Vale Peter Roebuck

[SJ]

Quite frankly Roebuck was a second-rate hack who made a living indulging in his favorite pastime - writing inflammatory bullshit about the Aussie Cricket Team, who he was always insanely jealous of from the very beginning.

The fact that he may have been a better writer than the other third-rate Cricket journos out there doesn't really say a lot for the bloke as far as I'm concerned.



Freshly revealed circumstances of his death also sound extremely fishy.

I read innumerable Roebuck articles full of praise for the Australian cricket team over many many years.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I read innumerable Roebuck articles full of praise for the Australian cricket team over many many years.

Given we were awesome and he was writing in Australia, he had little choice but to offer praise when it was merited.

It's the flipside that was telling. Whenever there was the slightest opportunity to criticise, Roebuck went in disproportionately hard with conspicuous enthusiasm. That's why people conclude he hated the Australian side. Any opening to bag them and he was through it, shrill and self-righteous.

 

[MinerBoy]

What Peter wrote upset so many Australians because it was very (maybe too) close to the truth. He never wrote for the masses, looking for pats on the back - he wrote what he believed and I appreciated it.

The India v Australia / Symmo v Harbi stuff wasn't close to the truth. It was spiteful and a million miles off the mark. It was disgusting.

Not a bad listen as an ABC commentator but besides being nicely written, I held little regard for the opinions offered in his columns.

 

[King Elvis]

The India v Australia / Symmo v Harbi stuff wasn't close to the truth. It was spiteful and a million miles off the mark. It was disgusting.

Not a bad listen as an ABC commentator but besides being nicely written, I held little regard for the opinions offered in his columns.

Was clearly a personal vendetta behind that stuff.

The funniest part was, watching him back-pedal at a million miles an hour when he realised he'd misread public opinion, and gone way, way too hard.

While excusing the Indians for their abysmal behaviour; especially the intemperate Sikh Warrior and Family Man.

 

[Ron The Bear]

"An inquest can take a long time, it can be anything from six months to two or three years, but what is critical here is to get the autopsy reports, or what we call the post-mortem report. We will be looking at that first and that can take four to six weeks, sometimes up to eight weeks. When we get that report, we can determine officially what his cause of death was."

Eight weeks to determine the cause of death, three years to conduct an inquest.

 

[Rowd072]

Absolute tragedy. I used to sit in my recliner and just enjoy the commentary on a hot summer afternoon. ABC cricket will not be the same. Did not like his opinions on the Australia/India series at all. Made me very angry.

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........?

 

[Gough]

"An inquest can take a long time, it can be anything from six months to two or three years, but what is critical here is to get the autopsy reports, or what we call the post-mortem report. We will be looking at that first and that can take four to six weeks, sometimes up to eight weeks. When we get that report, we can determine officially what his cause of death was."

Eight weeks to determine the cause of death, three years to conduct an inquest.

The inertia of South African bureaucracy can never be underestimated.

 

[fairdinkum]

Eight weeks to determine the cause of death, three years to conduct an inquest.

Mate, when I was over there, it literally took two weeks to get a busted toilet fixed. 'Africa time'.

 

[TheStinger]

Well the South African police have ruled it was a suicide and no foul play is suspected, so is that good enough?

Well, they have opened up an investigation so some random reporter citing some random police source saying they have ruled it a suicide and nothing more is patently untrue at this point in time.

 

[Cousin Jed]

If someone started another thread on Roebuck it would be merged with this one or more likely it would be locked.

You know it, and I know it.

Depends on the content and the place of discussion. Caesar is a cricket man, I am sure he would be happy to house the current discussions on SRP.

 

[Cousin Jed]

The SRP thread has started for those who want to focus on various things he did or may have done outside writing and commentating on cricket.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=890138

My intention is to reopen for those who want to focus on cricket side only...now

 

[XFactor1979]

When someone like Roebuck passes away, one to go against the grain, rather than bow down and hero worship the Australian team.

It is bound to cause plenty of discussion!

 

[Mooo]

He's dead mate. He can't wear hats or respond to unsubstantiated rumour mongering

Untrue - dead men can wear hats.

 

[Phone]

would a straw hat be harder for a dead man to wear than a trucker hat

 

[Partridge]

Cant believe the short memories of some on here, particularly regarding the bile Roebuck spewed during that 06/07 Australia V India series....you would think he was the greatest scribe in the history of cricket from some of the comments thus far.

The least we owe the dead is the truth, so lets not sugar coat the man.

Never liked him to be honest. Was good early on then rapidly became full of himself. It's one thing to write eloquently but he'd do it at the expense of a good article.

I'm sure there will be more information to come on this.

 

[Andrew Mc]

From:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...wspaper-confirms/story-e6frf3g3-1226194549611

"Fairfax said it was believed a uniformed police officer was in the room at the time."

Interesting...

 

[King Elvis]

When someone like Roebuck passes away, one to go against the grain, rather than bow down and hero worship the Australian team.

Nah, plenty of people have been critical of the Aus XI at times; but there is a difference between being critical, and the hysterical, over the top rubbish he wrote after the India debacle - it stank of somebody with a vendetta or an axe to grind, who finally felt they have the chance to lash out.

 

[Gough]

Nah, plenty of people have been critical of the Aus XI at times; but there is a difference between being critical, and the hysterical, over the top rubbish he wrote after the India debacle - it stank of somebody with a vendetta or an axe to grind, who finally felt they have the chance to lash out.

He wasn't alone in being hysterical and over the top after that game, everyone was, players, boards, fans, media, it was bedlam. With hindsight it would have been better for everyone concerned if they'd taken a deep breath and stood back for a minute. Nobody emerged from that Sydney Test with their reputation entirely unmarked.
To single out Roebuck for special criticism, I would argue, is somewhat uncalled for.

 

[King Elvis]

I can't recall anybody who was as hysterical or vindictive as Roebuck.

 

[Gough]

He suggested that Ponting's behaviour in that game was appalling (something I agreed with) and that he should be removed as Australian captain (something I didn't agree with). One article has become a touchstone for his entire career as a journalist.
He was a consistently thought provoking and polarising man. That makes him a great journalist for mine.

 

[fairdinkum]

Well said, Gough.

It seems as though a great number of posters are so petty that they will allow one article (which Roebuck subsequently backtracked on, to some degree) colour their opinion of his entire career.

If we were to start judging Test cricketers purely on their lowlights, there wouldn't be a single Hall of Famer in 150 years of cricket.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Well said, Gough.

It seems as though a great number of posters are so petty that they will allow one article (which Roebuck subsequently backtracked on, to some degree) colour their opinion of his entire career.

If we were to start judging Test cricketers purely on their lowlights, there wouldn't be a single Hall of Famer in 150 years of cricket.

That and the obvious other issue on the table.

 

[DREAM TEAM BUFF]

Harsha Bhogle on Peter Roebuck

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-13/cricket-commentator-harsha-bogle-on-peter-robuck/3663536

 

[Dipper]

Well said, Gough.

It seems as though a great number of posters are so petty that they will allow one article (which Roebuck subsequently backtracked on, to some degree) colour their opinion of his entire career.

If we were to start judging Test cricketers purely on their lowlights, there wouldn't be a single Hall of Famer in 150 years of cricket.

The threads of his life seem to show little integrity to the outside observer.


From the furore at Somerset where he was party to the sacking of Richards and Garner in what was certainly perceived by them and many others as being underhand.

The obvious stuff about caning those boys & the suspicion that they were probably just the ones that went to the police.

And then on his writing it wasn't just the one article, it was the trend.

He was an Englishman who left for Australia at a relatively advanced age and then used every opportunity to write articles attacking England and English cricket to a completely over the top degree, combined with his ridiculously affected strine accent it just smacked of someone trying to ingrtiate himself with his new audience by using the easiest route possible and after a number of years of arse licking everything Australian he then saw where the power was heading and ditched his new love to start a new and even more embarrassing genuflection of India.

And finally not even being able to face up to the allegations that he faced at the very end.

 

[Cousin Jed]

No more warnings.