It was
a great shock on Sunday morning to hear the news that Peter Roebuck had
been found dead at his hotel in South Africa. While the manner and
reason behind his demise was still mired in question, it did not detract
from the fact that the game of cricket had lost one of its finest
writers and observers.
Much
will be said of his modest yet effective career as a first-class
cricketer, captaining Somerset for a number of years and also being
named as one of Wisden’s Cricketers of the Year in 1988, an achievement
of the highest standing.
However,
it is his career as a journalist and writer that has delighted,
informed and inspired so many people around the world. It is in this
capacity that he has been to me a ‘mentor by correspondence’.
There
are so many cricket journalists reporting for so many types of
publications throughout Australia and the world. Most of these
journalists, either through their own personality or ego, or the demands
of their publication, write sensationalistic copy, which in the main
focuses on the negative aspects of results or incidents. They look for
the headline, seize it, and run with it until it is beyond dead. They
will jump on a few words in a fifteen minute interview, and turn it into
a story where no story exists, just to dredge up an old story that has
long been buried. Anyone who recently saw Simon Katich’s interview after
scoring a century in the Shield match will see this hypocrisy. He spoke
of New South Wales cricket, of his determination to succeed this
season, his return to bowling, and other such things. His throw-away
line that he did not expect to play cricket again for Australia under
the current regime took up less than five seconds of this interview, but
it was ONLY this part that then made the headlines by the media. It was
a joke, and a disgrace, one exacerbated by Cricket Australia who have
since deemed it fit that Katich fronts them to explain his ‘actions’.
Once again, the media creates a story when, in reality, none existed,
and it is to their eternal disgrace and discredit that they continue to
do so.
I
spent most weekends through the late 1980’s and early 1990’s reading the
columns of Peter Roebuck and John Benaud in the Sunday newspapers. In
the days before the internet, before pay-tv, where there was limited
television exposure of any cricket that wasn’t Test or International one
day cricket within Australia, their incisive words of intellect were a
breath of fresh air. They cut through the hype of the mainstream cricket
media, able to balance both sides of any argument, and offered an
informative insight into the cricket being played both on and off the
field.
What
was so inspiring about Roebuck’s writing was his unbiased attitude to
all his articles. He was not nationalistic. He was an Englishman who
played his cricket for an English county, he lived in Australia and
South Africa, and worked in both these countries, and could have called
them home, yet he never betrayed any bias in his articles to his
feelings in this regard.
This
did not mean that he wasn’t forthright in his opinions when required. In
2008 his article, which his editor deemed fit to place on the front
page of his newspaper, called for the sacking of Australian captain
Ricky Ponting after the Test against India at the SCG, which had a
number of nasty incidents, not the least being the confrontation between
Andrew Symonds, Matthew Hayden and Harbhajan Singh. He was constant and
vigilant in his calls for the cricket world to embrace the Zimbabwe
nation, to root out the evil that surrounded it and to save the nation's
cricket, rather than condemn it to oblivion. He was also quite clear in
pointing out that Michael Clarke had to make a choice between his
relationship with Lara Bingle or cricket, as his off-field saga sapped
at his performance on the field.
As
with everyone in life, I did not always agree with his positions or
conclusions. However, unlike so many other writers, I always came away
from having read his articles feeling as though I had learned something
about cricket, or found myself questioning my own beliefs on an issue
through his thought provoking words.
My
love of both writing and cricket had blossomed long before I first read
any of Roebuck’s articles. Both had possibly even reached an obsessive
stage by the time his first articles began appearing in Australian
newspapers.
My
desire as a teenager to become a journalist extended to applying for
many cadetships at many newspapers, and even studying for a year at
Mitchell College in Sydney. By my mid twenties I had been completely
turned off the profession, mostly by the fact that serious journalism
turned its back on reporting facts, and instead making sensationalism
its key phrase. The search for the headline became its goal, and losing
the basis of what journalism is - the reporting on events, not creating
them to sell newspapers or advertising slots on TV programs.
My love for cricket never waned, even as my own shortcomings as a cricketer became glaringly obvious.
I
spoke earlier of how Peter Roebuck became my ‘mentor by correspondence’.
What I meant by that is simple. His writing inspired me to become more
observant as a cricket watcher, to study the game and the players in a
way I may never have done without reading his articles. He also inspired
me to give something back to cricket in my own backyard. I began to
write the cricket articles for our Club for the Kiama Independent, first
for two years before moving away to Sydney, and then again for three
years on my return five years later. In the present day, he has been one
of my inspirations when it comes to doing the write-ups for our Grade
cricket teams each week on our website. He is one of the people behind
my decision to attempt the rudimentary Club history I have been dabbling
with for the past two years. His writings, his witticisms, and his
journalistic integrity have been the things that have inspired me to
perform a modest reproduction on and off for twenty years on a much
smaller scale, and with a much small readership.
No
matter what may come out in the following days of the reasons why he
took his own life on Saturday, world cricket has lost one of its
greatest orators, and it is with profound sadness that I greeted this
news. One wonders if we will ever be able to replace him.
The musings and rantings of a simple man who looks to build his family in the wilds of West Kiama.
Showing posts with label 2011 Assorted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2011 Assorted. Show all posts
Monday, November 14, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Why Was Ian Bell Recalled?
There
have been innumerable occasions in the history of cricket that a
batsman has been out, but has been reprieved by an umpire's error or the
leniency of the opposition's appeal. But it has been a long time since I
have seen a batsman who has been given out - correctly - under the Laws
of Cricket, and yet has been able to resume his innings all thanks to
the newly popular term of the "Spirit of Cricket", which apparently can
overrule the Laws of the game.
Did anyone else see this? The following link from CricInfo gives an overview of the incident at hand:http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-indi...ory/525477.html
In the humble opinion of this highly prestigious column, I would suggest the following is true.
1. Bell doesn't pay attention to the game - in reality, didn't value his wicket highly enough - and he is dismissed. Out. Correctly, in accordance of the Laws of the game. Most sources have claimed that Bell was NOT attempting a further run, but the replay of the batsmen running between the wickets suggests otherwise, as he sets off for a fourth run, then glances to the boundary to see the fieldsman prostrate over the boundary line. Bell assumes, with the lack of haste coming from the fielder and the roar of the crowd, that the ball has reached the boundary, and moves from a jog to a walk toward the dressing room for tea.
In the humble opinion of this highly prestigious column, I would suggest the following is true.
1. Bell doesn't pay attention to the game - in reality, didn't value his wicket highly enough - and he is dismissed. Out. Correctly, in accordance of the Laws of the game. Most sources have claimed that Bell was NOT attempting a further run, but the replay of the batsmen running between the wickets suggests otherwise, as he sets off for a fourth run, then glances to the boundary to see the fieldsman prostrate over the boundary line. Bell assumes, with the lack of haste coming from the fielder and the roar of the crowd, that the ball has reached the boundary, and moves from a jog to a walk toward the dressing room for tea.
2.
At no stage did umpire Asad Rauf signal a boundary had been hit, nor
did he verbalise it. At this point it is the batsman's responsibility to
either return and make his ground at his end, or enquire with the
umpire if it is a four or not. By doing neither of these things, Bell
has effectively left himself with no defence in simply walking off the
ground. The ball is still "live" and the fielding team has every right
to remove the bails and appeal for the wicket to be given out.
3. If India were 'against' the decision having been made, why didn't they change their minds on the field before the tea break? If it hadn't been the last over before tea, they would have HAD to have made that decision before the next batsman arrived at the crease. Highly unlikely that it would have been overturned in that scenario.
4. What the hell are England's captain and coach doing visiting their opponents dressing room during the break to try and convince them to 'reverse their appeal'?! That is surely not on. That to me is coercion at its worst. If India wished to change their decision, they should do it without being seen to do so at the behest of the home country.
5. If you can only have 20 seconds to decide if you use a video referral, the why do you get 15 minutes in the dressing rooms to change your appeal/decision? If it wasn't done on the field, the standing umpires should have held firm and said that the decision could not be reversed.
6. This "Spirit of Cricket" bullshit is just something that gets flung around when it suits certain parties. Ian Bell is quoted:
"Probably naïve on my behalf, but taking into account the spirit of cricket and everything, this was probably the right decision".
Well Ian, you can stick that response straight up your Khyber Pass - it was the right decision for YOU, and YOU were the one who actually did the wrong thing in the first place!
It didn't affect the outcome of this match, but this is just another example of how the tide has turned for English cricket, and that everything is running for them. Can anyone imagine the outcry if Shane Watson had done this (and he's always likely to), and Ricky Ponting had gone to the English dressing room and asked them to change their decision? Not a snowball's hope in hell would they have changed their appeal.
3. If India were 'against' the decision having been made, why didn't they change their minds on the field before the tea break? If it hadn't been the last over before tea, they would have HAD to have made that decision before the next batsman arrived at the crease. Highly unlikely that it would have been overturned in that scenario.
4. What the hell are England's captain and coach doing visiting their opponents dressing room during the break to try and convince them to 'reverse their appeal'?! That is surely not on. That to me is coercion at its worst. If India wished to change their decision, they should do it without being seen to do so at the behest of the home country.
5. If you can only have 20 seconds to decide if you use a video referral, the why do you get 15 minutes in the dressing rooms to change your appeal/decision? If it wasn't done on the field, the standing umpires should have held firm and said that the decision could not be reversed.
6. This "Spirit of Cricket" bullshit is just something that gets flung around when it suits certain parties. Ian Bell is quoted:
"Probably naïve on my behalf, but taking into account the spirit of cricket and everything, this was probably the right decision".
Well Ian, you can stick that response straight up your Khyber Pass - it was the right decision for YOU, and YOU were the one who actually did the wrong thing in the first place!
It didn't affect the outcome of this match, but this is just another example of how the tide has turned for English cricket, and that everything is running for them. Can anyone imagine the outcry if Shane Watson had done this (and he's always likely to), and Ricky Ponting had gone to the English dressing room and asked them to change their decision? Not a snowball's hope in hell would they have changed their appeal.
Why
should the so-called Spirit of Cricket be over-ruling the laws of the
game, and rewarding the stupidity of a player? Ponting spent years as a
captain trying to get opposing teams to agree to accept a player's word
when it came to disputed catches, something that would have been a true
upholding of the Spirit of Cricket. Not once - that's right, NOT ONCE -
in all those years did an opponent agree to his request. One wonders
just where this particular incident could lead to in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

