We subsided from a position of some promise at 222 for three to 233 for nine and certain defeat in 56 sorry minutes. It was the latest in a worryingly long line of batting calamities.
Do not, however, think of it solely as an English phenomenon remember those hapless Aussies at the Oval last year? Let us just say, though, that we seem to have patented the truly spectacular demise. If the criterion for a collapse is a minimum of six wickets for 30 runs or less, then by my reckoning in the last decade we have subsided spectacularly on a dozen occasions.
Disconcertingly I have played in 10 of those games. But, before you jump to any conclusions, as an opener I plead mitigating circumstances. You can of course start the slide: of those dozen occasions my wicket precipitated a collapse twice, once against Pakistan at Lord's in 1996 and against the West Indies at Headingley in 1995. Otherwise I have sat helplessly by, already out, while the middle order and tail have been blown away.
Helpless really is the word. Much is said of cricket that it is a team game. Indeed team efforts are crucial, but when a bowler begins his run-up or a batsman begins his long march to the middle he is on his own. Other than encourage and pass on what you hope is useful information there is not much else you can do. And so I have found myself in some strange places amid our batting collapses.
I remember sitting with a disbelieving Graham Gooch in the dungeon that is the Melbourne dining room as we lost six wickets for three runs in 1991. I was in the shower trying to cool off the emotions that were raging while we succumbed to Curtly Ambrose in Trinidad in 1994. As we lost seven wickets for 26 in Antigua during the last Test of the recent West Indies tour I was preparing my resignation statement.
Sometimes, of course, you have to admit that inspired bowling has won the day. This was the case against Pakistan at Lord's in 1992 and 1996. Two world-class proponents of reverse-swing and a terrific leg-spinner used the old ball to great effect. Barry Richards, during a round of golf on Monday, said that the South African bowling in the first innings in helpful conditions was near unplayable. Ambrose in Trinidad was simply irresistible.
More often than not, however, it is bad batting and an inability to withstand pressure that has been the cause. At Melbourne in 1991 the Australian attack was good (Alderman, Hughes, Reid) but not out of the ordinary and the pitch was excellent. Last Sunday we were disappointed to have been bowled out largely by South African's second-string bowlers.
For that is the only antidote: mental strength in any given situation is absolutely crucial. During a collapse the dressing room is sober and subdued, the crowd is frenzied, the fielders are cock-a-hoop, the bowlers seem a yard faster and yet the batsmen must block out everything and concentrate only on the ball coming down. And only that very ball, not the next. For even that battle-hardened campaigner Steve Waugh said at the Oval last year that Australia were guilty of looking too far ahead of themselves - i.e. at the ultimate target.
One further observation. Collapses often come on the back of sustained pressure with the ball and in the field when the scoreboard seems near static. In New Zealand in 1997 our spinners constantly exerted that pressure on the New Zealand batsmen and in Antigua in March, Brian Lara's clever use of Carl Hooper and Dininath Ramnarine created the breach which a fresh Courtney Walsh stormed through. Therefore the more positively a batsman can play in that situation, the better.
That is the challenge that lies ahead for England's batsmen. South Africa have a good attack and their bowlers present problems: Shaun Pollock has bounce and movement from close to the stumps while Allan Donald has out and out pace; then there is Jacques Kallis's orthodox and Lance Klusener's reverse swing, Paul Adams's unorthodoxy and Rhodes's prowling in the covers. A good attack, then, but no more than you expect in a Test.
The challenge is not just to score adequately but quickly enough to enable us to bowl South Africa out twice. They are a difficult side to score quickly against - quick to go on the defensive bowling wide so as to give you only two or three balls an over to hit. It is therefore essential that we stay ahead of the game, with runs on the board, pressurising their weak suit, their batting. There is no doubt in my mind that we have the players to do it.