
I have mixed feelings about Peter Roebuck's Cricinfo column. While his presence does lend a touch of class and extra credibility to the site, his high-brow style doesn't always work. Often, the epic feel of his writing is somewhat incompatible with the simplicity of the message, or the directness of the point behind the article. I remember a user complaining in the comments section of his pieces being "sentimentalist drivel"; an overreaction, certainly, but perhaps Roebuck needs to consider that this particular readership is less indulging, and quickly tires when they see an article which makes historical references to race-relations in South Africa.
However, after chancing upon an extract from In It to Win It online, his style appears to be extremely well suited to the larger narrative. The book charts the last three decades of Australian dominance, from Border to Ponting. A pivotal moment in the Australia-West Indies battle through the 90s happened in the second test of the 1992 series at the MCG; the Windies were chasing 358 to win, and at 143/1 - with Richarson and Simmons in full cry - were threatening an upset. Border tossed the ball to a hitherto unknown S.K Warne. Over to Roebuck:
Border's worries deepened as his spinner sent down a long-hop, and he prepared to curse the punishment that seemed bound to follow. Richardson had spotted the errant delivery and leant back to cut.
But it was neither a leg break nor a long-hop. Rather it was a perfectly pitched and cunningly disguised flipper. Had Warne bowled one previously? If so, no one had noticed, least of all the captain of the visiting side. Alarm bells ought to have started ringing in the batsman's ears when the ball failed to drop as anticipated, instead, continuing to cut through the air like a scream. Richardson, though, did not sense danger. Apart from anything else the bowler looked gormless. He was blond, round, obscure and apparently untouched by guile.
Not until the ball completed its sinuous slide and started to skid off the pitch did the mighty West Indian realise the extent of his predicament. Alas, the flipper is the most unforgiving of deliveries. Too late, Richardson tried to rearrange his response but, in truth, he hardly played a shot at all as the ball burst through and broke his stumps. Did Warne punch the air? Memory insists that he did, but it may have been journalistic licence. At any rate it was a moment of triumph that won the match. Plain as day, the balance of power had changed.
Now this is how I like my stories told, with a narrative sweep which seems to echo both Ramachandra Guha and CLR James, the cerebral and the celebratory. If Roebuck is thus able to hold forth on the heroes and times I grew up watching, I must get down to reading his works soon.
5 comments:
I too considered Roebuck's pieces "sentimentalist drivel" (remember, his ... er .. sentimentalist drivel during Sydneygate and his patronizing tone towards the Indians?); however, after reading the extract you posted, I am beginning to wonder if his writing style does suit a larger narrative.
Hey sorry to be off topic but this is the only way I could contact you. I found your blog to be interesting, and thought you might be interested in an affiliate program with us? We are a cricket game at howzat.com, and we're shortlisting bloggers to help us spread the word about the game. Please e-mail me at aman.gamev@gmail.com if you're interested. Sincere thanks.
@Leela: Regarding Sydneygate, Roebuck did get all sentimentalist but if I remember correctly, he reserved most of his anger towards the Australians ("sack Ponting", etc).
His books sound very interesting, but it also goes to show that writing short pieces is an art in itself. He needs to keep it simpler I guess.
Suhas,
He was tuff on the Aussies in the beginning...but later he backtracked as well.
I don't blame him for that though.
You're correct; I forgot about it, he did backtrack.
Post a Comment