Lives in Cricket No 24 - Edgar Willsher

37 request was for a strict interpretation of Law 10 by umpires in important matches, since ‘we find no individual who will take the responsibility upon himself to commence “no-balling” those who we are of opinion are unfair.’ The lawmakers of the MCC were entirely in accordance with the aims of the petition, and the ultra-conservative Robert Grimston, one of its staunchest committee members, proposed an addition to the law, so that a bowler could be no-balled if he raised his arm above the shoulder ‘ immediately preceding the delivery ’. ‘A Charitable Cricketer’ summed up the opinion of many when he wrote in a letter of March 1858 that ‘there are many underhand bowlers even, who in preparing to deliver the ball raise the hand and arm above the shoulder’, thus raising the ludicrous prospect of under-arm bowlers being no-balled under the new Law 10. He also suggested setting up an independent committee to consider all sides of the argument, but neither point cut any ice with the mandarins at Lord’s, who duly passed the amendment with the minimum of fuss on 5 May. Willsher himself stayed out of the debate until he felt his hand was forced by one ‘Blink Bonny’, a self-proclaimed ‘professional cricketer’ who felt compelled to name the most serious offenders of ‘the present day’. Starting with Willsher, he was adamant that: this young cricketer (I will speak the truth and defy contradiction) four years since bowled as fair as Caffyn does at the present time, but in going round the country with the England Eleven, and playing on all kinds of grounds, he found the higher he got the more difficult he was to play. I did not hear a cricketer last season (a few Kent men excepted) but what said it was foul bowling. Despite his protestations that his attacks were nothing personal, he named several other bowlers, including Willsher’s Kent colleague Hollands – apparently ‘higher’ than Willsher – and John Lillywhite. According to the writer, the latter had also until recently bowled ‘fair’, and ‘Blink Bonny’ asserted that it would be easy for both him and Willsher to revert back to their former legitimate style. Such accusations could not pass unanswered, and Bell’s Life duly printed Willsher’s rejoinder on 28 March. Having denied that his bowling had changed at all over the years, he goes on to say: I cannot imagine anything more degrading than the attempt to deprive his brother cricketers of their professional reputation. For my own part I intend to guard my own, as I do my wicket, at all events, from foul play … Would ‘Willsher’s Hand is Very High’