• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Peter Roebuck

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
You are comparing apples to oranges. We are not talking about his books or his articles on History of the game. Mr. Haigh is fine infact a great writer when he writes about the history of the game.

Here we are talking about their newspaper columns these two gentlemen write on a regular basis and If we judge them solely on the basis of that Mr. Haigh isn't much above anyone including Roebuck. He has his lows as well.

IMO The only way you will be able to look at this comparison fairly if you leave out his impression as the write of those books.
 

pasag

RTDAS
You are comparing apples to oranges. We are not talking about his books or his articles on History of the game. Mr. Haigh is fine infact a great writer when he writes about the history of the game.

Here we are talking about their newspaper columns these two gentlemen write on a regular basis and If we judge them solely on the basis of that Mr. Haigh isn't much above anyone including Roebuck. He has his lows as well.

IMO The only way you will be able to look at this comparison fairly if you leave out his impression as the write of those books.
That's fine, he's still miles ahead of Roebuck. As I've said here before, the reason I don't like him isn't so much the points he makes, though some of the knee-jerk stuff does add to it, but his style which is over the top and littered with unnecessary metaphores. I actually have no problem with him on radio and find him to be one of the better commentators going around.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
You say underarm I say bodyline.
And I say sledging and hypocritical cant about "the Spirit of Cricket".

No team has a monopoly on good or bad behaviour. Let that be remembered every Anzac Day from here to eternity.
 

Top