Vale Peter Roebuck

[western royboy]

Ill add that I wish he were around at the minute, he would be right in behind (again a bad use of phrase) the goings on in the Australian setup without fear or favour, that incisive writing is what I miss most.

 

[sherb]

Yeah there was and it wasn't nice so best leave it at that. I like Botham to a point, but he's bloody minded on some issues and holds grudges. Roebuck wasn't behind his shafting (poor use of the term) but Botham played the man not the ball until the bitter end and even after that. He used the subsequent revelations that Roebuck was most likely gay (surprise surprise) to justify his position.

I don't.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Yeah there was and it wasn't nice so best leave it at that. I like Botham to a point, but he's bloody minded on some issues and holds grudges. Roebuck wasn't behind his shafting (poor use of the term) but Botham played the man not the ball until the bitter end and even after that. He used the subsequent revelations that Roebuck was most likely gay (surprise surprise) to justify his position.

The issue wasn't that Roebuck was gay.

It was that he used his position to coerce under-privileged young men into sex.

It's possible to find Roebuck's conduct reprehensible without being homophobic.

And his writing was bloody awful. I don't know what bothers me more - those who defend his predatory sexual behaviour or those who defend his self-indulgent, overwritten tripe. Do people just say they liked his writing because they think long, looping sentences and witless analogies are thinky?

The average moron on BigFooty might not have the command of language to write that way but that doesn't make it Norman Mailer. Rather, it was the epitome of a moderately intelligent, exceptionally pretentious sports writer trying to present as a man of letters. It's the English disease when it comes to sports writing.

 

[western royboy]

The issue wasn't that Roebuck was gay.

It was that he used his position to coerce under-privileged young men into sex.

It's possible to find Roebuck's conduct reprehensible without being homophobic.

And his writing was bloody awful. I don't what bothers me more - those who defend his predatory sexual behaviour or those who defend his ridiculous, overwritten tripe.

Not defending his behaviour in that area one iota, I am happy to put my hand up to say that I was a fan of his writing. Botham used Roebuck's subsequent revelations upon Roebuck's death to justify his position on the Somerset split, which had nothing to do with issue.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Not defending his behaviour in that area one iota.

Well, you mention the 'revelation that he was gay' as though that was the issue. It wasn't.

And why can't you 'play the man' in this case? His character and conduct is/was the issue.

I am happy to put my hand up to say that I was a fan of his writing.

Why?

Do you not remember his ridiculous article calling for Ponting to be sacked as captain and for Katich, who wasn't even in the team, to be appointed instead? That was some of the most cynical, rabble-rousing bullshit I've read from a columnist in a Fairfax paper. How can someone who wrote that be considered a credible commentator?

Now that we're a few years down the track, the hand-wringing that followed that Sydney Test against India looks even more ridiculous and self-defeating than it did at the time. Oh, sure, Australia won Test series but they didn't do it in a sufficiently gentlemanly fashion so that meant the captain – the greatest Australian batsman since Bradman – should have been sacked. Huh? How does that stack up now that Australia are so ordinary?

In 2013, how many Ed Cowans and David Warners would you trade for a player of Ponting's competitive intelligence and sheer mongrel? He was a street fighter and was unapologetic about it and Australian cricket is poorer for its failure to have instilled that quality in the next generation. But because he committed the unpardonable sin of offending Roebuck's delicate sensibilities – which he apparently suppressed when caning bare-bottomed schoolboys and asking to 'inspect the damage' – Ponting should have been thrown under the bus?

That should have been the absolute death knell for Roebuck's credibility but apparently his little cocoon of pretentiousness afforded him some protection. It's one thing for Roebuck to have written that shit, another for Australians to have read it and still conclude he was worth listening to.

And I found his prose unreadable. No discipline and very little technical skill. Just a lot of overlong sentences and dud analogies. Had I been subbing his work, I would have cut every piece down to half and told him to stop being such a try-hard. And to stay away from teenage boys.

 

[western royboy]

Well, you mention the 'revelation that he was gay' as though that was the issue. It wasn't.

And why can't you 'play the man' in this case? His character and conduct is/was the issue.

Why?

The reference was into the Somerset split, Roebuck copped tha blame and wore most of it and Botham held him solely responsible, but he didn't make the decision.

As for his writing, there were times I disagreed with his views, but against News Ltd drivel he was head and shoulders above most scribes in this country, in my opinion. He was prepared to voice his opinion whether it was popular or unpoular. Don't hear much of that nowadays.

 

[Ian Dargie]

The reference was into the Somerset split, Roebuck copped tha blame and wore most of it and Botham held him solely responsible, but he didn't make the decision.

Again, the issue was not that Roebuck was gay.

As for his writing, there were times I disagreed with his views, but against News Ltd drivel he was head and shoulders above most scribes in this country, in my opinion. He was prepared to voice his opinion whether it was popular or unpoular. Don't hear much of that nowadays.

Oh, please, every halfwit with a keyboard is "prepared to voice their opinion". How is that the mark of quality?

The question is whether their opinions are worth considering and, among those who do it professionally, whether they can write.

Roebuck's call for Ponting to be sacked identified him as a complete bullshit artist who wanted to be the story. What was his opinion worth that day? As for his writing, it read like he spent all day trying to think up flowery little lines that screamed: 'Look at me! I'm a writer!'

Ugh... unbearable. I thought Australians had a radar for pretensiousness. But, in Roebuck's case, plenty got sucked in by it.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Each to their own, eh? I enjoyed him on the air and to the limited extent that I ever read the dailies, in prose.

It's good to see that you're still here Haggers. Not.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Each to their own, eh?

No. Not really.

It's good to see that you're still here Haggers. Not.

I don't know who you think I am.

 

[Brown Bottle]

No. Not really.

No. That's right. Only your opinion counts.

I don't know who you think I am.

Andrew Landeryou?

 

[Ian Dargie]

No. That's right. Only your opinion counts.

I don't even know what that means.

Andrew Landeryou?

Huh? Is this code for something?

 

[Sea fog]

I think Roebuck's prose was eloquent but agree about the analogies. Some were a bit corny. Nonetheless I think he was highly intelligent, you could tell by listening to him on the ABC that he was on top of issues in the cricket world more than most. He had an intimate knowledge of cricketers across the globe, not just the superficial grasp that many who commentate have about players outside of their native country. They don't let numb-skulls in to Cambridge either. Was Punter of Chappellg the greatest since Bradman?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I think Roebuck's prose was eloquent.

Euphemism for wordy, overlong and over-written?

Nonetheless I think he was highly intelligent, you could tell by listening to him on the ABC that he was on top of issues in the cricket world more than most.

Compared to who? How smart do you need to be to talk about cricket?

He had an intimate knowledge of cricketers across the globe, not just the superficial grasp that many who commentate have about players outside of their native country.

Granted, he was a shrewd technical analyst. So is Shane Warne.

They don't let numb-skulls in to Cambridge either.

No one said he was a numbskull.

I just said he was an eye-wateringly pretentious, wildly overrated writer who forfeited his credibility as a commentator by calling for Ponting to be sacked and irreparably tarnished his character through his predatory sexual behaviour.

 

[Brown Bottle]

I don't even know what that means.

This is a thread marking the untimely passing of Peter Roebuck. You evidently didn't like him. You've made your point. Some of us liked to read what he wrote. You didn't. Our opinions are not invalidated by your accusations of pretention, nor by you telling us we are wrong (because he is "over-rated"!). Your contributions to this thread are over-rated, by you.

On the matter of "predatory sexual behaviour", from all I've read there is one unanswered allegation against Peter Roebuck. He will never defend that charge. It's entirely possible that he elected to take his own life rather than be smeared by grubs.

 

[Belnakor]

I just said he was an eye-wateringly pretentious, wildly overrated writer who forfeited his credibility as a commentator by calling for Ponting to be sacked and irreparably tarnished his character through his predatory sexual behaviour.

probably on the money, he did tend to overcook his language at times, though i must say Cricket has some of the finest writers going around and if you viewed his work in the context of some of the AFL writers going around you would have a higher opinion of him. I didn't really find it that bad, and i find guys like Cormac McCarthy to be incredibly pretentious so he can't be that bad.

The way he turned on Ponting was disgraceful and really did tarnish a fine career as a cricket writer.

 

[western royboy]

probably on the money, he did tend to overcook his language at times, though i must say Cricket has some of the finest writers going around and if you viewed his work in the context of some of the AFL writers going around you would have a higher opinion of him. I didn't really find it that bad, and i find guys like Cormac McCarthy to be incredibly pretentious so he can't be that bad.

The way he turned on Ponting was disgraceful and really did tarnish a fine career as a cricket writer.

Far from his finest article and clearly he went too far, but I wouldn't and didn't hang him on one article. Consider his entire body of work and then make your call.

Some liked him some disliked him, but in my opinion the cricket world is poorer for his premature death and his opinion is missed.

 

[Ian Dargie]

This is a thread marking the untimely passing of Peter Roebuck. You evidently didn't like him.

Agreed.

I disapprove of the way he exploited underprivileged young men while pretending to help them and remain utterly contemptuous of his writing.

Some of us liked to read what he wrote. You didn't.

That's right.

Our opinions are not invalidated by your accusations of pretention, nor by you telling us we are wrong (because he is "over-rated"!). Your contributions to this thread are over-rated, by you.

If you say so. At least I've offered some kind of substance in support of my opinions.

On the matter of "predatory sexual behaviour", from all I've read there is one unanswered allegation against Peter Roebuck. He will never defend that charge. It's entirely possible that he elected to take his own life rather than be smeared by grubs.

Read this article, published by Fairfax, which at the time bent over backwards to protect their man. Still, they were prepared to publish an account of him grooming a 16-year-old Zimbabwean cricketer who became his 'son'.

It's entirely possible that he elected to take his own life rather than be held accountable for his actions. You can defend that if you want to. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Ian Dargie]

i must say Cricket has some of the finest writers going around

Seriously? By what standard?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Far from his finest article and clearly he went too far, but I wouldn't and didn't hang him on one article. Consider his entire body of work and then make your call.

You're bending over backwards to defend him. That article was a disgrace.

But I'm happy to judge him on the body of his work. On that basis, his writing was shit.

Some liked him some disliked him, but in my opinion the cricket world is poorer for his premature death and his opinion is missed.

Sexual predators forfeit the right to be judged solely on their work.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Sexual predators forfeit the right to be judged solely on their work.

The dead can't defend themselves. There are only unsubstantiated allegations and you well know it.

I disapprove of the way he exploited underprivileged young men while pretending to help them and remain utterly contemptuous of his writing.

It's widely acknowledged by many underprivileged young men that he helped them enormously. Exploitation?

If you say so. At least I've offered some kind of substance in support of my opinions.

Read this article, published by Fairfax, which at the time bent over backwards to protect their man. Still, they were prepared to publish an account of him grooming a 16-year-old Zimbabwean cricketer who became his 'son'.

It's entirely possible that he elected to take his own life rather than be held accountable for his actions. You can defend that if you want to. I certainly wouldn't.

Where is the substance to your opinions? You don't like the man and you don't like his pretentious writings. Simple solution - stop posting in this thread and avoid reading his works. Perhaps you could also stop trolling people who did enjoy his writing?

btw I read that article when it was published. We will never know the truth of the matter, will we? There are a lot of conflicted people contributing to it. If caning someone's bare buttocks is a sexual crime there are a lot of school teachers & principals (1970s era & earlier) who were all sexual deviants and warrant further investigation.

 

[sherb]

I don't know who you think I am.

I've got strong suspicions, based on your very familiar posting style.

 

[Brown Bottle]

I've got strong suspicions, based on your very familiar posting style.

Could I look in this thread to find another poster with a similar style?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I've got strong suspicions, based on your very familiar posting style.

Could I look in this thread to find another poster with a similar style?

Sorry, gents – this is too cryptic for me.

 

[Ian Dargie]

The dead can't defend themselves.

So what? Does that mean those who do bad things get a pass just because they're dead?

There are plenty of dead villains who still deserve a kicking.

Roebuck chose not to defend himself.

There are only unsubstantiated allegations and you well know it.

They're not unsubstantiated.

Granted, he was never found guilty in a court – he killed himself before it went that far – but that's not the same as unsubstantiated.

There was enough substance for cops to show up in his hotel room and for him to kill himself.

It's widely acknowledged by many underprivileged young men that he helped them enormously. Exploitation?

Absolutely. If he was coercing them into sex. What would you call that?

Where is the substance to your opinions? You don't like the man and you don't like his pretentious writings. Simple solution - stop posting in this thread and avoid reading his works. Perhaps you could also stop trolling people who did enjoy his writing?

How is it trolling? Why are you so keen to censor anyone who criticises Roebuck?

btw I read that article when it was published. We will never know the truth of the matter, will we? There are a lot of conflicted people contributing to it. If caning someone's bare buttocks is a sexual crime there are a lot of school teachers & principals (1970s era & earlier) who were all sexual deviants and warrant further investigation.

That is a bizarre response.

What do you think about him grooming a 16-year-old Zimbabwean cricketer?

How would you feel if it was your teenage son on the receiving end?

 

[Ian Dargie]

As for his personal life though, well that is of no interest to me. I mean, we ALL have some skeletons in the closet don't we? Who are we too judge........?

I am totally willing to judge men who groom underprivileged teenagers and coerce them into sex.