Peter Roebuck

[Sanz]

However, he is not at the same level as a Gideon Haigh

Gideon Haigh may be a good writer and all that but he has written some pure juvenile stuff, Don't believe me, well read some of the following :-

Cricinfo - Gavaskar's double role

Cricinfo - Nerves of steel and a heart of flint

Cricinfo - The Indianisation of cricket

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I don't see the whole anti-UK thing, etc.

TBF, nor do some others - including Roebuck himself.

But many other learned scholars do. I don't make enough of a habit of reading his musings to have a strong opinion either way, but it's far from inconceivable.

 

[Jono]

Does anyone have the second article (I remember him calling for Ponting's sacking, which was brave IMO) where he went back on his first article? Not saying it didn't happen, just think I never read it.

Also, can the English fans point out what he's said/written about England that pisses them off? Or is it simply because he left?

Agree with Pratters. His articles on Sachin and Lara were a pleasure to read. He can go over the top with language sometimes though.

 

[pasag]

Gideon Haigh may be a good writer and all that but he has written some pure juvenile stuff, Don't believe me, well read some of the following :-

Cricinfo - Gavaskar's double role

Cricinfo - Nerves of steel and a heart of flint

Cricinfo - The Indianisation of cricket

The first one was absolutley spot on and was what a lot of people were saying at the time.

 

[pasag]

Does anyone have the second article (I remember him calling for Ponting's sacking, which was brave IMO) where he went back on his first article? Not saying it didn't happen, just think I never read it.

Also, can the English fans point out what he's said/written about England that pisses them off? Or is it simply because he left?

Agree with Pratters. His articles on Sachin and Lara were a pleasure to read. He can go over the top with language sometimes though.

Don't know about the article but remember him saying it on radio, which tbf he's good on.

 

[Jono]

Just clarifying above, when I said 'brave', I mean ballsy. Doesn't mean I agree that Ponting should be sacked. But you must have some guts to come out and write an article like that which the Australian public will read and knowing they'll get pretty damn pissed off.

 

[pasag]

Just clarifying above, when I said 'brave', I mean ballsy. Doesn't mean I agree that Ponting should be sacked. But you must have some guts to come out and write an article like that which the Australian public will read and knowing they'll get pretty damn pissed off.

But it's not really ballsy when he backed off after the public reaction. From the radio at the time, I don't think he knew how bad things would get at all.

My thoughts at the time were he was just showboating and being sensationalist to put himself right in the middle of things.

And hey, this is coming from a guy who started a thread calling for Ponting's sacking on this forum.

 

[Jono]

Yeah that's fair enough.

With regards to Gideon Haigh, its obvious he doesn't like the IPL. And that's fine. I've got mixed opinions of it myself.

But I never realised that Lalit Modi and India owed South Africa something. God forbid the Indian Premier League ensure Indian audiences (where most of the money comes from) are accommodated.


He was more on the right track in this article: Cricinfo - Night of the screamers

 

[BoyBrumby]

Also, can the English fans point out what he's said/written about England that pisses them off? Or is it simply because he left?

Flintoff is a chucker is one of the more tiresome of his hobbyhorses.

He then compares the reaction generated amongst English fans as to his bias against his former home nation to cricket's less than impressive record of standing up to despots and oppressive regimes:

"Without wanting to pour oil upon the ever-burning fire of subcontinental paranoia, it does seem that the goose and the gander are treated differently. Cricket must be careful lest racism creeps back into the game. The past is not as glorious as it appears. Not until 1960 was a black man allowed to lead the West Indies.

Cricket did not raise a hue and cry about apartheid or the massacres of the Ndebele and Tamils in the 1980s. Mugabe was helped into power by Mrs Thatcher's government. Small wonder that subcontinentals and Africans can seem sensitive."

---

Classy.

 

[Burgey]

Absurd article. I've never heard it suggested elsewhere Flintoff is a chucker.

However, to Roebuck's eternal credit, I recall during th e05 Ashes his noting how prodigously and early reverse swing was occurring and his commenting along the lines of "There must be mints everywhere in the England rooms". At the time I thought nothing of it, having momentarily forgotten the English penchant for underhanded means-to-an-end.

Jones and Trescothcik's ex post facto mea culpas gave the comment appropriate gravitas.

 

[Jono]

Burgey will be talking about the mints of the Ashes 2005 to his great grandchildren. No doubt about it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Also have smelly breath.

Serves two purposes, if he has a daughter though.

 

[Burgey]

The Great Mint Scandal is like Anzac Day - as time passes, we should never forget. I'd be demanding they empty their pockets before they take the field. Watch 'em go gun barrel straight this Ashes (except Anderson - for some reason, I've had his complete mediocrity of 06-07 replaced in my mind by his not bowling too badly on occasion since. I think he'll go pretty well tbh).

 

[Jono]

It may go gun barrell straight because none of the bowlers (except Freddy if he recovers in time) from the England team in the 2005 Ashes will be playing

 

[Richard]

Absurd article. I've never heard it suggested elsewhere Flintoff is a chucker.

TBH, Flintoff's action has always involved more elbow sinuosity change than some - this was noted as early as 2004/05, when Sky were first doing some rudimentary analysis to show how utterly absurd it was that everyone had believed for 100-odd years that every bowler's action had zero degrees flexion.

He's easily within the guidelines and doesn't even look suspect from most angles, but he's closer to being a chucker than many are.

 

[zaremba]

having momentarily forgotten the English penchant for underhanded means-to-an-end.

You say underhand, I say underarm

 

[Sanz]

The first one was absolutley spot on and was what a lot of people were saying at the time.

It probably would have been if it focussed on issue (i.e. Sunny Double Role), but to quote him from a book written almost 20 years ago and then asking him ""To put it mildly!" The reader would wish the author to get off the fence and share what he really thought! In hindsight these are unattractive passages"

So basically Mr.Haigh is asking Gavaskar to get off the fence (who IMO is already pretty blunt with what he wrote) while he himself is stitting on the fence. Why doesn't he himself say what he thought of the passage.

I have a feeling what he(Mr. Haigh) is suggesting here, but he doesn't say it, in other words he himself is sitting on the fence while asking Gavaskar to get off of it.

 

[Sanz]

The first one was absolutley spot on and was what a lot of people were saying at the time.

Another place he says this :-

"....After all, how many times has audio evidence ever been definitive in any case of on-field behaviour? The stumps mikes didn't pick up Glenn McGrath's tirade at Ramnaresh Sarwan in 2003, nor did the umpires David Shepherd and Srinivas Venkataraghavan make any report, but that didn't stop the failure of the ICC referee to take action being an abysmally weak decision. That referee, of course, was Mike Procter.... "

I think either he is proving Gavaskar's point here or doesn't know what he is trying to convey.

 

[Sanz]

But I never realised that Lalit Modi and India owed South Africa something. God forbid the Indian Premier League ensure Indian audiences (where most of the money comes from) are accommodated.

That's exactly the point I am trying to make, when we say 'A' (Roebuck) is an ahole of a writer and B (Haigh) is excellent, then it is mostly a subjective opinion based on what we like/dislike about their writtings, it is in no way a fact.

 

[pasag]

It probably would have been if it focussed on issue (i.e. Sunny Double Role), but to quote him from a book written almost 20 years ago and then asking him ""To put it mildly!" The reader would wish the author to get off the fence and share what he really thought! In hindsight these are unattractive passages"

So basically Mr.Haigh is asking Gavaskar to get off the fence (who IMO is already pretty blunt with what he wrote) while he himself is stitting on the fence. Why doesn't he himself say what he thought of the passage.

I have a feeling what he(Mr. Haigh) is suggesting here, but he doesn't say it, in other words he himself is sitting on the fence while asking Gavaskar to get off of it.

Actually, he's being sarcastic there you'd imagine.

Anyways, it's pretty trivial examples. As Pratters said he's miles ahead of Roebuck (and yes that's obviously subjective, no one is claiming it is fact). I've read about 10 of his books now and the guy is pretty much one the best writers going around.