Can someone please put Peter Roebuck out of his misery.

I don't know why I still read articles written by Peter Roebuck. I suppose it's to pass the time on the train.

He's calling for Cricket Australia to ban alcohol at cricket matches.

Article here.

He also manages to link the Akmal pitch invasion incident with a "deeper malaise" seguing smoothly into the attacks on Indians in Melbourne.

There's no need to ban grog. The man who tackled Akmal should be fined heavily and charged with assault; clamp down hard on the people who offend - don't ruin the experience for everyone.

Spanky is an idiot, but he seems to provide orgamsms for Red.

He's referring to Australia as "our country" now. He's all yours now...ho ho.

Sure it's a bit sensationalist but there is a strong culture both here and in Australia of going to the cricket just to drink copious amounts. Sure it's our cultural heritage and all's fine in moderation but lets be honest here... binge drinking is not a good thing. It's fountain of a good percentage of all anti-social behaviour in the UK and god knows what it's doing to the health of our nation.

It doesn't say much for the game of cricket either if you need get hammered to enjoy a day/night out at it. I think of all the drunken tw*ts I've come across at cricket matches (myself not withstanding) and I sort of agree with him.

They've all but stopped selling full strength alcohol at cricket matches in Aus. They haven't stopped people getting three-quarters charged at a nearby pub, then staggering into the ground yet.

And in Perth, it's a $500 fine if you run onto the WACA, at all (most?) other Test grounds it's in the order of twelve time that or more. Get a few blokes to chip in to pay the fine, and you could come out in front.

But linking that to the so-called racially-motivated attcks is just so much bullshit.

Spanky is a knob.

One of the problems is the "security" employed by the WACA

The guys you wouldn't want to mess with are patrolling the crowd kicking people out for beer snakes or counting backwards from 10 or stopping kids playing cricket at the cricket ...the guys on the ground are either fat , subis or fat subis and sitting on the fence so that when someone jumps the fence thy already have a headstart on them ...and when they do catch the invaders they are reluctant to give them a bit of "special treatment" to discourage others

Why aren't there snipers at the ground?

Spanky in 'I talk utter BS' shocker!

JKLever wrote:Spanky in 'I talk utter BS' shocker!

How's the saying go

"you can take the boy out of england but you can't take the englishman out of the boy"

something like that anyway

Zat wrote:Spanky is an idiot, but he seems to provide orgamsms for Red.

Red goes off like a cracker when Spanky sends her a text??

skully wrote:

Zat wrote:Spanky is an idiot, but he seems to provide orgamsms for Red.

Red goes off like a cracker when Spanky sends her a text??

He's learned from The Great Man, I suppose.

cricinfo has now republished Spanky's column.

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/446570.html

I have commented on it. Wonder if they'll publish my comment.

Roebuck is right about the dark underbelly of Australian society, pointing out the attacks on the Indian students etc, and Australia's responsibility to improve its international image in regards to racial tolerance both inside and outside cricketing circles, but he was wrong to somehow connect it to the Latif incident. It could have been any overseas player who that drunk idiot tackled- English, Indian, West Indian, Kiwi. It wasn't a racist attack, just a drunken one.

Hass wrote:He also manages to link the Akmal pitch invasion incident with a "deeper malaise" seguing smoothly into the attacks on Indians in Melbourne.

There's no need to ban grog. The man who tackled Akmal should be fined heavily and charged with assault; clamp down hard on the people who offend - don't ruin the experience for everyone.

they all look the same i guess

Henry wrote:Roebuck is right about the dark underbelly of Australian society, pointing out the attacks on the Indian students etc, and Australia's responsibility to improve its international image in regards to racial tolerance both inside and outside cricketing circles, but he was wrong to somehow connect it to the Latif incident. It could have been any overseas player who that drunk idiot tackled- English, Indian, West Indian, Kiwi. It wasn't a racist attack, just a drunken one.

Alderman was Kentish, i guess

Indeed Quimy. Clem was tackled and yet not a racist word uttered.

Adonis T Quim wrote:

Henry wrote:Roebuck is right about the dark underbelly of Australian society, pointing out the attacks on the Indian students etc, and Australia's responsibility to improve its international image in regards to racial tolerance both inside and outside cricketing circles, but he was wrong to somehow connect it to the Latif incident. It could have been any overseas player who that drunk idiot tackled- English, Indian, West Indian, Kiwi. It wasn't a racist attack, just a drunken one.

Alderman was Kentish, i guess

So was Symonds wasn't he? Maybe Latif secretly signed a T20 contract for the Spitfires (or whatever they are called).

Adonis T Quim wrote:

Henry wrote:Roebuck is right about the dark underbelly of Australian society, pointing out the attacks on the Indian students etc, and Australia's responsibility to improve its international image in regards to racial tolerance both inside and outside cricketing circles, but he was wrong to somehow connect it to the Latif incident. It could have been any overseas player who that drunk idiot tackled- English, Indian, West Indian, Kiwi. It wasn't a racist attack, just a drunken one.

Alderman was Kentish, i guess

Could well be. Those bastards west of the Medway are not to be trusted - as the Men of Kent found.

cricinfo published my comment, colour me surprised! It was the second one on the article, so you have to click through to 'see all comments'.

Except for the inevitable typo, well put ol' bean.

"Posted by Zat. on (February 02 2010, 07:49 AM GMT)
Congratulations Spanky, you are now in the running to win the 'long bow' award for 2010. Connecting a few drunken idiots in WA who decide to do something stupid at a cricket match with a much more serious problem on the streets of some cities on the other side of the continent is just ludicrous. Your columns over the past two years have become increasingly tabloid and seemingly designed to create invective and further mask any real problems. As for the crowd trouble being caused by alcohol, why do they need huge fences to keep the crowd back at matches in some countries where alcohol isn't served. Please, do us a favour, get on a plane to one of teh non-cricketing nations you mentioned in your diatribe, and leave the true cricket fans in Australia to watch the game they love."

I'm well impressed they allowed you to call him Spanky.

The One wrote:

Hass wrote:He also manages to link the Akmal pitch invasion incident with a "deeper malaise" seguing smoothly into the attacks on Indians in Melbourne.

There's no need to ban grog. The man who tackled Akmal should be fined heavily and charged with assault; clamp down hard on the people who offend - don't ruin the experience for everyone.

they all look the same i guess

Mea Culpa. It pays to make sure you've got the facts right before you criticise someone else's writing.

I don't know why I said Akmal when I meant Latif - we all have brain farts occasionally.

skully wrote:Except for the inevitable typo, well put ol' bean.

It makes it more genuinely me with a typo like that.

Shoeshine wrote:I'm well impressed they allowed you to call him Spanky.

That was a bit of a test to see if I could get away with it.

You could start a wider trend with everyone calling him spanky . . .

I believe they called him that at least once on Melbourne radio station SEN. Not sure of the reaction. Be great if it caught on widely.

Mind you, a google searchwould suggest it already has...

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=spanky+roebuck&meta=&aq=f&oq=