By David Wiseman
November 21st 2008 @ 3:00am
Related coverage
‘Maybe I should have toned it down’, says Peter Roebuck
Everyone seems to have an opinion on Peter Roebuck. Via his columns in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, he has become the highest profile cricket writer in the Antipodes. He was recently elevated into the next stratosphere, though, after the Test match in Sydney, becoming a bona fide identity in his own right.
Now, regardless of whether or not they agree with him, people including the players want to read what he has to say.
As a columnist, it doesn’t get better than that.
“I don’t enjoy the notoriety or fame, nor am I comfortable with it. Journalists are simply observers of life,” he tells The Roar.
His style, which blends some interesting metaphors, colourful language and unique jargon, isn’t for everyone. But if you want someone who is going to call it as he sees it while having the game’s best interests at heart, Roebuck is your guy.
He is somewhat of a paradox.
He is English in his speech and mannerisms, yet this former captain of Somerset and England A has proudly embraced Australia and calls himself an Australian. No one seems fazed by his genteel work on the wireless, yet nothing can polarize like one of his missives.
He is prominent via his writing and radio commentary, yet actively shuns the limelight.
Following the controversial SCG Test match against India, Roebuck wrote a piece which had a headline of Arrogant Ponting Must Be Fired, which didn’t just add fuel on the fire as much as turn it into an inferno.
As he became part of the story, his role changed from observer to player.
The recently released books of Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist, which discuss the incident, both make reference to him and his article.
“I waited the day until the day after the match to write the piece. I wanted to express the empty feeling I had on leaving the ground. I wanted the piece to make an impact otherwise all the bitterness, resentment and anger wouldn’t go away. With the Indians threatening to call the tour off, it had to be confronted,” Roebuck says.
The language used in the article was extremely volatile, but Roebuck has no regrets about the piece but for two slight changes he made once he had finished it and some of the language, which was a bit over the top.
“I maybe should have toned it down, but just by 15 percent.”
The second the clock turned over to midnight and the paper hit the virtual street, the reaction was both instantaneous and seismic.
“By 12.05am, the phone was already ringing off the hook. The next morning there were television cameras camped outside my front door and every station in the country wanted me to do an interview with them. I turned them all down as it is not my task to seek celebrity or popularity, it is my aim to tell people what I think.”
Typically, he doesn’t give interviews, preferring that his writing does the talking for him.
Roebuck’s controversial piece was aimed to be the first in a series of three.
“The next day I wrote a piece regarding the Indians because by no means were they completely innocent and on the weekend wrote a constructive piece making suggestions and proposals on how to move forward from it all. Australia and India are two of the great cricket nations and if they can’t get along, we are going to have problems.”
Speak to most people though and the only article of the three they remember is the first one.
As for claims that he is biased against the Australians, Roebuck asserts nothing could be further from the truth.
“I care about each and every nation playing cricket. I am an internationalist and try to bring an international voice to the game.”
Cricket allows Roebuck the chance to have a life in many different countries, which is something he appreciates.
“Writing about cricket grants me the privileged position of conveying the plurality of the world and to write about how the game provides mutual understanding. When you consider the counties which play it and their histories vis a vis each other, it is surprising that there aren’t more problems than there are when you consider how much conflict has occurred between the various countries.”
Fairfax ran an online poll following Roebuck’s article. Typically, if the issue is one with a lot of feeling attached, the polls attract around 5000 votes. But with emotions running high, the poll asking readers if they agreed with Roebuck attracted a staggering 86,861 votes, with 60 percent agreeing with him.
Of course, there were a number who disagreed with him and told him so.
“I received hate mail and things such as that but I am used to that. I never felt threatened or in any danger though.”
As for the feedback, Roebuck doesn’t seek it from the subjects he is writing about.
“I follow the Bill O’Reilly school of thought which is not to cross paths with players, umpires of officials. It’s not my job to be popular with them and I write to the game and not to them. I’m interested though to hear what they may say five years after they’ve retired. I heard recently that Steve Waugh said I am his favorite cricket writer and that was nice.”
For Roebuck, writing is all about documenting performance and the human journey.
“Whether or not Australia is winning or losing doesn’t bother me – ultimately I don’t care about the result or who wins.”
While many people found the Australian period of domination boring, Roebuck enjoyed it.
“I don’t find excellence boring. It was fascinating to watch players such as Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath bowl and see their high level of craftsmanship. It was compelling to watch.”
It’s not just the players who are the custodians of the games and this is something that you can detect from Roebuck’s writing.
Love him or hate him, you have to concede that things would be a whole lot less interesting without him.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(20)
LeftArmSpinner said | November 21st 2008 @ 6:19am | Report comment
never tone it down. I enjoy Robuck in print and on the ABC’s wonderful radio coverage of the cricket. Knowledgeable, erudite but most importantly, entertaining. Keep it coming. There is not enough rel journalism. I am a Major Roar supporter now, primarily because I wanted more Spiro and less cut and paste from ARU press releases, that are duplicated in NEws and Fairfax organs!!!! We are not stupid!!
More strength to the arm of the true journalists and those that contribute rather than copy!
sledgeross said | November 21st 2008 @ 7:42am | Report comment
I have to admit, while I find Roebuck’s articles (not his commentary) somewhat pedantic, he also writes some fantastic books. His last book “In it to win it” is an interesting study of Australias rise to the top of world cricket. Fantastic read.
Recidivist said | November 21st 2008 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Why tone down what is true? His views on the culture that beset the Aussies at home against India were quite correct.
It would be nice if some other sports writers wrote similar articles about their own sportsmen. For example, Darren Lockyer should have been confronted after his joke about rape whilst Australian captain. At the very least he should have been demoted.
Who Needs Melon said | November 21st 2008 @ 8:36am | Report comment
I agree. Journalists aren’t paid just to report the facts but also convey their feelings and opinions. As long as this doesn’t break the law and stray into slander or whatever, then a journalist should be free to express their opinions as much as they like.
If we don’t like your opinions and prefer reading someone elses then the law of supply and demand will soon see you off.
Why do people read these blogs (for instance) if they are not interested in hearing other peoples opinions?
I love to bag some of the English rugby journos… but I’d hate it if they went away. Then what would I do???
Brett McKay said | November 21st 2008 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Who Needs/Bring Back (the Roarer formerly know as?!?), you’ve hit it on the head with “If we don’t like your opinions and prefer reading someone elses then the law of supply and demand will soon see you off.”
[Actually, memo to Zac and Zolton, can we see how many times a piece hace been veiwed alongside no. of comments?]
The thing I like about Peter Roebuck is that I don’t always agree with him, which means that he obviously writes from a balanced persepctive. I recall the series of artciles David mentions in his piece, and while I thought Roebuck was off his tree calling for Ponting’s head, his follow-up critique of the Indians left me thinking “but hang on, yesterday you…”
The way he comments on different perspective is seemingly peerless in Australian cricket circles (and definitely so in India!) And the way he stands by his opinion while actively refusing the spotlight should also be applauded..
Ian said | November 21st 2008 @ 10:05am | Report comment
I’m afraid I’m one of those who don’t have much time for him. He is living in a world of illusion if he thinks he’s not biased against the Australians. Mind you, being a Pom, I suppose you can’t exepct anything different.
I’ve stopped reading his articles. There’s only so much garbage you can endure.
Who Needs Melon said | November 21st 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Brett: Yes – that’s me. After the latest performance by the Wallaby forwards I’ve decided we don’t need Melon (Owen Finegan) any longer.
Jamie said | November 21st 2008 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
I am not a fan. Peter seems more interested in writing articles to get himself onto the front pages than relevant cricket content. It is always sensationalist and I think he is currently OTT against Australia.
Ponting and the Aussies reaction in the Sydney test was not ideal but consider:
- they had pulled a test victory out from a probable draw in the final overs
- they equalled the world record of consecutive test victories with that win
- the wasnt a lot of love lost on the Indians after a strong verbal and physical test series
- their own cricket association had deserted them.
There reaction is probably normal.
Harry said | November 21st 2008 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
I think he’s an excellent writer and I generally enjoy his articles. However he allowed emotions and (in my opinion) bias to get the better of him last January and his article calling for Ponting’s head was totally over-the-top.
I think it did real damage as well. It was widely quoted and referenced in India as justification (even Australians don’t like Ponting and his gang) for the hugely unsavoury – and unpunished – behaviour that the Indians indulged in around that time. As an aside, the Roar needs to emphasise that no one has any idea of where the 86,000 odd votes on whether Ponting should go emanated from. I suspect a lot came from India.
Roebuck and his ilk quite rightly castigate sportsmen for mistakes made in the heat of the contest – Ponting copping it for not bowling his best attack after tea in the last test an excellent example. But they, like everyone else, are grudging to admit error and apologise. He needs to stand up and be clear about the mistakes in that article (Harbajan the proud Sikh warrior against the Aussie dogs!) instead of this half-hearted explanation.
Its the nature of the guy to have these type of eruptions – look at his fallings out at Somerset with Richards and Botham, and his nomad-like existence.
He lost a lot of respect and credibility from many people in Australia with that article.
JohnB said | November 21st 2008 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Peter Roebuck may be the highest-profile cricket writer in these parts, but Gideon Haigh is the best.
Which is not to say that Roebuck isn’t frequently thought-provoking, and regardless of how often and how vehemently you might disagree with him, there has to be room for someone like that.
David Wiseman said | November 21st 2008 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
These comments nicely reflect the cross section of views. JohnB hits it on the head though when he says there needs to be room for someone like Peter. NEWS only has 3-4 writers to cover cricket across their vast expanse and Fairfax has three or more of their own. That isn’t that many nor is it providing much variety.
Rowdy said | November 21st 2008 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
PR is certainly a writer worth reading, and I believe that he writes what he actually believes and he writes it from the point of view of someone who has a clear-eyed love of the game; some other writers, actually most of them, Zavos and Jones in particular, seem to turn on their innate anti-the-other-hemisphere prejudioce, and that colours their every article and so makes them pretty much worthless.
As for PR being anti-Australian; how ridiculous. Does he have to slavishly worship at the altar of Aussie greatness in order to be accepted as an Australian ? Pretty poor show if that’s the case, and not an opinion I think most grown-ups have of their own country.
dasilva said | November 21st 2008 @ 11:45pm | Report comment
I think people have a tendency to accuse people who you don’t agree with as being bias against Australia, india, asia, english etc. Really you either agree or disagree with the person, sometimes you disagree with the person very strongly but you can’t just start calling people bias for that. In the end those journalist write what they see and what they believe. Sometimes belief is coloured by your own background and people may call that bias but in the end is there anyone not bias?
challa said | November 23rd 2008 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
I find Roebuck an example of a TREND in the Australian media to knock Australians and Australian Teams.
Take a look at the headlines from the First Test with NZ from the Age:
Pressure on Haddin
Veteran Hayden struggles for form
It’s survival, not revival
Pacemen pick up the pace
Test cricket (and the game) is struggling
NZ gain edge despite Katich defiance
Australian selectors ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’, says ex-Test spinner
Clarke keeps Australians from total peril
Hayden goes into bat over his remark on India
Australia a team on the wane
Kiwis bowl up a storm on back of Vettori’s daring
Clarke props up Australia
–> FROM these headlines you would think Australia LOST this test.
I also find Roebuck to be a HYPOCRITE. On the one hand he says standards have declined on and off the field, yet on the other hand he particpates in vigorous player bashing!
Rabid Roebuck and his fellow media are the real problems with cricket. They malign and degrade players in order to sensationalise. I find his type of reporting to lack any real depth or substance. Where is the insight?
Viscount Crouchback said | April 30th 2009 @ 4:15am | Report comment
Roebuck’s approach to cricket is schizophrenic. He spends half his time urging the Australians to play hard, aggressive cricket and the other half of his time slating the team when they do precisely that. He doesn’t seem to understand that a team which plays as aggressively as he wants them to play will, on occasion, cross the line. It’s unrealistic to expect young men to walk such a tight-rope.
I also get the distinct impression that his analysis is too driven by emotion. He puts forth a mythical notion of the “true Australian way of cricket” which is frankly baffling. He’s essentially an Englishman who, like many Englishmen before him, was rather taken with the informality and gumption of the Australian way of life but rather baffled by those aspects of Australia which are less congenial to his outlook. Hence the bizarre oscillation in his writing between hagiography and outrage.
You can only understand his writing if you remember that he’s a romantic with a romantic notion of Australia. When reality clashes with that romantic vision (as it so often does) he completely loses the plot.
Dave said | June 21st 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
The Australians did nothing wrong in Sydney they won an exciting game and celebrated.
Scrimshaw said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Roebuck is an itinerant writer of short dramatic stories . He has tried to emulate Blofeld but will never capture his
wonderful weave of the written word. With loyalty to no one but himself, he will pander to the strongest market…it pays his bills.His sensational writing style ( the 15%) that caused a diplomatic incident between Aust-India, was not writing based
on observation but writing based on opinion….an opinion from a very peculiar state of mind.
I remember Roebuck trying to defend himself on ABC Radio.. “Its not so much what was written but the reaction to what was written”.! It was the most insipid assuagement of guilt …he had thrown a firestick into the summer kindling and then declared its only a bushfire because you can see it…not because I started it.
The pen is mightier than the sword and Roebuck caused a significant amount of upset. .Imagery is a powerful tool and a dangerous one in the wrong hands. Roebucks writing
was fuelled with the oxygen of a runaway ego ! It’s hard to edit ego
Glenn Condell said | November 1st 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
He can write, knows his stuff and loves sport – not just cricket. I enjoyed an article he wrote about the ‘Gregan tackle’ Bledisloe rugby test in 1994 so much I cut it out and took it to a mate’s place for a BBQ that night, knowing he didn’t read the Herald, but loved his rugger. I visited again about 5 years later and the piece was still glued to the inside of his outside dunny door. He gets carried away at times, but who reads writers who never get carried away?
Dave1 said | November 2nd 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
One of the main problem with Roebuck is that he is a bad writer (unreadable). When my mates and I would send cricket articles to each other, my mates would say “don’t send any Roebuck articles”. This was before the Sydney test.
The other problem is usually wrong and what he says is not based in reality.
This is an example
he wrote about Dr Otto Nothling, and how exotic he was because he had German ancestry
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/lilylivered-lilywhites-have-held-cricket-back/2008/02/15/1202760601605.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
“……But Symonds is not the only cricketer of exotic origin to be making his mark Down Under. Moises Henriques has been staking his claim in NSW. He is the offspring of a Portuguese goalkeeper. A tall all-rounder blessed with lively pace and a bold batting style, he made his mark at under-19 level and in his state’s one-day line-up and now wants to establish himself in the four-day outfit.
Henriques is not the first European immigrant to succeed in cricket. The only time Don Bradman was dropped was in 1928, and he was replaced by Dr Otto Nothling, a gifted sportsman of European descent whose family had backed the wrong side in one of those periodic Prussian wars. Players from Italy, the Balkans have also prospered……….”
This is nonsensical. Otto Nothling was born in Queensland.
Langer, Lehman, Bichel and Rackerman are a few the other test cricketers with German sounding names. No one says they are exotic.
I grew up in South Australia there is nothing exotic about German names especially when you live near the Lutheran seminary and drink with them at the Wellington hotel on Wellington square.
Also, Shane Warnes Mum is German and I for the life of me can’t recall the last time Warnie was called exotic.
Jameswm said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
I’m afraid you guys are very naive if you don’t think Roebuck has an agenda with some of his articles.
I often chuckle at his metaphors, but then I often shake my head at his articles and think what’s he up to now?
The guy coached me for 4 years at school (when his mind was on the job he was a very good coach) – he is a complex guy in many ways and has no small opinion of himself.
I should probably stop there.
He used to come out with some cracker one-liners though…