BLATHER FLINGER

An evocative statement: In The Roar, Alex Cooke gives Peter Roebuck a spanking:

Peter Roebuck: No country for old men

Is it befitting that sports journalists produce rhetoric that leaves the audience with more of an opinion of the author than of the subject, as Peter Roebuck does every summer in this cricket obsessed nation? Discrediting the Australian cricket team and, in particular, Ricky Ponting has been the pursuit of Roebuck’s diatribe for countless seasons.

A writer who patronises their audience is almost explicitly blinded by their determination. Is it spawn out of dispute? Jealousy? Fear?

I agree with many of the commenters. Spanky knows cricket, is capable of identifying the finer points of the caper, writes informative and entertaining articles. When he is commentating he is often the first to spot a nuance, say, when momentum has changed. But many of those same commenters also point out that he is prone to fits of the vapours and can lose the plot: Wild Dogs, for instance.

Spanky has back-pedalled from the original tone of that outrageously over-the-top article, but he still slips in sly digs to justify its conception:

Time To Let Sleeping Wild Dogs Lie

Ponting had a rotten year in 2008, moving from the craven SCG Test to the calamity of Nagpur, where even the Hallelujah chorus criticised him.

In defending Wild Dogs, Spanky likes to say the article needed to be written and that the proof of the pudding is in the eating since Australia's behaviour post Sydney 2008 has been nigh-on exemplary, with the odd exception.

It's ironic, then, that the article Spanky claims was good for cricket is the same article that stopped people reading his articles, or so they say.

Comments

[m0nty]

Nice reference to Lubricated Goat there.

[patard]

Not to be testy, I can see how others might be attracted to Spanky, but I totally, absolutely disagree with "Spanky knows cricket, is capable of identifying the finer points of the caper, writes informative and entertaining articles."

1) He knows his cricket, not mine or what I would call Australian cricket. His approach to the game is from a position that I believe many find repugnant. I certainly do. It is from an elitist, ex-patriot, lost soul position who hates anything middle to lower class perspective.

He is the smh's essayist of choice and that says it all. They rarely (IMO) employ anyone that doesn't hate us and everything we stand for. That's why he's welded to his position regardless of readership or status.

Can't they get one or two other writers to provide some variety or at least make him compete for the readers interest?

Let's face it, we're starved for choice in the MSM. And when you're starving vomit starts to look edible if not appetising.

2) I don't recall learning anything from Spanky with regards "the finer points" that I didn't first hear elsewhere. This blog being a major source of that sort of information. If you, Tones, get your insights from Spanky and pass them on then fair enough, I accept what you're saying.

3) "...writes informative and entertaining articles." Never read one from him. The only entertainment is the phsycho-analysis that one can indulge, in wonderment at what motivates him.

His style is derivative of the worst of cricket authors from the old school Wisden era. His repeated lines are ad nauseum.

Even Tim Blair picked up on the "pea soup" quip. I note one commenter in The Roar found that line funny. Even when I heard it for the first time it was a lame metaphor that in no way struck me as humorous. I suppose if you go to places where pea soup is served as a starter one would find it humorous but w(ho)tf has pea soup starters? One word - Spanky.

And the Hamlet references? Come on. Was it the only play he ever read and taught? I suppose for people not read on Shakespeare the references must bedazzle but as I read elsewhere, how about a reference to Shylock, or Oberon. I can get in several Macbeth references or King Lear (not that I'm blowing my trumpet - they are mostly idiotic) but ffs can he try to read a bit more widely, please?!

And how about the gollies, jeepers, heretofors, hereabouts, hithertos -- Fack me it is maddening. Stylistically he is crap. As malodorous and rank as the stinking piles I find in my backyard everyday from my gay dog.

The man's style is condescending, lecturing, hectoring, nagging, obsessive, nit-picking and ever advocating his personal people preferences (eg Katich) but delivered in a manner as if they were objective.

He appears to me to be full of himself. So full his opinion isn't worth a stamp. His inability to be objective, or with some sort of self effacement, is such a major liability that I would only reference him if I were asked to demonstrate a narcissistic personality disorder.

I could go on but I don't want to open the AGB to a defamation suit. All the above are my opinions alone. I believe he should have been sacked after the Wild Dawgz episode and that he didn't shows the esteem with which the smh holds him and us.

[patard]

I thought this comment at The Roar was excellent and offered an insight that you wouldn't read elsewhere in the MSM.

westy said | January 11th 2010 @ 11:20pm (2 days ago) | Report comment

Roebuck by the way is an Australian citizen. players like Symonds always got up Roebuck’s nose a little. Symonds played an older style of cricket. I remember once Gilchrist ran him out ( Gilly was at fault) Symonds turned to him and sidnalled a drink. I am sure Gilly owed him a shout.
I was familiar with Symonds career in his younger days in QLD. Not once did he ever complain about the comments made about his parentage and skin and he got plenty. He gave as good as he got on the field. That is where it stayed. He was one of the most social anfd friendly of players after a game.
What Roebuck and others never could quite get their heads around was that Symonds for the first time in his career at the direct instruction of his employer made an official complaint. Not once during his QLD career as a youth and senior player and as an Australian player had he ever done so despite I can assure you some pretty noxious stuff.
Not once on the previous tour to Indis did he do so despite signs chants and specific baiting by Singh. Rest assured on the field he played with his in your face aggression which clearly unsettled Singh and other Indians.. He made no complaint. It stayed on the field.
Despite the direction of his employer when the crunch came they did not back him and andrew went fishing.

It is sad what happened to Roy (and what Roy did to himself). Our administration owes a hell of a lot more to fellas like Roy and Hair. They are archetypal Australians and for that the game and commentators have no time. If Roy were a Leaguie or Rules player the administration would have done way more to protect and assist players like him. As it is he was left high and dry, exposed to ridicule and worst of all the old "Un-Australian" canard.

Dog Clarke is the chosen face of Oz Cricket, our eunuch of choice. There is our future. God help us. Amen.

[patard]

As you can see I have a lot of time on my hands.

[m0nty]

You have a gay dog? That explains a lot.

[patard]

You're right mOnt, it is emblematic of my life.

Not to drag this post too OT but to describe the enormity of the debacle that greets my eyes everyday, and hopefully get some sympathy.

I'd been studying it (the dog) with loathing eyes for weeks and continually noted out loud "You sure that's a girl dog cause that pink thing it eternally can't stop licking sure looks like a d*ck to me." "oh you're an idiot. It's just something they grow out of. The vet says it's just some cartilage they get while growing." "Bloody hell if I had cartilage like that I'd be a porn star."

Sure enough we get the thing desexed and low and behold we have the only hermaphrodite dog in the southern hemisphere. It had testes where it was supposed to have ovaries, and as for the ever growing pink thing the vet assures us it will eventually disappear. It hasn't abated yet, and if it keeps going as it keeps going it'll have a kennel of its own soon.

I had noted that the stupid thing doesn't walk so much as mince, and now we know why. I got a gay dog.

To think we just had to give away my brilliant caramel Kelpie to the in-laws to get replaced by this joke. If it can work up some sort of song and dance routine I'd suffer it in silence but as it is, it just keeps licking it and licking it, and craps all over my yard.

Thanks for listening. The end.

[Tony]

Pat,

Context, me old china.

Is there a print outlet anywhere on the orb that has been more critical of Spanky than the AGB? We even invented the name Spanky, which is hardly your standard hale-well-met appellation.

Even this post, which contains some favourable comments, also contains plenty of unfavourable pot-shots: "Blather flinger" (which, of itself, is a shot at his florid, verbose prolixity) and "fits of vapours" and "lose the plot" and "back-pedalled" and "outrageously over-the-top" and "sly digs".

Not exactly "Robes, you're the best."

But credit where it's due. Among other things: he is quick to spot a technical deficiency; a tactical blunder; a strange fielding position; a momentum shift; he was also one of the earlier pundits to point to Australia's batting frailty.

[Tony]

A gay dog.

[patard]

I wasn't having a go at you Tones or this good ship AGB. It's just that I find anything remotely praising of Spanky as worse than a Pea Soup starter.

More like abseiling with the rear assistance of a pedophile Christian Brother...forever on the alert and prepared to turn viciously at any moment.

[Big Ramifications]

I've said it here previously, so some of you please bear with me. I had long suspected he was a tosser, but I had my moment of epiphany during a quite part of a quiet session during one of my rare moments of listening to the cricket on AM radio maybe 6-8 years ago?

The subject of match fixing tangentially came up. Two points here, before I continue:

1. Tangentially. It was the equivalent of jaw boning about the weather or something similar.

2. But it was a dull period of the game, and ya gots to talk about something, right?

I think it was Massie or maybe Alderman. And before the last syllable had exited his mouth "match fixi…" co commentator Roebuck was all "AUSTRALIANS! AUSTRALIANS! You can talk! What about Australians???! Australians are the worst in the whole world. Won't somebody think of the Australians?!

"He is the smh's essayist of choice and that says it all. They rarely employ anyone that doesn't hate us and everything we stand for. That's why he's welded to his position regardless of readership or status."

Spot the fark on, Patard. The man has issues: "welded."

Hey, he might be right in this instance. That's not my point – my point is that his reaction was just waay too knee jerk. Other articles and comments of his have only gone on to prove it.

He notices nuances? Meh. I'm calling "broken clock" theory.

[Tony]

Did I say "nuances"? I meant "nonces".

[Big Ramifications]

You rule, Tony. Not being sarcastic.

[The Mongrel]

I seriously went off Roebuck after the World Cup final against Pakistan in London a few years ago.

You might remember some unpleasantness. A couple of bean balls at the Aussie batsmen come immediately to mind.

Next day in the Herald, Roebuck sheeted the whole blame at the Aussies. Not a mention of any contribution from the Pakistani players.

I picked Roebuck as the 21st century equivalent of the White Man's Burden, where only white players are responsible for their actions. The Wild Dogs disgrace just cemented my view.

[The Mongrel]

Fun Fact!

The (fictional) Admiral Hornblower commands the West Indies fleet.

In the fleet is HMS Roebuck. Its ranking is Fifth Rate.

See the table in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Hornblower for confirmation.

[Carrot]

I'm with.... well, everyone here, and particularly Patard (are you Pat in disguise? Have you changed your name? If so, well met, old bean - sorry I didn't reply to your comments on my blog awhile ago). Roebuck is a complete cock. The thing that I could never stomach about him, and particularly his writing, was the whole "British and educated" thing which is a pile of old tosh that would never be tolerated in the UK itself. Like Mark Nicholas, he cashes in on being a middle-class Brit with the cut-glass accent to prove it to the international audience, and don't people just lap it up. Funnily enough it's more noticeable (and more annoying) in his writing than his commentary, but either way it's shit. It's patronising, it's pretentious, it's self-grandiosing, and above all it distracts from the point he's trying to make, when there is one.

The thing that I will never forgive him for is the furore surrounding THAT Test match in Sydney, though, and how he stoked every anti-Australian flame he possibly could. Here were a team that were united in their belief that one of their players had been racially abused (whether he was or not is beside the point, I'm not starting that up again), AND were trying to win a Test match, and so they played aggressively, maybe more than usual because they were pissed off about the above. They did their jobs and won, and Roebuck jumped all over the "behaviour", whilst effectively ignoring the Bhaji incident. In doing so he legitimised the BCCI's absolutely fucking disgraceful behaviour in threatening to leave the tour, and began a chain of events that led to every Indian blogger burning Australian flags in blog comments ever since, Ponting being booed wherever he went in the last Ashes series, and quite frankly, me liking the game that I have been obsessed with since childhood just a little less. The man's a cunt, a borderline paedophile, he quite clearly has an agenda as others have pointed out here, but above all, he's a pretentious cock, and his writing is absolute drivel.

Give me Gideon Haigh any day.

[patard]

I bet the cabin boys were in perpetual fear aboard the HMS Roebuck.

Yes Carrot patard is pat. I was appropriately reassigned by Tones. Good to see you back.

And, well said!

[Yobbo]

It's not like Roebuck's any special flower at the SMH. All of their columnists hate Australia just as much and make it clear in their topic of choice. The question is, why read it?

[Yobbee]

Oh, so thaaat's the question.

Thanks Yobbo. Your contrarian superiority saves the day yet again.

[Tony]

Speaking of Wild Dog Sydney. Spanky jumped all over the Australian celebrations at the end of the match, saying they were triumphalist, arrogant and disrespectful to a noble opponent. He then fraudulently bolstered this point with a bizarre assertion that because Kumble (who basically sooked in the presser) had a nigh-on unimpeachable reputation he was being horrendously insulted.

The celebrations after Australia won in Sydney last week were every bit as ebullient, but suddenly there was nothing wrong with them. Why? Because there was nothing wrong with them. Just as there was nothing wrong with the celebrations in Sydney in 2008.

[wiggins]

You blogger rotters are again being deuced naughty about Sir and his bubbly prose. Us schoolboys were discussing your own blather in our pyjamas last night. Dash it all, expect retribution. We practised with Marmite.

[wiggins]

Please supply address to McSpankys please.

[Vindicate]

Ozimek Lane, at a guess.

[The Don has risen]

I think roers is the best read of all the cricket writers.

I do not read articles because of the pro or anti-'Australianism.
That would be rather puerile.

[Carrot]

It's not a question of whether he's pro- or anti-Australian. It's a question of his writing style, and whether or not he maintains some objectivity, and represents the truth every now and again. I dislike reading columnists with an agenda, no matter what it is- it's bad journalism.

[The Don has risen]

Sorry but his writing of the disgraceful Aussie behaviour in Sydney for that Test was on the money.

Strange how they have changed since then.

I still prefer to read Roers than most writers. He is not anti-Aussie he merely write it as he sees it

[patard]

Spanky adulates you Don:

Meanwhile, the popularity of these visitors ought to dispel notions that Australia is inherently hostile. In fact it is dry, noisy, regulated, insecure, democratic and friendly, apart from the sort of malcontents featured in almost every country.

I'd love that on my tombstone. "Here lies Patard. He was dry, noisy, regulated, insecure, democratic and friendly."

The kids would tear up for sure every time they read it. "Good old Dad, certainly is dry now." sob sob.

[Carrot]

Nup. Sorry Don, but I don't agree.

I'll admit that there haven't been moments in recent years when watching us on the field has made me wince a bit - I've commented here before that I wish Ponting wouldn't be so belligerent with the umpires, and that one of the things that was most difficult about Monkeygate was that you could definitely see a shred of truth in some Roebuck, Agnew and the Indians' shrillness BUT - I don't think he represented the full story, and that's why he wasn't on the money. Australia are not the only team guilty of bad behaviour, they're just the one that gets the most press. In writing that article he was guilty of bias, neglect, agenda and opportunism, all things that make for bad journalism. And asides from which - I don't think the team HAS changed much since then. Wasn't everyone carrying on about bad behaviour earlier this summer?

On another matter, one of the above articles makes a very good point that I think Roebuck AND the press at large are guilty of in general, and that is that whenever Australia lose it's because they played badly, and whenever they win the other team played badly. It's something that really annoys me! Again, not necessarily because I'm Australian, just because I'd like to see a balanced view every now and again.

[Big Ramifications]

Just to quickly add an important[?] part to my story above, the way Roebuck snapped at Massie was - and I've been scratching my head for a nicer way of putting it - rather pre menstrual.

He sounded like a woman starting a fight with her partner at a dinner party. It was very poor form, he sounded like an angry chick, and it was an obvious knee jerk reaction [with respect to his anti Australian agenda].