Peter Roebuck

[1137moiz]

I want to say from the off that I can't bear this guy. He's officious, pompous, self-important, presumptuous...ugh. He feeds on stereotypes and soups up his writing with them. In his most recent Cricinfo article he says with a straight face "I have only ever cared about two things...apartheid and the poison destroying Zimbabwe. I would happily give my life to either cause." mr Roebuck shut UP
I lost respect for him last November when he assumed that because Gayle once lightly said he wouldn't mind Test cricket dying, that the West Indian captain was mercenary and unworthy. He also suggested that West Indies cricket should break up because T & T seemed better on their own (despite having been beaten by Jamaica the last 3 seasons)
His articles are so full of presumption and melodrama...
Before anybody else mentions it yes he was once charged on spanking three young cricketers, but I wouldn't read too much into that. We all make mistakes...though he doesn't seem to realize that, he lays rip into anybody and everybody on the slightest things...when Shoaib Akhtar for example tested positive in 2006-07 Roebuck accused him of being an impostor and wrote a vitriolic article. He also seems to have something against his native England. Frankly, he's entitled his opinion but when you're a widely read journo you should have some sort of responsibility and introspection
I know most Aussies don't like him because of his condemnation of Ponting, but what about the rest of you?

[Sledger]

I agree with your views on his personality but I always enjoy reading his work even if I don't agree with a lot of what he says. I respect him for speaking his mind a bit more than the others but yeah, I can see why people would hate him and on occasion, I've also cringed at some of the stuff he's written.
Also, the Akhtar article you mentioned wasn't the half of it. He'd earlier written a 2 pager of how Akhtar chucked his way to 5 wickets against Australia (in SL) which was a horrible read.

[Oxy]

Is very difficult to find anyone who has something positiveto say about him.

I never liked him as a cricketr!

Ordinary really.

He thought he was from the 'Gentleman & Players' era - he was bothams captain at Somerset for a while.

Emigrated to Aus?? Good decision mate!

[RexRex]

I like reading his articles although the Gayle one was a bit off.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Oxy Emigrated to Aus?? Good decision mate!

Not for us.

Pompous windbag with nothing to say except "controversial" statements and cliches of his own making. One day he will say player X is great, player X makes no runs next match then he will write a column saying player X is rubbish.

One of the few Aussie journalists whose column I refuse to read.

However Shoaib deserves all the condemnation he gets for being a steriod user. He is a cheat. Awesome bowler though so we sweep that aside a little cos he is so good to watch.

[1137moiz]

Yeah one thing that really frustrates is how quickly he makes complete U-turns...tbh I don't doubt his sincerity but he's such a pompous **** that he judges things based on one, maybe 2 looks

[SOSami]

I thought the discussion about Chappell a few weeks ago was a little harsh, but Roebuck deserves all he gets. Pompous is a word that has already been used a couple of times and is probably the most apt term for this guy. Gave up reading him ages ago.

[AZ]

total douchebag, hate him.

[CricnPak]

I don't dislike any particular cricket columnist, but he's one I will always avoid. You're totally right in saying he's melodramatic. I'm quite frankly tired of seeing his articles of spreading the game globally and competing with football via T20 only (nice at first, but quickly got repetitive). He changes his opinion more than a woman at a clothing store regarding the fortunes of teams and players. I remember when he absolutely battered the WI team before they fought back strongly in their series against Australia.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Not for us. Pompous windbag with nothing to say except "controversial" statements and cliches of his own making. One day he will say player X is great, player X makes no runs next match then he will write a column saying player X is rubbish.

Utter butt-kisser of his Aussie paymasters as well, and runs down what he calls "The Poms" at every opportunity. He wanted to be England skipper but was never remotely good enough to get into the team.

Plus, I never forgave him for what he did to Viv and Joel at Somerset.

[AZ]

What was that, Robert?

[Easa]

Originally Posted by Ahmed Zulfiqar What was that, Robert?

Played a major, underhand role in getting them sacked from the club.

Botham also left Somerset in protest.

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I stopped reading his articles when he was still living in England. There are some people who can get away with being hard-hitting and to the point. Amir Sohail because he's so much more convincing than weasel word Rameez, and Ian Chappell because he's usually right.

Roebuck has no generosity of spirit, that's why he's so annoying to read.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Ahmed Zulfiqar What was that, Robert?

What Easa said.

Roebuck wanted to become Somerset skipper but did not have the respect of the two Windian champions and so had to engineer them out of the side to further his ambitions.

Botham left the club in protest at the way his two mates were treated, and so did a lot of members.

[Gotham Cronie]

Haven't read all his articles but this was a good one.
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...ad.php?t=91605

[1137moiz]

He does deserve some kudos for his long-standing opposition to racial discrimination, but just reading this pompous, self-gratifying article made me want to vomit
The case for reconsidering the Zimbabwe boycott
Things may not be as rosy as observers may have cause to hope for, buy respect for those seeking to rebuild the country and its cricket must surpass anger about those hell-bent on its destruction
Peter Roebuck
June 16, 2010

Comments: 2 | Login via | Text size: A | A

The recent wins cannot be discounted because they came against shadow Indian and Sri Lankan outfits © Associated Press
Related Links
Features : Zimbabwe emerge from the wilderness
News : Zimbabwe headed in the right direction - Taylor
Players/Officials: Alistair Campbell | Hamilton Masakadza | Heath Streak | Tatenda Taibu | Brendan Taylor
Teams: Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe and its cricket community have been getting soft treatment lately, as both undergo changes that optimists hope are substantial and pessimists fear are superficial. Much has happened in a year, so positions need to be reviewed.

Before plunging into the debate, it is necessary to declare an interest. Over the years two issues have gripped my mind. In the formative years, apartheid was the main provocation. Martin Luther King's call that every man be judged not on the colour of his skin but the content of his character rang loud. Nor is it enough merely to have an opinion. Vic Marks, Derek Wyatt and I formed an anti-apartheid group. Admittedly it was ineffective, but it was better than nothing. Articles for the Sunday Times and the Times condemning sporting links with South Africa took the matter further. At the time it was not a popular cause. Many cricketing conservatives (and there was no shortage) regarded Mr Mandela as a terrorist. Those days are easily forgotten. Others argued that politics has no part in sport (which is true, but tyranny is not a political but a humanitarian issue).

Nor was it enough to sit on the sidelines after apartheid had been dismantled. Nowadays I spend half my time in South Africa, running a household, contributing here and there. Of course it has been fascinating to watch the birth pangs of the new democracy, and the eternal struggle between the hardliners and the moderates. That numerous cricket tournaments, and now the soccer World Cup, have been successfully staged in the country suggests that something is going right. But then, South Africa had Mandela at its head.

Zimbabwe had Mugabe, a Stalinist prepared to take all measures needed to retain his grip on power, a mass murderer responsible for the slaughter of at least 20,000 Ndebele in the 1980s. As Mandela grew, so Mugabe shrank, spitefully taking his country down with him. In an attempt to distract attention from his bitterness and destruction, and the unpopularity of his government, he took up various populist causes, all of them self-serving, all of them supposedly driven by a radical agenda absurd from a leader two decades in office.

And so came the collapse of the country and the enrichment of a small elite. Of the Zimbabweans under my roof, one was abominably tortured with 20 friends by security forces angry that they had protested food shortages, another saw his friends tortured by the youth militia because they did not know the words of a Zanu-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front) song, another escaped from a house burnt down by the militia after his father dared to stand against a government candidate, another has recently been threatened after criticising Mugabe. All of them have suffered family deaths, sisters forced into prostitution, siblings unable to obtain medicine, and so forth. All of them yearn to go home. A former soldier defied a blood oath to tell me about the rapes and killings he was forced to carry out. It is possible to love a country and hate a government. Sometimes it is compulsory.

Doubtless these events have left a mark. That is the background.

Hitherto the case against Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe Cricket was compelling. No amount of clever words and pretty pretences could distract attention from the massacres, torture camps, murders, repression, thieving, greed and contempt for the common man that defined an ever-worsening government. But the upheavals in 2008 changed everything. Despite the usual rigging, the opposition won the election, a result that shocked a government that controlled the media and the courts and had depended on widespread intimidation in the unseen rural areas. Naturally Zanu-PF could not accept the outcome. It had committed too many calumnies and was making too much money to concede power. Another vicious campaign was unleashed and the dream was once again systematically destroyed.

Elsewhere in Africa, genuine democracies and properly functioning countries had emerged and saw Zanu-PF in its true light. Only a rump remained, boosted by friendships with North Korea and Iran. Even South Africa wavered, and anyhow they had a World Cup to organise. And so a "Unity" government was forced on the recalcitrants, an arrangement that has survived. Its rule has been marked by an unusual mixture of common purpose and bad blood. It's always risky to get into bed with a snake, but without risk the country was doomed. As it happens, the smaller opposition party was given responsibility for sport, and so cricket. Of course that put the cat amongst the pigeons. Oversight was on its way. And no one knew how long it might last. It's not that power suddenly saw the light.



It would be foolish to trust the incumbents, cricketing or political. After all these years of betrayal, it's reasonable to predict an engineered collapse in the government, a continuation of the repression, violence and corruption, and a dismantling of recent structures, cricketing and otherwise

Hitherto the issue had been straightforward. Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe Cricket were nothing more than fronts used by vested interests posing as radical thinkers. Despite the protestations of self-interested officials, cricket had always reflected the regime. As it deteriorated so did Zimbabwe Cricket, until only ruthless opportunists remained. They prospered by staying close to the regime and by buttering up the BCCI, so that the ICC did not ask too many awkward questions. Other boards were sacked due to poor governance. Protected by allies in South Africa and India, Zimbabwe Cricket remained intact.

Now the position is more complicated. Suddenly the image of Zimbabwean cricket has improved. Many observers are rushing to praise and gushing in their words, and never mind that the same men occupy the key positions.

Doubtless the appointment of reassuring figures as coach, chairman of selectors and media manager, has helped convince the community that the new national and cricketing rulers are to be trusted. In part, this view is itself racist. All of the cricketing appointees are white. Colour was not, or ought not to have been, the problem.

Still, the inclusion of Alistair Campbell, Heath Streak, Dave Houghton, Grant Flower, Neil Manthorp and company is significant. Individually, they may not convince. In some cases, they seemed to be part of the previous problem not the current solution. Because they addressed principle and not self-interest, the protests made by Andy Flower and Henry Olonga were more convincing than the complaints subsequently heard from the remaining white players and their immature lawyer. Zimbabwe Cricket was right to push black cricket and black cricketers. Its development programme has had much to commend it. Integrity, not strategy, is the issue. And it is in short supply.

Whatever their colour and merits, though, these new faces at Zimbabwe Cricket have two important attributes. They are outsiders and they are experienced. Admittedly two of them, Campbell and Manthorp, are hogtied by a conflict of interest that puts them in the lucrative but dubious position of working for both Zimbabwe Cricket and the media. In effect, they can write their own reviews. Alas, it's common practice to serve two masters these days, and helps explain the malpractices that continue to blight the game.

Thankfully some strong, independent voices remain in every country. It's not to be taken for granted. A recent survey revealed that Pakistan and Sri Lanka count among the five most dangerous countries for journalists. Nor is the profession a cinch in Zimbabwe, except for craven creatures prepared to toe the party line in the government propaganda sheets. As Benjamin Franklin observed, a country without a government but with newspapers is better placed than one with a government but without newspapers. All the more reason to keep the estates apart.

But this mutual scratching of backs does not mean nothing has been accomplished. Apparently, the franchise system recently introduced domestically has worked well, though dubious types were typically put in charge of some of the franchises. Several overseas players were invited to strengthen the teams. Sources indicate that coaching in schools has picked up. Cricket in Zimbabwe needs to tap into the abundant goodwill of the community and the high intelligence of the emerging players.

Certainly, too, the national team has looked more settled. Not that too much can be read into midwinter matches played against weakened international sides, but even shadow Indian and Sri Lankan outfits are not to be taken lightly. Only the churlish will deny Zimbabwe credit for reaching the final of the recent 50-over triangular. Brendon Taylor, Tatenda Taibu and Hamilton Masakadza batted with aplomb, and the spin bowling was presentable. As might be expected from a side finally give the chance to play on its own patch, against strong opposition, the team also showed plenty of pride. However, its inconsistency told of dependence on a few players and limitations elsewhere.

Incidentally, the team often contained seven white players, which made the lost years seem wasted. Arguably more licence was given to them in 2010 than in 2005. Chamu Chibhabha, a No. 3 batsman, might have been given more opportunities. As far as selection is concerned, the team seemed unduly comfortable.

Now comes the difficult part of the case. Over the years I have been a proponent of applying the same sporting boycott to Zimbabwe as to the apartheid regime, and for the same reasons. Has the time come to reconsider? On the one hand, the same leaders remain in power, still plausible, cunning and rich. On the other hand, there have been some improvements and the minister of sport himself welcomed the recent touring teams and asked New Zealand to reconsider their decision not to visit the country.


The return of the likes of Heath Streak to the fold is significant © Zimbabwe Cricket
It would be foolish to trust the incumbents, cricketing or political. Everything could disintegrate once the World Cup is finished. Then the truth will come out. After all these years of betrayal, it's reasonable to predict an engineered collapse in the government, a continuation of the repression, violence and corruption, and a dismantling of recent structures, cricketing and otherwise. As far as crooks and tyrants are concerned, the prophets of doom are usually right.

However, it's no use waiting for the worst to happen. After consulting ANC contacts in 1990, I concluded that the time had come to start easing the sporting boycott. Sooner or later the path forwards must be charted. It's a question of timing.

The MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) has taken the plunge. Cheated of victory in numerous elections, they were prepared to join forces with their killers and torturers in a desperate attempt to save their country. These people continue to risk their lives for their country. They are freedom fighters. All the more reason to put their opinions higher than those of us commenting from a relatively safe distance. And the MDC has also asked the international community to send cricket teams to the country. Presumably they fear the return of the hardliners, should the world continue to stay away.

With scarcely softened contempt for the conmen of ZANU and their cricketing apologists, I think the time has come for cricketing countries to reconsider their boycott of Zimbabwe. It is not always possible to rectify the past satisfactorily before embarking on the future. In the end, respect for those seeking to rebuild the country must surpass justified anger about those hell-bent on its destruction. In this life or the next, their day of reckoning will come. Meanwhile their rotting souls will either continue to plague them or prompt sincere change. Let's give peace a chance.

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It

Feeds: Peter Roebuck

[waqar akram]

wasnt roebuck once convicted for child molesting?

[FastBowler]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie However Shoaib deserves all the condemnation he gets for being a steriod user. He is a cheat. Awesome bowler though so we sweep that aside a little cos he is so good to watch.

So is Warne

[Robert]

Originally Posted by waqar akram wasnt roebuck once convicted for child molesting?

No, for he received a suspended sentence for common assault, for administering corporal punishment on some South African 19-yr-olds who stayed at his house.

[MO]

So...the in article he wrote about Shoaib Akhtar a couple of yrs ago...he mentioned that Akhtar came around the wicket and bowled with open chested action to take his wickets ....As I rememeber, the only wicket Akhter took while bowling around the wicket was that of Gili's....Anyways, the question I have for the readers is "What is wrong with bowling with open chested action"...Is it illegal?

I email Roebuck and he never answered me...I wonder If some one has an answer...

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by FastBowler So is Warne

Yep. And your point is what, exactly?

Warne was caught and did his time. And it was not for steriods unlike Shoaib.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by MO As I rememeber, the only wicket Akhter took while bowling around the wicket was that of Gili's....Anyways, the question I have for the readers is "What is wrong with bowling with open chested action"...Is it illegal?

What he means is that Shoaib throws the ball when he bowls with that action.

[Blistering Barnacle]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Yep. And your point is what, exactly? Warne was caught and did his time. And it was not for steriods unlike Shoaib.

Couldn't what he was taking be used as a masking agent?

[Romali_rotti]

I like him, he was very Pro India during the Bucknor Won Aussie tour...

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle Couldn't what he was taking be used as a masking agent?

Yep, of course. And that was the rumour at the time.

However he did not test positive for steroids, unlike the other guy who tested positive twice. So not same same.

[FastBowler]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Yep. And your point is what, exactly? Warne was caught and did his time. And it was not for steriods unlike Shoaib.

Warne used drugs bad enough. And Shoaib wasn't convicted. Unlike the druggie Warne.

[FastBowler]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Yep, of course. And that was the rumour at the time. However he did not test positive for steroids, unlike the other guy who tested positive twice. So not same same.

He only tested once.

[1137moiz]

Akhtar may've tested positive for steroids, BUT it's enormously stupid to suggest all his performance, or even most, were because of that

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by FastBowler Warne used drugs bad enough. And Shoaib wasn't convicted. Unlike the druggie Warne.

Lol whatever.