“The Rhyme That Lies” — 100 years ago: #3

Ever since my interest in old county cricket began, I noticed Arthur Mold, a leading fast bowler from Lancashire in the 1890s, for his large hauls of wickets. When I first studied old county cricket, I was not able to afford Wisdens old enough to cover Mold. Nevertheless, a few fragments of his most notable feats from the State Library of Victoria, alongside a more detailed overview from Wisden Book of Obituaries, made me realise an extraordinary paradox. This being that the most successful “chucker” in cricket history has a name that rhymes with “bowled”! I noted the paradox when discussing my fortieth birthday a few years ago. This observation I especially like regarding Wisden’s frequently lavish praise for Mold’s work in county cricket during the 1890s:

“The fast bowler [Mold] maintained a wonderful pitch and pace, and occasionally whipped back in a manner which the visiting [Sussex in 1894] batsmen were quite unable to withstand”

“After the triumph of the Lancashire batsmen [against Kent at Old Trafford in 1895] Mold bowled so grandly that in three hours fourteen Kent wickets went down for 115 runs, and altogether Kent were twice dismissed for 196, Lancashire winnings most decisively by an innings and 291 runs”

“The way he made the ball break back on the hard ground [at Trent Bridge in 1895] was quite marvellous”

Times report for 1895 Nottinghamshire match.
Mold took 15 for 85 including 4 in 4.

Times report for 1895 Lancashire v Kent match.
Mold took sixteen for 111

In the second case, The Times said that the wicket had worn and was assisting Mold to break the ball back, and it hinted at that with the last one a little later. Before I read The Times’ frequently (though by no means always) more detailed analysis, I assumed that the pitch must have continued to favour batting and that Mold’s sixteen wickets (of eighteen that fell) simply reflected superlative work. Nevertheless, my knowledge of the Wisden Book of Obituaries even before reading John Woodcock’s list of the top 100 cricketers of all time made me realise how tainted Mold’s achievements were by the fact that he bowled for so long before being no-balled or being openly criticised.

I soon came to call the phrase “Mold bowled” “the rhyme that lies”. It is indeed a very simple and obvious rhyme, yet one that was never actually true given that Mold had been recognised by astute observers as a bad thrower before he had ever been seen in first-class cricket. Two other phrases in Chinese — “老好” and “现代坏” — I have also occasionally thought of as the “rhyme that lies”. However, the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s Wisdens I cut my teeth on said firmly that there were terrible flaws in modern (现代) English cricket that had always got worse, so I never accepted them as the definitive “rhyme that lies” as I did “Mold bowled”.

When Mold was at the height of his powers — he took over 200 wickets in 1894 and 1895 — a number of famous batsmen did obliquely comment upon his delivery. Rather than naming him, they merely said there was an important case of throwing consistently high in the averages, which was always understood to mean Arthur Mold. Little was said in Lancashire reports of this era about Mold’s action, and as he declined and began to suffer from knee problems later in the 1890s even less was said until he recovered his form surprisingly in the 1900 season before James Phillips no-balled him at Trent Bridge and Mold sent down just one over in the whole game.

Subsequently, in a vote of twelve out of fifteen county captains, Mold’s delivery was condemned by a vote of eleven to one. He would go in and out of the Lancashire eleven for the rest of 1900 and all of 1901, and although he was still near the top of the averages it was clear after Phillips again no-balled him sixteen times in ten overs that Mold would not be retained by Lancashire for the 1902 season.

Studying English bowling over the years, I have long been convinced that the reason “the rhyme that lies” got away with throwing for so long and to so much effect was that in Mold’s prime English bowling was unusually strong. Lohmann, Richardson, Lockwood, Peel, Mold’s longtime partner Briggs, John Thomas Hearne and William Attewell formed a group of high-class bowlers that has since been rivalled only once — in the middle 1950s. Consequently, although England knew there was potential for Mold to be called for throwing if he bowled in front of unfamiliar umpires, there was no need for this as there would have been in most other eras.

It does seem as though the decline of English bowling when Bedser, Laker, Appleyard, Tyson and Wardle disappeared from the scene in the late 1950s coincided with the wave of no-ballings for throwing circa 1959. However this is much more likely due to England’s own concern about the actions of Australian pacemen Meckiff and Rorke, not the exposure of criticised English bowlers like Tony Lock. Nonetheless, the unusual quality of English bowling in the middle 1890s would have protected Mold from a lot of wider scrutiny vis-à-vis what he would have got in county cricket.