Will Peter Roebuck ever get off his high horse?

[baba ganush]

This article is just vomit-inducing. The way he lauds India like they weren't also incredibly poorly behaved in the SCG Test is ridiculous. The guy needs to realise his cricketing opinions aren't the be-all and end-all and that he's just a vindictive tool.

Year of decay got worse by the day

Peter Roebuck



A YEAR that began with a craven victory ended in heavy defeat. All the signs of decay detected during the acrimonious SCG Test match a year ago were confirmed as the season unfolded.At first, Australia's outdated custom of putting a halo around their captain prevented widespread discussion of his performance but as months passed it became a legitimate topic of debate. Ricky Ponting was at his worst in that match, a fiery figure pushed along by senior players, complaining about opponents, upsetting visiting journalists, disdaining a dignified counterpart and grizzling about former captains critical of his declaration.
Anil Kumble said only one team had been playing in the spirit of the game and a nation reeled. Past players, punters and politicians joined the fray, polls were taken, foreign ministers consulted, and all because of a stray word and years of resentment. On both sides a hundred wounds were opened. It was madness.
The rest was inevitable. Of course the case was lost. As soon as a legally trained person reviewed the evidence, the outcome was certain. During the match I tried to convince Cricket Australia officials a conviction for a parking ticket could not be secured on the available evidence but nobody's ears were working. ABC, Channel 9 and the umpires heard nothing so it was one man's word against another. Moreover Australia had broken the Mumbai Pact by starting the exchange that led to the rage. Not much of a package to present. Australia persisted anyhow and a visiting country, a nation patronised for 400 years, responded angrily.
India were not going to cop it any more. How did Australia not anticipate that? As was obvious from the outset, the bitterness turned an immature and irritating opponent into a folk hero. Opinions can vary about the rights and wrongs but it was a foolish undertaking. None of the Australians involved emerged unscathed. The Australians were shaken by the outcry. Surrounded by backslappers and propagandists, they had been unaware of any hostile sentiment. Adam Gilchrist retired soon afterwards and then accused Sachin Tendulkar of changing his story. Others became disillusioned, a mood that proved hard to shake.
Meanwhile other issues arose as players rushed to sign lucrative contracts to play in the IPL. Some complained about the auction but it is possible to buy Picassos and houses on the hammer; it is just a way of determined market value. Cricketers ought not to be so dainty. Later England fretted about Stanford's excesses and so lost the million-dollar math. The IPL took a toll on older players and advanced the careers of numerous youngsters.

Some of the older Australians signed for the rebel T20 league organised by a television mogul. Afterward they were prevented from playing state cricket or even coaching official teams. The BCCI paid the piper and called the tune. Cricket Australia's capitulation was matched only by New Zealand's. Nor did the players' union protect its own. The ICL players are not renegades but professional cricketers and the game has no right to close its doors on them. Packer went to court on the principle of freedom of labour and the ICL ought to follow in his footsteps.
Thanks to abysmal umpiring India lost that match and almost went home. Happily tempers cooled. The Indians had the last laugh, winning in Perth, taking the one-day series and hammering the Australians on subcontinent soil. Along the way they played some scintillating cricket. It is a new country whose players nowadays emerge from the same tough back streets that produced Ponting and company. Alone among the cricketing nations Australia never had a colonial mindset, or played the game by English rules. Quite the opposite. It took a long time but eventually India embraced the same emancipation. They did not add to their charms but it did make them harder to beat.
Australia have not beaten a strong side since. India prevailed in Perth and held their own in Adelaide. Perhaps the Australians were subdued but Virender Sehwag was back and Matthew Hayden was missing. Hayden's lean spells have coincided with Australia's bad trots. Cause or effect? It is quite something to field an opening batsman capable of intimidating new-ball bowlers. After Sydney, though, the senior players fell back. Andrew Symonds became distracted, Brett Lee lost form, Hayden endured injuries and the team did not recover its rhythm. In hindsight Sydney can be understood only as the last desperate struggle of a falling champion.
Ponting and company easily beat the second division sides like West Indies and New Zealand but the bowling was too weak to trouble powerful batting orders. Gradually the side began fray at the edges. The veterans were torn between lashing out and sitting tight. Some players did progress, notably Simon Katich, Brad Haddin, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson, but momentum was lost and the team lacked belief and penetration. Frustrated by injuries, the selectors became flustered and started neglecting the basics that Australia usually applies better than any rival. Cameron White played as a bowler, specialists were ignored, wounded players retained. Elsewhere dubious appointments were made and contracts were blithely extended. Desperation took hold.
Australia have forgotten how to win. As much was evident in the absurd tactics pursued in Nagpur and in the equally ill-advised response to criticism from retired players. As much could be told from the failure to press in Perth and Melbourne. And yet all is not lost. Ponting's team has been good enough to get into powerful positions. And it still has many fine cricketers in its ranks, not least Michael Clarke and Michael Hussey. Complacent in January the team has become tentative. It's about time the selectors and captain started playing Australian cricket again, forcing the pace, erring on the side of aggression, choosing heavyweights regardless of age. Bad luck and injuries stalk pessimistic sides. Ponting needs to put his annus horribilis behind him and start 2009 with a glint in his eye. He needs to start playing backyard cricket with backyard cricketers, but without the foolishness. It's not needed. Graeme Smith has proved that.

[sherb]

Since the garbage he wrote following the Sydney test last season, I don`t waste my time reading anything he writes.

Any respect I had for him or his opinions has gone. Vindictive tool is not an unreasonable description of Roebuck.

[unstable punt]

he's too busy whipping his horse to get off it

[larrikin]

Umm, guys, did you actually tread the article?

He's pretty spot on. The only point of contention I would have is the inference that the events of Sydney started the rot.

[Groucho]

Since the garbage he wrote following the Sydney test last season, I don`t waste my time reading anything he writes.

Any respect I had for him or his opinions has gone. Vindictive tool is not an unreasonable description of Roebuck.

Yeah it's interesting isn't it. I used to be quite an avid reader of his stuff. Thought he gave a thoughtful,alternative and opinionated view on matters but after the utter rubbish he wrote following last years Sydney Test I've skipped him completely. His opinion holds no interest for me any more.

[The Chad]

to be honest i don't think australia is in that big a crisis. losing to a team that plays like gentleman and with good grace like south africa is nothing to be ashamed of. the bad blood and bad sportsmanship with india is just a different beast altogether.

[sherb]

Yeah it's interesting isn't it. I used to be quite an avid reader of his stuff. Thought he gave a thoughtful,alternative and opinionated view on matters but after the utter rubbish he wrote following last years Sydney Test I've skipped him completely. His opinion holds no interest for me any more.
I had no issue with him prior to the Sydney test, either in print or on radio. I didn`t agree with everything he said or wrote, but you find that to be the case with most commentators of the game.

[sherb]

Umm, guys, did you actually tread the article?

He's pretty spot on. The only point of contention I would have is the inference that the events of Sydney started the rot.
No. Not interested in anything he has to say, irrespective of how close to the mark it may be.

If you care to summarize the article however, I am happy to comment. :D

[Dez!]

Man I would love to meet him face to face, nothing would give me more satisfaction than setting this dipshit of a journalist straight.

Let him know that's he's an absolute wanker and nobody gives a damn about his opinion, bury yourself underground Roebuck and stay there.

[STC]

Umm, guys, did you actually tread the article?

He's pretty spot on. The only point of contention I would have is the inference that the events of Sydney started the rot.
Agree completely with you here.

Peter Roebuck is very two faced for me. One minute he is a complete tosser, writing absolute shit (like when he called for Ponting to be sacked for Katich just because of his 'poor sportsmanship') and the next he is a great writer, addressing the issues as they should be (the BCCI, ICL issues, Zimbabwe). He stands up for what a lot of journos refuse to go near.

[weevil]

Yeah I agree. He is often extremely good, but then rolls out the biggest load of sensationalist garbage imaginable.

[dan warna]

<shrug> peter Roebuck like a few other commentators are exulting in the downward spiral of the Australian cricket team.

I was never one for 'give the opposition a break'.

it was inevitable that our era of absolute dominance would come to an end, and i for one enjoyed the ruthless captaincy of steve waugh, while some folks were asking for clemency for the opposition, or using dead rubbers to trial players (even on this forum) i was all for grinding them to dust, and s.waugh, s.warne, and a few others were of a similar mind. 3 zip or 2 zip read a lot better than 2.1 or 3.2 or whatever.

I would love it if we 'discovered' another 2 bowlers of the same ability to dominate as warne and mcgrath, and throw in a gillespie (they don't have to be the same type of bowler as long as they are equally successful ;D) and 7 batsman who average between 50 and 55 one of whom is an outstanding keeper, just to smear the smarmy faces of roebuck and coe in the mud, and throw in harbajahan singh as well.

I would argue though the structures put in place in the late 80s, have pretty much not been maintained, and much of our success over hte last 20 years has come from those structures.

Right now our talent pools are much the same as any other country and the mechanisms of nurturing, selecting and moulding young state players have been replaced with short term success goals by the states (ie getting 30 year old players from other states to come over rather than developing local talent - and yes my team victoria has been amongst the worst of the states to do that)

IMO its time to have a look at what simpson and co put in place 20 years ago and start picking out the successful mechanisms so our 'down' time is limited to 4 or 5 years.

in that time we are going to lose hayden, katich, ponting, lee, michael hussey, haddin and a few others.

Even the replacement players are 27/28 or older that they are looking at, with the exception of phil hughes.

Wear the damage, get the states involved and have a look at whats happening in local domestic competitions, and promote the players with potential into the state competitions instead of getting rubbish imports and passing players around.

we had the structures in place once, we can do it again.

Roebuck would love to see a resurgent england, but such is the envy of other nations at the nearly 2 decades of dominance by australia they are willing to cheer anyone who knocks us off.

we are still a good team, its not like we are rubbish, but we just don't have the brilliant battery of bowlers we had, and our batsman are older, slower, living on reputations or just not as good as those they replaced.

OUr time will come again, its just are we going to continue the policies of hohns which is live off the work of the past and recycle the players, or are we going to rebuild the mechanisms that saw so much talent nurtured that at one stage Australia's second team could have been a test side of world class quality.

[unstable punt]

Umm, guys, did you actually tread the article?

He's pretty spot on. The only point of contention I would have is the inference that the events of Sydney started the rot.
agree, having read it, he is spot on

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't care if Roebuck has accidentally stumbled across a good point, the guy is an ignorant tool whose arrogance knows no limits. I refuse to read his articles, haven't listened to ABC cricket for 12 months, and refuse to do so until Roebuck no longer proliferates the air with his diatribe.

It's a pity that some "jounalists" who expect balanced behaviour from others, don't hold the same expectation of themselves.

[baba ganush]

Nothing he wrote about India is spot on at all. For such a savagely indecent team he acts like they're angels. And his lauding of Kumble, who I lost a lot of respect for after the Sydney Test with his pathetic grandstanding, is the icing on the cake.

Roebuck should have a quick think about why he 'emigrated' to Australia (check his Wiki profile...) and get his hand off it.

[krusden]

Umm, guys, did you actually tread the article?

He's pretty spot on. The only point of contention I would have is the inference that the events of Sydney started the rot.

I read the article and one passage stood out for me in particular, viz:

"Some of the older Australians signed for the rebel T20 league organised by a television mogul. Afterward they were prevented from playing state cricket or even coaching official teams. The BCCI paid the piper and called the tune. Cricket Australia's capitulation was matched only by New Zealand's. Nor did the players' union protect its own. The ICL players are not renegades but professional cricketers and the game has no right to close its doors on them. Packer went to court on the principle of freedom of labour and the ICL ought to follow in his footsteps."

I think it's a very important point that he raised there as he is stating that CA have lost people like dizzy gillespie who could be important helping young guns like johnson and siddle in regards of batting and bowling. Australia as a cricket team don't suck up the India - it's the damned cricket board.
Failing that I don't think that this is any worse than the Rubbish trotted out by nasty "greats" like rodney hogg and ian chappell. At least roebuck is attacking the situation rather than using a blame game of heaping it all on roy, haydos or ponting. I don't see how people can let rubbish like the dribble that chappell and hogg make the back pages of the paper and let an article like this that tells it like it is slip. I'd prefer to read this rather than the has beens of the cricket world abusing players. this article heaps it not on the team but the BOARD. And all the people wttacking roebuck miss the point that he is right. The problems for Oz cricket start at the board and the selction table. Yes Punter has some say but we should have had a transition plan in long before warney and pigeon retired. One that should have been instigated by the board.

[Wicked Lester]

No, he wont get off his high horse. Because he cocked up so badly during after the Sydney test last year (and I suspect he knows it, but can't acknowledge his mistake) he takes every opportunity to justify his original position. He is a prize tool who diminishes my enjoyment of the game.

Worst of all he has infected several in the ABC commentary box (Jim Maxwell in particular who now comes across as a sanctimonious twit) as well as his colleagues at The Age.

Both Chloe Saltau and Greg Baum have started writing about willow wielders and leather flingers (please, in the name of god stop it). Baum wrote in his column the other day that "South Africa had been gracious in victory, unlike other recent series victors seen in these parts" (or words to that effect).

FFS Greg, get your hand off it. If you honestly equate the spontaneous, adrenalin fuelled celebration that occurred after taking 3 wickets in five balls in the second last over of a test match to that of a 9 wicket victory that was all but locked in several hours before it occurred you simply shouldn't be writing about sport.

[dan warna]

wants traitors? have a look at the brits, windians and aussies who took krugerrands to support apartheid.

won't find him condemning the brits, and yet he's quick to jump on his hobby horse about australian discipline.

yes we've had some false starts, but you only have to look at blatant corruption in the subcontinent (hello azza anyone?), drunken loutish behaviour from the brits, and $$$ flowing everywhere (stupid windian/British competition with the billionaire?)

Roebuck is not a fool but he's one of many brits and boks who have seen the aussies grind their team into dust, and he's enjoying our gradual fall from absolute power.

Lets be honest, the team S.Waugh had it disposal was one of the best bowling squads australia has ever fielded and probably only behind bradman's XI for batting talent (hard to cover a bloke averaging 100), miller, barnes, Morris. And they bled the brits. The brits beat us 3.2 in a narrow competition that could have gone either way, with the magnificent McGrath out or ineffective and Gillespie struggling, and the bats (katich, Clarke, Martyn, Hayden) having ordinary series.

the damn fools had street parades and knighthoods for beating Australia FFS.

Roebuck and the british press corps are certainly enjoying our straits.

Give their fun, and their holy than thou crap, give us 5 years and we'll drill em again.

[Belnakor]

Roebuck was the same fool calling for Brett Lee to be banned after a couple of deliveries slipped out of his hand and flew as beamers. He is a completely reactionary writer who trolls for attention.

[japaljarri]

l'm firmly in the "used to read, now completely ignore" category. Since his foaming at the mouth last Summer he has lost all credibility for me. Perhaps also as alluded to earlier :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Roebuck
After Retirement

Roebuck in 2001 was given a suspended jail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jail) sentence after admitting caning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning) three young cricketers he had offered to coach. He pleaded guilty to three charges of common assault involving three South African teenagers between 1 April and 31 May, 1999.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Roebuck#cite_note-0) Roebuck was originally accused of indecent assault but pleaded guilty to lesser charges of common assault. However, the judge, Graham Hume-Jones, said he did not accept the purity of Roebuck's motives. He said:
"It was not appropriate to administer corporal punishment to boys of this age in circumstances such as these. It seems so unusual that it must have been done to satisfy some need in you."

Ian Fenny prosecuting said:
"Roebuck then pulled the boy towards him, in what appeared to be an act of affection. He then asked if he could look at the marks on the boy's buttocks, something which he in fact did."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Roebuck#cite_note-1)

[STC]

I don't care if Roebuck has accidentally stumbled across a good point, the guy is an ignorant tool whose arrogance knows no limits. I refuse to read his articles, haven't listened to ABC cricket for 12 months, and refuse to do so until Roebuck no longer proliferates the air with his diatribe.

It's a pity that some "jounalists" who expect balanced behaviour from others, don't hold the same expectation of themselves.
He's an opinion columnist, so what's wrong with having an opinion?

He is very interesting to read, opinionated and often I don't agree with his articles, but the fact is he calls it like he sees it, he doesn't dance around the issues.

For that reason, he is a good opinion columnist.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Why the **** is there all this carry on, its a bloody game of cricket, just let the players play the game. I think the journos should remember without the players, they wouldnt have a job.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Get off your high horse lady, i dont need a ride tonight.

[Kid A]

Roebuck is a poor writer - terrible bias against Australia; full of hackneyed leather-flingers and willow-wielders; writing that's in a peculiar, passive tense and voice that he's made his own (thank goodness).

Don't rate him. I recall a few years ago Greiggy in the Channel 9 combox was saying how Roebuck was one of the few cricket journalists that he (Greig) liked. A good pairing, those two would be.

[DT_fanatic]

Good article - most of what he says is true.

[YOTC]

Whingers whinging about a whinger.

Best thread on bigfooty. Full of hypocrisy and lies.

Article wasn't bad though.

[Romeo]

There's merit in what he says at times but I also tire of some of his sanctimonious and hypocritical diatribes. He is also reactionary and swings with the wind.

The point about the ICL is not that valid given that countries such as SA also suffer from losing a lot of players like Kemp, Klusener, van der Wath, Langeveldt etc. and they also lose them to rapacious counties. What it does though is allow them to develop younger players at a greater rate. They may not have the guiding hand of some of the older players but at least older players aren't taking their places.

Roebuck can't have it both ways. Now many Aussies are saying that we have too many older players, and a few overseas players in our Shield ranks which means that fewer young guns can command places. It's all about attaining a balance. Not enough young players coming through, coupled with guys like Hayden hanging around forever means that too many of our players get picked like Hussey, after losing slices of their prime years.

I also tire of Roebuck carrying on about leather-flingers and cack-handers and right-handers who really should be left-handers etc.

Occasionally he comes up with a good article. His opinions are sometimes valid but if only he would hold to them and not be so influenced by what happened in the last minute.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Peter Roebuck commonly does what heaps of people on BF do. That is "over-state" things or list them off to make it sound worse.

Lets examine this portion of writing taken from his article.

"Ricky Ponting was at his worst in that match, a fiery figure pushed along by senior players, complaining about opponents, upsetting visiting journalists, disdaining a dignified counterpart and grizzling about former captains critical of his declaration".

All Ponting did was report a alleged remark under instructions from the ICC after a similar incident a few weeks before. This reported as "complaining about opponents" gives an impression that Ponting was whinging. Not so.

The upsetting visiting journo remark is aimed at an incident when a Indian jounro all but hijacked a press conference Ponting was at and basically called Ponting a cheat. As such Ricky responded in kind and basically told this guy what a joke he was but in a polite manner that would happen every day in the real world and in life. It appears built into their nature that Indians get very excitable and this journo was basically going over the top on this incident. Roebuck makes it sound like Ponting humilated a journo in a unprovoked attack. Once again, this is not what happened.

The grizzling about former captains bit is an obvious remark at Tony Greig, a notorious anti-aussie personality who half an hour before stumps when it looked like the game would be a draw started rubbishing the declaration. Maybe rubbishing is a bit strong, but questioned it would be more appropiate. As it turned out Australia won and Ponting and Gilchrist basically told Greig that he was wrong and they were right. Sure it might have been rubbing ones nose it in but Greig would have done the exact same thing and has done in the past. I doubt he would have cared less at someone yelling over an interview that "greig was wrong" if anything he probably would have enjoyed it.

Roebuck makes it sound like Ponting was frothing at the mouth when all he was doing was giving it back.

None of what Roebuck wrote in that paragraph is "false' so to speak, but it is portrayed in a way that to make it look worse then what really occured.

Roebuck actually on Radio on the last day of the MCG test said he didnt feel Australia "was far away" from being a very decent side.

Whenever Australia loses it seems that the other team cannot get credit for their victory. Its always teh fault of someone other then the skill of the opposite team. India and South Africa are on form the clear 2 best teams in the world, it is no shame to lose to them at all. South Africa outplayed us, we gave it our best shot in those 2 games, but they were to good.

Why doesnt anyone admit that we were outplayed rather then just look for scapegoats.

[Slattery_20]

Harbajahn's got about 50 kids. Therefore he doesn't act like a sea hunt. Capish??

[Illinois Nazi]

Harbajahn's got about 50 kids. Therefore he doesn't act like a sea hunt. Capish??

No, not at all. :confused::confused::confused:


The article makes some good points, but the attempt to give it a "theme" by linking everything that's happened in the past year back to the Sydney Test is misguided.

[big_e]

He's an opinion columnist, so what's wrong with having an opinion?

He is very interesting to read, opinionated and often I don't agree with his articles, but the fact is he calls it like he sees it, he doesn't dance around the issues.

For that reason, he is a good opinion columnist.

I agree. He's not there to be liked, he just there to give his opinion. And if it riles people sometimes, well that's a job well done.

[themuddy#3]

Armchair expert.

doesnt bag ponting when we are winning.

what a dick.

[CrazyQ]

Armchair expert.

doesnt bag ponting when we are winning.

what a dick.
And if he did, you'd still bag him.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I agree. He's not there to be liked, he just there to give his opinion. And if it riles people sometimes, well that's a job well done.

If deliberately upsetting people is a job well done, I'd rather be unemployed.

[weevil]

If deliberately upsetting people is a job well done, I'd rather be unemployed.

That explains it!!!!!!!!!!

That Gunnar prick is just using this place for practice! :D

[Biggie]

Didnt see much wrong in that article.

Time to harden up lads, there is some tough times ahead. :thumbsu:

[chris86]

I don't mind listening to him on ABC, he has a great knowledge for the game. Just a shame he writes alot of crap now and then.

[big_e]

If deliberately upsetting people is a job well done, I'd rather be unemployed.

If you were a sports columnist who never upset anybody, you probably would be unemployed.

[mushda]

He writes some good and some bad stuff, I find most of his articles interesting even if he has a tendency to overstate things a little.

Nice work LtD managing to include an Oasis reference in a thread about a cricket writer :o

[bullish23]

He is a tool. Claimed in india that Bracken should have played in place of Johnson. Keeps wacking Hayden (and rightly so) but never mentions Lee. His NSW bias is ridiculous.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

That explains it!!!!!!!!!!

That Gunnar prick is just using this place for practice! :D

Takes one to know one.

[STC]

If deliberately upsetting people is a job well done, I'd rather be unemployed.
His job is to give his opinion, not sugarcoat it so everyone is happy. If he upsets some people (not all, but some), then he's doing his job because he's stating his opinion strongly.

[W W Biscuit]

His job is to give his opinion, not sugarcoat it so everyone is happy. If he upsets some people (not all, but some), then he's doing his job because he's stating his opinion strongly.

Yes, but his piece following the Sydney test versus India wouldn't have passed muster as a Year 7 argumentative essay. It was a hopelessly inept rant which seriously undermined his credibility with a lot of readers. Of course there is room for strongly voiced opinion - most of us find it entertaining and often challenging. However, Roebuck's tirade against Ponting was so 'against type' and hysterical that it managed to not only displease some of his readership, but alienate them for good. Not wise commercial practice I would have thought, and I wonder what his sub-editor was thinking.

[Johnson#26]

He's back on the Sydney Test: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/a-testing-time-for-cricketers-nerves-20101225-197in.html

[Adelaide Hawk]

If you were a sports columnist who never upset anybody, you probably would be unemployed.

The last job I'd ever want is being a sports journalist. I prefer actually doing something to help people rather than spend my life blowing hot air like Roebuck.

[sherb]

I clicked on the link to Roebuck's article.

I feel dirty. :o

[Lazarus]

Was there any reason for mentioning the 2008 test in that article?

[Johnson#26]

I generally like Roebuck and his work, and enjoy that he is a bit controversial, but one thing that drives me mad with his articles is his desperation to rehash his hate for the Sydney Test '08. What's more his stance on it is a million miles from mine. Sort of.

But spare me another mention of it Peter. Please, let it go!