David EdwardsThe greatest writer that ever lived: Peter Roebuck
December 22nd 2008 00:37
Rarely these days do I immerse myself in the monotony of sports journalism, as I have grown more cynical than the lovechild of Voltaire and Paul Lyneham. While the proclamation that Peter Roebuck is the best cricket writer in the world sits as uneasily with me as a paedophile at a bus shelter, unfortunately I, as a Fairfax subscriber, duly digest his daily column like a homeless man may enjoy a complimentary buffet breakfast. Heartily, and with intent. Unlike a famished street urchin, however, I often fail to finish the "meal", instead finding myself incapable of digesting such rubbish.
It is impossible to read Roebuck's columns and not mentally recite the words to yourself in a flinty, chirpy and relentlessly upbeat toffy English accent. The words jump out at you like a man in a trenchcoat - aggressively, with an intention to flash themselves at you in a twisted form of self-gratification.
I am all for self-obsessed writing, don't get me wrong. But why is Roebuck proclaimed as the World's Best Cricket Writer, when his lack of actual analysis is masked by an overbearing smattering of polysyllabic words and reckless alliterations?
Roebuck was educated at Cambridge, a fact he flaunts very freely. With Roebuck as "our" premier cricket writer and Mark Nicholas as our TV cricket anchor, are we experiencing a return to the Empire? Why must we have Englishmen dictating our national sport to us?
Let me emphasise that I'm no colonial upstart. I have an unblushing affection for British television and cinema, not to mention an appreciation for well executed pronounciation. However, I think Australia could be better served in both departments.
Mark Nicholas may be more debonair than Hugh Grant, possessing all the charm of a Parkinson interview, but I question his cricketing pedigree. Like Roebuck, Nicholas was a county cricketer who never quite made it, instead gravitating to the safer fields of sports commentary. A wise man once said "never judge a book by its cover; judge a book by its wikipedia page." Nicholas is praised as "one of his generation's best cricketers to never play a test for England", along with an overly detailed summary of his broadcasting career, dutifully scribed by some loser who also describes him of "suave appearance and an urbane manner". In contrast, Roebuck's page offers a cavalcade of incidents, describing his suspended jail sentence for spanking three young cricketers and his questionable decision - as captain of county side Somerset - to get rid of West Indian imports Viv Richards and Joel Garner.
Mark Nicholas I can handle, but I haven't felt this much outrage over a daily column since Barry Hall guided me through his mental anguish earlier this year. Therefore, Peter Roebuck should be asked politely to pack up his straw hat, Roget's Thesaurus and wooden cane. Because biased citizen blogs are the new print journalism. Because there are plenty of cavalier writers hiding behind psuedonyms, using third person rhetoric amidst fits of pompousity, ready to pen uninsightful and often slanderous prose. Because such writers are key to understanding cricket and sport in this modern era.
-SportingMind
It is impossible to read Roebuck's columns and not mentally recite the words to yourself in a flinty, chirpy and relentlessly upbeat toffy English accent. The words jump out at you like a man in a trenchcoat - aggressively, with an intention to flash themselves at you in a twisted form of self-gratification.
"Richard Hadlee has the appearance of a rickety church steeple and a sever manner which suggests women are not likely to be ordained yet"
I am all for self-obsessed writing, don't get me wrong. But why is Roebuck proclaimed as the World's Best Cricket Writer, when his lack of actual analysis is masked by an overbearing smattering of polysyllabic words and reckless alliterations?
Roebuck was educated at Cambridge, a fact he flaunts very freely. With Roebuck as "our" premier cricket writer and Mark Nicholas as our TV cricket anchor, are we experiencing a return to the Empire? Why must we have Englishmen dictating our national sport to us?
Delightfully debonair: Mark Nicholas
Let me emphasise that I'm no colonial upstart. I have an unblushing affection for British television and cinema, not to mention an appreciation for well executed pronounciation. However, I think Australia could be better served in both departments.
Mark Nicholas may be more debonair than Hugh Grant, possessing all the charm of a Parkinson interview, but I question his cricketing pedigree. Like Roebuck, Nicholas was a county cricketer who never quite made it, instead gravitating to the safer fields of sports commentary. A wise man once said "never judge a book by its cover; judge a book by its wikipedia page." Nicholas is praised as "one of his generation's best cricketers to never play a test for England", along with an overly detailed summary of his broadcasting career, dutifully scribed by some loser who also describes him of "suave appearance and an urbane manner". In contrast, Roebuck's page offers a cavalcade of incidents, describing his suspended jail sentence for spanking three young cricketers and his questionable decision - as captain of county side Somerset - to get rid of West Indian imports Viv Richards and Joel Garner.
Mark Nicholas I can handle, but I haven't felt this much outrage over a daily column since Barry Hall guided me through his mental anguish earlier this year. Therefore, Peter Roebuck should be asked politely to pack up his straw hat, Roget's Thesaurus and wooden cane. Because biased citizen blogs are the new print journalism. Because there are plenty of cavalier writers hiding behind psuedonyms, using third person rhetoric amidst fits of pompousity, ready to pen uninsightful and often slanderous prose. Because such writers are key to understanding cricket and sport in this modern era.
-SportingMind
| 36 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Comments (6)
Add Comments
Read More
