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, it now seems that some of the Pakistani cricketers may have out-cheated the Australians to procure this victory.
In his Eureka Street articles on Zimbabwe Roebuck gave his anger full reign. In 2007 he wrote, 'Towering rage is the only legitimate reaction to the latest outrage in the benighted, despoiled, corrupted, starving, bankrupt nation known as Zimbabwe'.
Of course the West had it coming. Hardly a harsh word has heard in the mid 80s when Mugabe's fifth brigade crushed an imagined uprising in Matabeleland, slaughtering tens of thousands of mostly Ndebeles, stuffing their corpses down disused gold mines. At around the same time the Sinhalese were murdering the Tamils in Colombo as the government turned a blind eye. No-one said much about that either.'
Such strong feelings tempered by and equally strong self-control make for a tension that can be explosive if it is kept within. That seems to have been Peter Robuck's way and his burden. Although we do not know the details of his personal life, all we do know of him invites compassion for a man who fought for justice and admiration for one who translated his anger at what was happening in Zimbabwe into the establishment of an educational foundation for young people there.
Roebuck's postings for Eureka Street show a breadth of interest and sympathy. He responded to articles on Syria, Zimbabwe, asylum seeker and refugee issues in Australia, Indonesia, Afghanistan and pieces of creative writing. In most cases, he addressed issues of fairness and respect for difference.
In his postings he also encouraged the writers of the articles, particularly younger writers, and on occasion Eureka Street itself. In his most recent posting a few weeks ago on Syria, he typically both offered his views and sought more information.
'As an avowed democrat convinced that the secular path is the way forwards but aware that it takes time and that democracy rarely enjoys an easy birth or growing period (who does?) I am keen to read balanced views of the position in Syria. Till then long live democracy everywhere! It's the best thing we've got, the best check on corruption. The Arab uprising was needed because fearful old men refused to cede power. It happens elsewhere as well, especially further south.'
With Peter Roebuck's death, we have lost a good supporter, a valued contributor and a human being who gave much through all the hidden struggle with his personal flaws and pressures.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.