Strife in Somerset

[fredfertang]

Strife in Somerset

The English domestic game is rarely a hotbed of turmoil, but it has had its moments, and in this feature Martin remembers one of the more divisive incidents

 

[Howe_zat]

Not the only embarrassing part from Ian Botham to be revealed this week

 

[Biryani Pillow]

IIRC another matter was the regulations relating to overseas players.

In 1986 Counties were able to have two overseas players on the staff at any one time but only one could play - unlike the late 70s when they both could. This was changing for 1987 and only one could be on the staff.

This meant that either Garner or Richards would certainly have been cut so, in any case, Somerset would have had to decide between two ageing stars. There was a sense (I think justified) that Richards' powers were beginning to wane. Garner also wasn't the player he had been and if, as the report suggests, he didn't want to play Championship cricket, that would have been a big factor regarding him.

It just happened that they had a chance at a top batsman (who could also bowl usefully at times) just coming into his prime. I recall at the time that this looked like a no brainer for many. The trouble was caused by those not realising that the glory days of Richards and Garner were over and one of them had to go anyway. Whichever one did go would have resulted in ructions, not as serious as what finally happened but still big as both had their camps. If Richards went Botham was also sure to go. He was still capable of some outstanding performances but these were, as is the case with most internationals as they get older, far less likely to occur at County level.

Notwithstanding the injury that Crowe suffered, which couldn't have been predicted, I felt the Committee made the only decision they could.

 

[CWB304]

"Roebuck was a Cambridge graduate, who went on to be an acclaimed writer before, tortured by press interest in his private life, he took his own life in 2011."

Well-researched article, as always, but I feel the quoted sentence takes British tact and discretion a little too far. I was in primary school in Wiltshire at the time, and my headmaster (and cricket batting coach) was on the Somerset committee. Roebuck was known even then to be a nasty piece of work. He just about had the support of the committee in what was a difficult decision, but even then many disapproved of his methods and suspected him of being motivated not so much by what was best for the club but by feelings of resentment and envy and spite against its "stars" - as you rightly acknowledge, 'everyone' knew that Botham would inevitably follow Richards and Garner out of the door.

Now we know more about Roebuck's extra-curricular activities it is perhaps a little bit clearer why he felt so conflicted about the Masterblaster and Big Bird. You'll recall that Roebuck was convicted of Common Assault in England for administering corporal punishment by spanking three young cricketers with what the judge remarked was a clearly ***ual intent. He then upped sticks and left - a prophet without honour in his own land - to be a cricketing pundit in Australia and a 'philanthropist' in southern Africa, helping out young men he referred to as his 'sons' - in return for their accepting his spankings and ***ual advances.

Roebuck was an abuser and a ***ual predator. Even if not an actual paedophile - his victims were of legal age -, he was, under the cover of being a philanthropist, grooming vulnerable young people over whom he had considerable power. As we're now seeing in the UK, as the enormities of the late MP Cyril Smith and entertainers such as the late Jimmy Savile and the sadly still alive Rolf Harris are beginning to come to light, the most dangerous thing is to use circumlocutions about what is quite obviously abuse and predation by powerful persons. Such double talk makes it virtually impossible for victims to get justice. Roebuck was NOT "tortured by press interest in his private life"; he topped himself just as South African police were about to expose him for the abuser and ***ual predator that he was.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah AWTA the phrasing of that Roebuck bit makes him sound like they hounded him for his son being a pisshead rather than him being a nonce.

 

[fredfertang]

"Roebuck was a Cambridge graduate, who went on to be an acclaimed writer before, tortured by press interest in his private life, he took his own life in 2011."

Well-researched article, as always, but I feel the quoted sentence takes British tact and discretion a little too far. I was in primary school in Wiltshire at the time, and my headmaster (and cricket batting coach) was on the Somerset committee. Roebuck was known even then to be a nasty piece of work. He just about had the support of the committee in what was a difficult decision, but even then many disapproved of his methods and suspected him of being motivated not so much by what was best for the club but by feelings of resentment and envy and spite against its "stars" - as you rightly acknowledge, 'everyone' knew that Botham would inevitably follow Richards and Garner out of the door.

Now we know more about Roebuck's extra-curricular activities it is perhaps a little bit clearer why he felt so conflicted about the Masterblaster and Big Bird. You'll recall that Roebuck was convicted of Common Assault in England for administering corporal punishment by spanking three young cricketers with what the judge remarked was a clearly ***ual intent. He then upped sticks and left - a prophet without honour in his own land - to be a cricketing pundit in Australia and a 'philanthropist' in southern Africa, helping out young men he referred to as his 'sons' - in return for their accepting his spankings and ***ual advances.

Roebuck was an abuser and a ***ual predator. Even if not an actual paedophile - his victims were of legal age -, he was, under the cover of being a philanthropist, grooming vulnerable young people over whom he had considerable power. As we're now seeing in the UK, as the enormities of the late MP Cyril Smith and entertainers such as the late Jimmy Savile and the sadly still alive Rolf Harris are beginning to come to light, the most dangerous thing is to use circumlocutions about what is quite obviously abuse and predation by powerful persons. Such double talk makes it virtually impossible for victims to get justice. Roebuck was NOT "tortured by press interest in his private life"; he topped himself just as South African police were about to expose him for the abuser and ***ual predator that he was.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Yeah AWTA the phrasing of that Roebuck bit makes him sound like they hounded him for his son being a pisshead rather than him being a nonce.

Fair points gents, though I still think what I said was accurate in the context of what I was writing about (ie Roebuck was a peripheral albeit important part of the story), but if I imply that the press interest was without justification then that of course is wrong.

I did at one stage start to write a piece about Roebuck, before he died, as there are some slightly odd pieces of writing about him around, which I eventually decided must be because the libel readers had had their red pens out. He can't be libelled now of course, and I am slightly surprised we haven't yet seen a full biography, but I'm sure someone must be working on one