thanked 277,842 Times in 26,113 Posts
scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmee2000 View Post
Regarding Herbie Collins, I used to know Hunter "Stork" Hendry, who had the time of his death in 1988 was the oldest former Test player. Stork was convinced that Collins had thrown the deciding test at the Oval in the 1926 series when Australian captain.
I've not heard this elsewhere and throwing a Test match is not the easiest thing to achieve, but Collins' decisions in that match are open to criticism, at the very least.
He was a gambler, and he lost the captaincy after that Oval Test.
I'd like to hope Hunter Hendry was mistaken but of course he had better information than most, being a test player from that era of Australian cricket; he certainly knew and played under Collins and his personal assessment cannot be ignored.

The Oval test of 1926 marked the end of several careers because the series defeat went down like a turd sandwich in Australia. One of those departures was Arthur Mailey, which is a bit strange because he played very well in the game, taking 9 wickets for 266, far better than any of his colleagues. There may have been some politics involved. Certainly there was a dressing room incident of some description which was reported in Australia, in which Mailey was alleged to have misbehaved arrogantly in the immediate aftermath of the defeat. Mailey's cricket bat may have discovered the power of flight on his return to the dressing room. In his book he sort of sidesteps "misbehaviour" but staunchly refutes "arrogance", commenting grimly that he showed the proper humility required of a number 11 batsman who has just failed to score 290 runs and win the game.

As for Collins, I don't believe one man, even the captain, can throw a game unaided. That needs collusion. The scorecard of the 1926 Oval test match is intriguing.

http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/en...tch/62553.html

The first two innings left the game quite evenly balanced. The decisive factor was an opening stand of 172 runs between Jack Hobbs (exactly 100, b Sid Gregory) and Herbert Sutcliffe, a great Yorkshireman, who was eventually clean bowled by Mailey for 161. Hobbs and Sutcliffe were one of the best opening pairs England has ever had; a great stand from them doesn't invite any sinister interpretation. I note that extras was the 3rd top scorer in England's innings and even Frank Woolley was dismissed cheaply; only Maurice Tate at no 9 exceeded 30 runs after Sutcliffe was dismissed. The ongoing question was and still is why did Collins give 41 overs to Arthur Richardson, an inexperienced player and who was really a batsman who could bowl a bit (offbreaks at medium pace, a bit like Peter Willey); the pitch was rain affected and Collins had the 2 best spinners then in circulation in Grimmett and Mailey. But here's a possible explanation of what happened:
  • There was heavy overnight rain when England were 0/49 on their second innings. This is verified.
  • Mailey and Grimmett did not make any impression until after the opening patnership was broken by Sid Gregory, a fast bowler. This is verified.
  • Even Mailey, noted for his endurance and heroic long spells, could not bowl all day. It was a rain-affected pitch and once the England innings began to stretch into several sessions, Collins called on a spinner (Richardson) to share the burden. That's not a ridiculous decision. When Nathan Hauritz needed support or was not on the field, Ricky Ponting called on Marcus North to bowl his occasional offspin and Marcus North did not set the world on fire, but did bowl more than competently and showed skill, intelligence and commitment when his mettle was tested. Arthur Richardson's statistics in the Oval test were decent and what you would expect of a second string bowler. If the conditions were really so helpful to spin, Mailey and Grimmett wouldn't have needed his support. I suspect the pitch was soaking wet, which favours batting, then later on the pitch started to dry off, and this is when the ball turns very sharply in the hands of a good spinner. Hobbs and Sutcliffe had the use of the wicket before it started to dry off and took full advantage. After Sutcliffe was out, nobody on either side scored more than 33 runs and the spinners did most of the damage. Australia's top scorer was Oldfield, their wicket-keeper, a batsman of modest pretensions but who could read spin better than most, having kept to Mailey for more than 6 years.

More significant than the partnership of Hobbs and Sutcliffe was Australia's batting collapse in the 4th innings. Statistics never tell all the story but 125 all out is a rotten, diabolical performance. Bertie Oldfield at no 9 top scored with 23 and Wilfred Rhodes took 4 wickets, so the Oval pitch must have been turning quite a lot. Even so, 125 was just inexcuseable when England had just scored 436 on exactly the same track, and I suspect this extraordinary degree of underperformance was why so many players were axed (Mailey quite unjustly IMHO) and why this dark murmur of skullduggery has lingered on, a whole lifetime into the present day. That and Collins' well documented gambling addiction, which however was expressed on the racecourse, the dog track and in poker.

I think there's plenty of reasonable doubt. Herbert Collins couldn't make it rain, God did that. Herbert Collins could have underbowled Mailey and Grimmett and set unhelpful fields, but neither of these men would have sat still for being deliberately undermined in field placings and Oldfield, a longstanding friend and collaborator of Mailey's in the field, would not have held his peace over such a thing either. In no way could Collins have induced all ten of his colleagues to register scores below 25 runs in the last knock. England's bowlers did that.

If Collins was suspected of serially throwing games, the Oval test might fit into a pattern. But it was an isolated event. This is the main reason why I am inclined to think that Collins was innocent, because crookedness is a habit, a lifestyle choice, and I am unaware of a serial track record in his case. I dont think anyone throws just one game in their whole career; they either never throw a game or they throw games whenever a good opportunity to make quick cash arises. But I guess we'll never know for sure.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
scoundrel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: