In Peter Roebuck we've lost far more than just a cricket writer

Bat and ball / Paul Moon / 21 November 2011 / Leave a Comment

Taunton, Somerset. Where Peter Roebuck was captain and where he was involved in huge controversy as the man who said Viv Richards and Joel Garner were surplus to requirements

"His uniquely opinionated brand of journalism made him one of the game's best known media men. His every word would reverberate around the cricketing world and he called it right most of the time."

It was the news that shocked the cricketing world last week. Former Somerset skipper and one of the world's leading cricketing journalists Peter Roebuck, took his own life in strange circumstances. But just what sort of man was he, asks Paul Moon.

A sense of uneasiness hangs over cricket with the news of Peter Roebuck's death whilst the media shifts awkwardly trying to finalise his obituary.

During his moderately successful first-class playing career he had always resembled someone from a bygone era and until he started writing, his gawky demeanour and private school education made him an easy target for some of those less erudite. He was at odds with many of his peers. He was a thinker who cherished the soul of the game and its well-being so it was through his media work that he really left his mark.

I have been a loyal supporter of Somerset County Cricket Club all my life and witnessed at close quarters the controversy in 1986 that Roebuck will be most remembered for in cricket. At the end of his first season as captain he was largely instrumental in the county's decision not to renew the contracts of its two overseas players - Viv Richards and Joel Garner, both 34 at the time. Despite the naïve incredulity at the time fuelled by Sir Ian Botham (who promptly resigned as a Somerset player), amongst others, the decision was sound. Although their runs and wickets had brought success to Somerset in previous years the club had slipped into a coma. To do nothing was not an option and the ensuing uproar had nothing to do with practicalities.

Somerset had finished rock bottom of the league in 1985 and second bottom in 1986 and they had not won a one-day competition since 1983. People either forgot or chose not to accept the fact that a change in the TCCB (Test and County Cricket Board) regulations meant that only one overseas player would be allowed in each county team, rather than two as had previously been the case. Somerset could not have fielded both Richards and Garner at the same time even if they wanted to.

Controversy followed him again back in 2001. Roebuck was handed a four-month suspended jail sentence after admitting charges of common assault against three South African teenagers, who he had caned following a coaching session. This can neither be excused nor condoned of course but we should remember that he belonged to a generation who was routinely caned at school. Archaic beatings were considered normal at the Millfield School in Somerset where he was educated. The reaction to the case is primarily what caused him to turn his back on England and further his career in Australia.

Roebuck was to find his true calling after playing. Alongside his commentary duties he became a widely respected columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Cricinfo. His uniquely opinionated brand of journalism made him one of the game's best known media men. His every word would reverberate around the cricketing world and he called it right most of the time.

His pieces were more about emotional resonance than entertainment but more importantly, he had the temerity to ask hard questions and often called Australian sportsmanship into question. A classic example was when he scolded the Australian nation for treating Muttiah Muralitharan as a pariah and going far beyond the requirements of legitimate debate.

He was the best cricket writer of his generation. One of the best pieces I have ever read was his brilliant article about Kumar Sangakkara and his fight to save Sri Lankan cricket. It epitomised what the man stood for:

His writing drew universal acclaim yet this philanthropist kept his charity work secret. He appeared to have a moral compass, a desire to assist others whilst challenging people to think. He was terribly concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe and felt people should do more than just complain. He knew a lot about the country, and castigated Zanu-PF politicians and Zimbabwe Cricket Board officials specifically and by name.

His favourite phrase was 'everyone deserves a chance in life.' There is evidence to believe that Roebuck had over 35 Zimbabweans in his care at the time of his death and a conservative estimate suggests that something in the region of $500,000 of his personal funds were spent to help realise some African dreams.

He really did have a strong motivation for a better world and until it is proved otherwise that is how we should remember him. Yes, he was a tormented and complex character and an eccentric paradox but we await the final analysis in the hope that it proves him to be a most decent man.