Arthur Mold, English cricketer (b. 1863)

Arthur Webb Mold, born on May 27, 1863, and passing away on April 29, 1921, was an English professional cricketer whose legacy remains a fascinating blend of exceptional talent and enduring controversy. Operating as a formidable fast bowler for Lancashire in first-class cricket from 1889 to 1901, Mold quickly established himself as one of the most feared and effective bowlers in England throughout the 1890s. His prowess was recognized early in his career, earning him the prestigious title of a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1892, a significant accolade in the cricketing world. The following year, his skill was further acknowledged with selection to represent England in three Test matches during the 1893 season, the pinnacle of international cricket.

However, despite his impressive tally of 1,673 wickets in first-class matches – a testament to his sheer effectiveness on the field – Mold's career narrative is inextricably linked to persistent questions about his bowling action. Many contemporary observers and commentators felt that his deliveries bordered on, or even crossed into, throwing rather than bowling, a crucial distinction in the laws of cricket. This cloud of suspicion, while never fully resolved to everyone's satisfaction, cast a long shadow, leading many to view his significant achievements as, regrettably, tainted.

The Rise to Prominence and Lingering Doubts

Mold’s cricketing journey began modestly in the mid-1880s, where he honed his skills playing for local outfits like Banbury and Northamptonshire. By 1889, he had successfully qualified to play at the county level for Lancashire, a significant step up in the competitive hierarchy of English cricket. His impact was immediate and profound. Mold quickly forged a highly effective and often devastating bowling partnership with the celebrated Johnny Briggs, a combination that frequently dismantled opposing batting lineups. Together, they formed a cornerstone of Lancashire's attack, solidifying Mold's reputation as one of the country's premier fast bowlers. Yet, despite his consistent and match-winning performances for his county, his opportunities to represent England at Test level were surprisingly limited, culminating in only a single series appearance in 1893. This limited international exposure, many believed, stemmed directly from the growing whispers and open accusations regarding the legality of his bowling action.

The debate surrounding "throwing" versus "bowling" was a contentious issue in cricket during this era. A legal bowling action requires the arm to be kept straight throughout the delivery stride, with the ball propelled by a rotational movement of the shoulder and elbow, not a bend and flick of the wrist or elbow that might constitute a throw. Mold was not alone in facing such scrutiny; several prominent bowlers of the period found themselves under similar suspicion. This ongoing background hum of doubt finally erupted into open controversy in the year 1900.

The Unravelling: Jim Phillips and the End of a Career

The year 1900 marked a turning point in Arthur Mold's career, as the long-simmering doubts regarding his bowling action escalated dramatically. He was famously no-balled for throwing by umpire Jim Phillips, a figure known for his rigorous enforcement of the Laws of Cricket, particularly concerning illegal bowling actions. Phillips had earned a reputation for fearlessly targeting several prominent bowlers whose actions he deemed questionable, making him a central, albeit controversial, figure in the game's ongoing efforts to uphold its integrity. The repeated no-ball calls from Phillips placed Mold in an untenable position. For a time, Mold attempted to navigate this challenge by strategically avoiding matches where Phillips was appointed umpire, hoping to continue his career unimpeded.

However, this tense standoff could not last indefinitely, and the affair reached its dramatic climax in 1901. On the opening morning of a crucial match, umpire Phillips, once again officiating, repeatedly called Mold for throwing. Each call was a public declaration of illegality, a direct challenge to Mold's integrity and a profound humiliation. While many of Mold's teammates and a significant majority of the fervent Lancashire supporters vehemently maintained their belief that his bowling action was entirely legal, the repeated public censure from an official umpire proved to be a devastating blow. His reputation, painstakingly built over years of exceptional performance, was irrevocably tarnished. After only three more appearances during that 1901 season, a disheartened Arthur Mold made the difficult decision to retire from first-class cricket at the season's end, bringing a premature and controversial close to an otherwise brilliant career.

Perhaps one of the most significant consequences of the Mold-Phillips saga was its profound impact on the wider game. Following Mold's departure from professional cricket, the issue of throwing, which had plagued English cricket for years, remarkably ceased to be a major concern for the next five decades. This suggests that the decisive action taken by umpires like Phillips, culminating in Mold's retirement, effectively sent a strong message, fundamentally altering how bowling actions were perceived and regulated in English cricket for a considerable period.

Frequently Asked Questions about Arthur Mold

Who was Arthur Mold?

Arthur Webb Mold (1863–1921) was an English professional cricketer who played as a fast bowler for Lancashire and briefly for England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was known for his exceptional wicket-taking ability but also for the controversy surrounding his bowling action.

What was the main controversy surrounding his career?

The primary controversy revolved around accusations that Arthur Mold "threw" the ball rather than legally "bowled" it. This debate over the legality of his bowling action shadowed his entire career and ultimately led to his forced retirement.

What does "no-balled for throwing" mean in cricket?

In cricket, a "no-ball" is called by the umpire for various infringements of the Laws. When a bowler is "no-balled for throwing," it means the umpire judged their bowling action to be illegal, specifically that they straightened their arm during delivery, which constitutes a throw rather than a legal bowl.

Who was Jim Phillips and what was his role in the controversy?

Jim Phillips was an umpire renowned for his strict enforcement of the Laws of Cricket, particularly regarding illegal bowling actions. He was instrumental in the controversy surrounding Arthur Mold, repeatedly no-balling him for throwing, which ultimately precipitated Mold's retirement.

How did the controversy impact Arthur Mold's career?

Despite being one of England's most effective bowlers, the controversy limited his international appearances to just three Test matches. The repeated no-balls from umpire Jim Phillips in 1901 ruined his reputation and led to his early retirement from first-class cricket at the end of that season.

What was the broader impact of the Mold controversy on English cricket?

Arthur Mold's retirement marked a significant moment for English cricket. After his departure, the issue of throwing, which had been a persistent problem, largely disappeared from the English game for approximately 50 years, suggesting a stricter enforcement and shift in bowling practices.

Was Arthur Mold considered a great bowler despite the controversy?

Undoubtedly, yes. He was recognized as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1892 and took an impressive 1,673 first-class wickets. Many contemporaries and fans believed his bowling was legitimate, and his effectiveness on the field was undeniable, even if his legacy is complex due to the persistent accusations.