A total maverick, contributed in no small way to the departures of Richards, Garner and Botham, great writer and broadcaster but his previous trial and fact he jumped out of a hotel window as a result of police questioning him yesterday about an alleged sexual assault just makes one question whether one should be that sympathetic.
Very sad to hear about yet another cricketer taking his own life. In this case, there is likely to be a lot more, murky information to come out. Roebuck had been found guilty of common assault after beating three teenagers in 1999; he was being questioned by police investigating a sexual assault at the time of his suicide, apparantly jumping from his bedroom window; and there were always quietly-spoken rumours about why he was never offered the England captaincy.
Odd man. Average cricketer. Brilliant captain. Even better writer.
Leaving aside the details of his death, of which we will likely hear more in due course, he was an outstanding writer and commentator on the game of cricket.
The Australian press is, without much doubt, one of the mosy sycophantic in the world and is described by many of their foreign counterparts as FWT's....Fans With Typewriters, with only a couple of exceptions.
In his time here Roebuck rowed furiously against the current and called it as he saw it and did not give a damn whose nose he put of joint - most famously in December 2008 when he savaged Ricky Ponting's behaviour in the Sydney Test against India, and said (rightly) that Ponting should have been sacked for his behaviour.
He was brilliant on the radio as well, picking up a lot of things that the Sky buffoons - especially his nemesis the boorish Botham - would never spot in a million years and was always, always worth listening to.
His quote on hearing that Pakistan had selected a Christian player .. 'Perhaps the Australians will do the same one day' ... a clever man seemingly troubled by his sexuality .. a loss to the literature of sport
I have read a load of stuff on Roebuck today and its reminded me again that no sport has so many great stories and larger than life characters than cricket.
My favorite story was Roebuck batting for Somerset and them being 20-5 and in all sorts of trouble on a shocking wicket.
Roebuck plays and misses at another seaming ball and immediately summons the non striker batsman to meet him mid pitch for an urgent conference.
"You know what Neil?" asks Roebuck, "I think I left my front door key to my house in the door!"
Good obituary here courtesy of the We Are Kent website.
I found my dogeared copy of Slices of Cricket, Roebuck's first book, by chance when looking for something else earlier today. The style is upbeat and he seemed very much part of the team of youngsters looking up to the "Old Blighter" (DB Close) with Vic Marks being his particular buddy.
Contrast that with the portrayal of the solitary man he seems to have become.
Whatever the truth or otherwise of any alleged misdemeanours I shudder to think of the inner torment that makes one think that chucking yourself out of a 6th floor window is the "best" option...
A nasty, jealous man. Who, as is now obvious, was tortured by his own personal issues. Maybe he did feel that in those days he would have been persecuted if he'd been honest with himself and others. That is a shame. However that does not excuse a) His conviction for cruelty - which he NEVER denied and b) His outrageous despicable behaviour in his part of what ended up in that infamous night in Shepton Mallet. If it wasn't for Joel Garner and Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards, I doubt anyone would have ever heard of PM Roebuck. Just because someone dies, we don't have to fawn over them and forgive their short comings as human beings.
A nasty, jealous man. Who, as is now obvious, was tortured by his own personal issues. Maybe he did feel that in those days he would have been persecuted if he'd been honest with himself and others. That is a shame. However that does not excuse a) His conviction for cruelty - which he NEVER denied and b) His outrageous despicable behaviour in his part of what ended up in that infamous night in Shepton Mallet. If it wasn't for Joel Garner and Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards, I doubt anyone would have ever heard of PM Roebuck. Just because someone dies, we don't have to fawn over them and forgive their short comings as human beings.
You done your usual Len and posted without reading the whole thread? Including your own comments!
I take it from that you are referring to me as fawning!
The bloke was a good writer and commentator and Derek Pringle in The Telegraph suggests he was unlucky not to have been selected for England alongside Gooch which is essentially all I've said other than contrast the style of his first book with comments made since his death.
I must confess to not being previously aware of the "caning episode" but, having researched, it does seem strange that a middle aged man can cane 3 19 year old physically fit cricketers without some element of consent but that is just my opinion from what I've read.
As regards the rest of the thread others (including you) have referred to his shortcomings so I repeat who is fawning?
i have read Paul newmans piece and a few others today .Roebuck wasnt an awfully talented first class cricketer but he did have the advantages of the right background and applied himself well to his sport ,his "background" would have showed him in a good light with the somerset committee for instance .He wasnt an immediately likeable person and does seem to "troubled" in some way .I was more a fan of his writing than his cricket and he had forthright opinions ,the sorts of views that are appreciated in Australia but i certainly didnt admire him as a person .
Actually ex charlton player/cricketer Stuart Leary died in SA under very similar circumstances
Chirpy Red wrote: ''I do not think Stuart Leary's family would appriciate his demise being described as very similar to Roebucks. Maybe think about editing.''
Sorry CR, but it's all there in David Frith's book, By His Own Hand.
Leary took his own life in 1988 (in the same city - Cape Town) and Frith's book says of the circumstances that caused him to do so : "According to three people who knew him, he was not only apprehensive at the nationwide investigation into juvenile vice, but feared he was infected by the dreaded disease AIDS".
Not nice. But the book was written in 1991. How can Charlton Life try to 'edit' something that has been in the public domain for 20 years?
The other horrible coincidence is guess who wrote the foreword to Frith's book? Yes. Peter Roebuck...
I always sided with Boham on the row about Richards and Garner so never liked the stuck up Roebuck, Not enough to be happy he has passed away though and don't know enough about the allegations to comment directly or have a view on those - I'm sure it will all come out in due course.
He had the fortune to play in a great Somerset side without which he would have been regarded in posterity as another decent cricketer whose career would have been forgotten by most once he retired and then made his name writing and commenting on cricket. I read a lot of his stuff, but virtually everything he wrote about England and English cricket was over-whelmingly negative. The conclusion I drew was that having failed to get a cap or two (at least) for England while others with perhaps less talent and less application for the game were favoured that he bore a grudge that journalism allowed him to scratch at.
I certainly admit to fawning over his abillities as a writer and broadcaster, but not as a cricketer (he was a solid pro) or as a person, principally because I did not know him.
His nemesis Botham once described Roebuck as being the sort of bloke who liked to have "disciples" saying if you did not fully buy into his philosophies then you were put on the outer, a fate which clearly befell Botham (imagine him and Roebuck in a power struggle, with Roebuck using his powerful intellect and Botham his sheer machismo), Richards and Garner.
Indeed, if you read the tribute to him written by one of the kids that he put through University in South Africa then you will see traces of that in there, although you have to balance that with the fact that Roebuck - not a particularly rich man by any stretch - paid around $500,000 of his own money to help educate poor, young Zimbabweans and South Africans.
The cynics will, of course, insinuate that Roebuck had an ulterior motive for educating these kids, that being a prurient sexual interest in young men - and the arse spanking episode back in 2001 doesn't do him any favors in that regard.
However, I think it is a lot more complex than that, Roebuck was almost certainly a closet homosexual, the latest reports are that the attack he was being questioned over was on a young (adult) bloke he met on the Internet and who turned down Roebuck's sexual advances....
At this stage though there are no previous allegations that I am aware of that suggest he sexually abused the African kids he helped (he always denied that the 2001 incident was sexually motivated, insisting it was simple English public school style discipline).
Indeed, check out the lads in this photo, it would be hard to see how Roebuck could coerce them into anything non-consensual, although there is obviously no way of my knowing that.
The truth is he was a very complex person who could on occasion be rude and over bearing but on others warm and generous, but it was his refusal to be part of the back-slapping press pack and to be a man apart that helped him write so brilliantly, simply because he did not rely on or need the "access" that the other hacks (like Paul Newman) crave so badly.
There have been very, very few cricket writers as brave and incisive as Roebuck, he will be greatly missed by many for his writing talents.
Thanks IA, I had seen most of that stuff in todays reports here in Oz, but some of it was new.
I was speaking to a mate of mine today who works at the SMH and apparently Roebuck had been seriously pissing off the powers that be in Harare because of his outspoken criticism of Mugabe and the fact that he was - via his sponsorship of a 'new generation' of opposition leaders - creating opposition to the regime.
There is some speculation that the latest accuser could be a plant designed to discredit Roebuck and to stop him meddling in Zimbabwe politics, perhaps we will never know the truth - although more details are bound to emerge.
Comments
RIP
A total maverick, contributed in no small way to the departures of Richards, Garner and Botham, great writer and broadcaster but his previous trial and fact he jumped out of a hotel window as a result of police questioning him yesterday about an alleged sexual assault just makes one question whether one should be that sympathetic.
RIP
Odd man. Average cricketer. Brilliant captain. Even better writer.
RIP
Leaving aside the details of his death, of which we will likely hear more in due course, he was an outstanding writer and commentator on the game of cricket.
The Australian press is, without much doubt, one of the mosy sycophantic in the world and is described by many of their foreign counterparts as FWT's....Fans With Typewriters, with only a couple of exceptions.
In his time here Roebuck rowed furiously against the current and called it as he saw it and did not give a damn whose nose he put of joint - most famously in December 2008 when he savaged Ricky Ponting's behaviour in the Sydney Test against India, and said (rightly) that Ponting should have been sacked for his behaviour.
He was brilliant on the radio as well, picking up a lot of things that the Sky buffoons - especially his nemesis the boorish Botham - would never spot in a million years and was always, always worth listening to.
http://http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/police-quizzed-cricket-writer-peter-roebuck-about-man-before-his-death/story-fn7x8me2-1226194961458
His quote on hearing that Pakistan had selected a Christian player .. 'Perhaps the Australians will do the same one day' ... a clever man seemingly troubled by his sexuality .. a loss to the literature of sport
My favorite story was Roebuck batting for Somerset and them being 20-5 and in all sorts of trouble on a shocking wicket.
Roebuck plays and misses at another seaming ball and immediately summons the non striker batsman to meet him mid pitch for an urgent conference.
"You know what Neil?" asks Roebuck, "I think I left my front door key to my house in the door!"
http://m.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/peter-we-hardly-knew-you-but-you-told-the-game-like-no-other-20111113-1ndvn.html
Good obituary here courtesy of the We Are Kent website.
I found my dogeared copy of Slices of Cricket, Roebuck's first book, by chance when looking for something else earlier today. The style is upbeat and he seemed very much part of the team of youngsters looking up to the "Old Blighter" (DB Close) with Vic Marks being his particular buddy.
Contrast that with the portrayal of the solitary man he seems to have become.
Whatever the truth or otherwise of any alleged misdemeanours I shudder to think of the inner torment that makes one think that chucking yourself out of a 6th floor window is the "best" option...
A nasty, jealous man. Who, as is now obvious, was tortured by his own personal issues. Maybe he did feel that in those days he would have been persecuted if he'd been honest with himself and others. That is a shame.
However that does not excuse a) His conviction for cruelty - which he NEVER denied and b) His outrageous despicable behaviour in his part of what ended up in that infamous night in Shepton Mallet.
If it wasn't for Joel Garner and Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards, I doubt anyone would have ever heard of PM Roebuck.
Just because someone dies, we don't have to fawn over them and forgive their short comings as human beings.
Who is fawning?
I take it from that you are referring to me as fawning!
The bloke was a good writer and commentator and Derek Pringle in The Telegraph suggests he was unlucky not to have been selected for England alongside Gooch which is essentially all I've said other than contrast the style of his first book with comments made since his death.
I must confess to not being previously aware of the "caning episode" but, having researched, it does seem strange that a middle aged man can cane 3 19 year old physically fit cricketers without some element of consent but that is just my opinion from what I've read.
As regards the rest of the thread others (including you) have referred to his shortcomings so I repeat who is fawning?
SHG, Chizz, Ormiston, Lincs, Derek Pringle..... Cricinfo.
The bloke was a wrongun.
Paul Newman told it as it is.
Actually ex charlton player/cricketer Stuart Leary died in SA under very similar circumstances
Leary took his own life in 1988 (in the same city - Cape Town) and Frith's book says of the circumstances that caused him to do so : "According to three people who knew him, he was not only apprehensive
at the nationwide investigation into juvenile vice, but feared he was
infected by the dreaded disease AIDS".
Not nice. But the book was written in 1991. How can Charlton Life try to 'edit' something that has been in the public domain for 20 years?
The other horrible coincidence is guess who wrote the foreword to Frith's book? Yes. Peter Roebuck...
RIP
He had the fortune to play in a great Somerset side without which he would have been regarded in posterity as another decent cricketer whose career would have been forgotten by most once he retired and then made his name writing and commenting on cricket. I read a lot of his stuff, but virtually everything he wrote about England and English cricket was over-whelmingly negative. The conclusion I drew was that having failed to get a cap or two (at least) for England while others with perhaps less talent and less application for the game were favoured that he bore a grudge that journalism allowed him to scratch at.
I certainly admit to fawning over his abillities as a writer and broadcaster, but not as a cricketer (he was a solid pro) or as a person, principally because I did not know him.
His nemesis Botham once described Roebuck as being the sort of bloke who liked to have "disciples" saying if you did not fully buy into his philosophies then you were put on the outer, a fate which clearly befell Botham (imagine him and Roebuck in a power struggle, with Roebuck using his powerful intellect and Botham his sheer machismo), Richards and Garner.
Indeed, if you read the tribute to him written by one of the kids that he put through University in South Africa then you will see traces of that in there, although you have to balance that with the fact that Roebuck - not a particularly rich man by any stretch - paid around $500,000 of his own money to help educate poor, young Zimbabweans and South Africans.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/peter-roebuck--a-tribute-from-his-first-african-son-20111114-1nfoa.html
The cynics will, of course, insinuate that Roebuck had an ulterior motive for educating these kids, that being a prurient sexual interest in young men - and the arse spanking episode back in 2001 doesn't do him any favors in that regard.
However, I think it is a lot more complex than that, Roebuck was almost certainly a closet homosexual, the latest reports are that the attack he was being questioned over was on a young (adult) bloke he met on the Internet and who turned down Roebuck's sexual advances....
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/cricket-commentator-peter-roebuck-investigated-over-indecent-assault-before-he-died/story-e6freon6-1226195079298
At this stage though there are no previous allegations that I am aware of that suggest he sexually abused the African kids he helped (he always denied that the 2001 incident was sexually motivated, insisting it was simple English public school style discipline).
Indeed, check out the lads in this photo, it would be hard to see how Roebuck could coerce them into anything non-consensual, although there is obviously no way of my knowing that.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/dreams-now-in-limbo-say-shocked-students-20111114-1nfss.html
The truth is he was a very complex person who could on occasion be rude and over bearing but on others warm and generous, but it was his refusal to be part of the back-slapping press pack and to be a man apart that helped him write so brilliantly, simply because he did not rely on or need the "access" that the other hacks (like Paul Newman) crave so badly.
There have been very, very few cricket writers as brave and incisive as Roebuck, he will be greatly missed by many for his writing talents.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/david-frith-cricket-has-its-dark-secrets-its-skeletons-6262322.html
The Guardian have an article which appears to add a bit more to all this.
Thanks IA, I had seen most of that stuff in todays reports here in Oz, but some of it was new.
I was speaking to a mate of mine today who works at the SMH and apparently Roebuck had been seriously pissing off the powers that be in Harare because of his outspoken criticism of Mugabe and the fact that he was - via his sponsorship of a 'new generation' of opposition leaders - creating opposition to the regime.
There is some speculation that the latest accuser could be a plant designed to discredit Roebuck and to stop him meddling in Zimbabwe politics, perhaps we will never know the truth - although more details are bound to emerge.