Although I never met him, I heard of the death of Peter Roebuck with a sense of shock and loss. I enjoyed his cricket writing, and also appreciated his contribution on other topics to Eureka Street through his articles and postings. He seemed to understand and appreciate the moral centre that we try to encourage.
Although speculation about the circumstances of his death inevitably colours reflection on his life, it should not overshadow his gifts and qualities as person and as writer.
As a cricket writer Roebuck was interesting even when he wrote on topics that had no interest for the reader. In that respect he was like Martin Flanagan and Brent Crosswell in their writing on Australian Rules. Like them, he clearly appreciated that other things in life matter more than sport. But precisely because sport does not matter ultimately, he was freed to take it very seriously indeed. It was a part of life, and was so invested with the values and the daily choices that reveal a person's character. For him cricket was an image of life, and so to be respected.
Because he had a keen sense of what mattered both ultimately and relatively, Roebuck wrote about cricket lightly and with passion. He had a lightness of touch in the illuminating connections that he made between cricket and other things. In contrast to John Arlott, who revealed the aesthetic charms of cricket by comparison with high culture, he developed its connections with the ordinary experiences of daily life. He showed the unconscious humour in serious games of cricket and the humanity of those who played it.
Peter Roebuck was also passionate. Because cricket was an image of life, he believed that its craft should be taken seriously. It was a discipline and a form of self-control through which people grew. He had no time for sloppiness, and often seemed offended by people with instinctive talent that they left uncultivated.
The passion most frequently expressed in his writing was anger. It was aroused most often when he perceived bullying and submission to it. He frequently attacked the International Cricket Council for its reluctance to condemn the thugs who ran Zimbabwe cricket, and for accepting supinely the power of Indian financial interests on the regulation of cricket. Sometimes his perception of bullying seemed harsh, as when he attacked the Australian team for an aggressive gamesmanship that in his opinion amounted to cheating. Ironically,