Nigel Roebuck - sour grapes or what !!

[davyboy]

Nigel Roebuck's written a two page editorial in today's Autosport which is amazing in its one-sided put down of Michael Schumacher. I was very surprised to discover that Roebuck felt that way about the 7 time world champion but more so that he felt the need to share such an opinion just a few weeks after the guy retires. Having read his articles for over 30 years, I'll certainly look upon Roebuck very differently from here on in.

[Peter Mallett]

Link?

[davyboy]

Its in the paper mag Peter, I don't think they've got the piece on line yet.

[spectator22]

Havent seen Autosport, but can just imagine the tone. Roebuck seems to be like a number of the Brit F1 media - bit of an outdated, slightly bitter fossil, who should have given it away once Gilles and Mario were gone. F1 has changed, and not necessarily for the better - including the 'professional foul' (ie Michael, Monaco). Bottom line is that Michael has 91 wins, $500m (probably) in the bank, and as time moves on will probably be more fondly remembered than he is right now. I think the Brits still blame Schumacher for Ayrton Senna's death (Joe Saward in MN (Aus) used to go on about Michael pushing Senna over the limit in a dodgy traction-controlled Benetton all the time). Move on guys, get over it. I wonder how Roebuck and his kind would have handled Michael if he had been British?

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by spectator22

I wonder how Roebuck and his kind would have handled Michael if he had been British?

Yes, Roebuck adores British drivers above all others. If Schumacher had been British Roebuck would have been declaring that his faeces had the odour of lavender and that leprous orphans were cured just by thinking about his chin.

You can see that from the hero worship Roebuck had towards Nigel Mansell, whom he considered to have been the epitome of motor racing understatement, always willing to share the credit with his team, generous with the media and downplaying even the most major dramas suffered during a Grand Prix.

Whereas Jean Behra...pah, Roebuck merely considered him to be a monaural Frog.

Yes, Roebuck is clearly in the vanguard of British nationalism and when we take over he will definitely become the Minister for Motor Racing And Putting Johnny Foreigner In Their Place.

[outflat]

For the harder-of-thinking, ensign is clearly being ironic.

Nigel Roebuck calls it as he sees it.

In this world of trying to avoid offence to anyone, that is surely to be welcomed rather than pilloried just because you disagree with him.

Roebuck's view of Schumacher has always been "fantastic driver, but I can't overlook the bad side". He always praises him where its due.

Given at the moment there are a lot of hero-worship articles about on Schumcher, it's very likely that for this issue Roebuck was commssioned to do an article exploring the bad side.

You have to look at this in context rather than taking one article and saying it sums up the man.

[Peter Mallett]

Gosh was he really?

Yes its clear that Nigel is a great journo and as such he can and indeed does inspire all sorts of reactions. The fact that he's being discussed here is an example. I haven't read the piece, indeed its unlikely that I will get the chance but I do know he's always been ambivalent when it comes to Michael and calls it as he sees it.

In this case I would have been surprised to hear of a "Michael is the greatest ever" piece.

[davyboy]

"As we queued for cabs at the airport in Montreal a white 'stretch' limo glided into view. There were flashes of crocodile boot and of gold as Michael and Willi, fresh from New York, climbed aboard. It wasn't particularly edifying and prompted another F1 star, waiting in line with the rest of us, to make a remark of startling political incorrectness" typifies the vein of his piece.

If he did call it as he sees it, he's got a pretty myopic perspective on things. He seems to have dredged through every tabloid moment Schumacher's had [or aleged to have had] and catalogued them into 2 pages of, well I'm too much of a gentleman to say really. It ain't what I buy Autosport to read, that's for sure, and I imagine many a racing fan would agree.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by outflat

Roebuck's view of Schumacher has always been "fantastic driver, but I can't overlook the bad side". He always praises him where its due.

And his Fifth Column about his performance in his final race was positively hagiographic.

[Adam43]

I've not read this yet, but I have to respond to some general points.

Originally Posted by davyboy

I was very surprised to discover that Roebuck felt that way about the 7 time world champion ...

You obviously don't read Roebuck much as it is very much evident from his writing.

Originally Posted by davyboy

Having read his articles for over 30 years, I'll certainly look upon Roebuck very differently from here on in.

Oh. Well maybe you have missed the last ten years.

Originally Posted by davyboy

...more so that he felt the need to share such an opinion just a few weeks after the guy retires...

His fifth column about the last race was full of appreciation.

Originally Posted by spectator22

I wonder how Roebuck and his kind would have handled Michael if he had been British?

The one thing worse than blindly nationalistic views is to accuse someone of it with no foundation. It is Schumacher Roebuck has distaste for, not non-Brits. Pretty much all his favourites are foreigners and you should read his opinions of Mansell. See ensigns reply too.

I've not read the piece yet, but Roebuck is a good writer. I think he takes the Schumacher thing too far sometimes, but I've never come across a writer where I agree with everything they write or the way the write it (Why would I want to?). However he hits the mark more often than not.

Also, I see little difference between his writings and many in this forum. Except he can spell, construct a sentence and makes an effort with grammar

[Gt_R]

Journalists are like the rest of us, they have their bias, and even if they try, sometimes it just comes out.

It's no secret, and hence not a surprise, that Roebuck doesn't like Michael. And hence it's understandable that he tries to qualify his article with a lip-service tribute to MS's achievements and skills (it always works by praising then criticising..), and go to the main point of listing the bad.

That's fine, and please don't be alarmed, because other sites, like grandprix.com, also have a notable bias against MS.

But similarly, there are journalists and commentators who likes MS, like Murray Walker.

On the point of media, often it's really unfortunate that popular media/magazines/websites like grandprix.com let bias affect the quality of their writings. When fans are much taken in by what they read, i think responsible media is important, not one that goes about criticising and speculating of FIA mischieves and such.

And for media which we pay for, i think the responsibility to maintain a quality publication is even higher.

Roebuck has his views, he can say it, and probably the difference is that what he says has a greater influence on readers than the average joe in the forums. Still, personal columns should be taken with an open mind.

[Peter Mallett]

Others who come to mind are Jenks. He wouldn't stop Eulogizing Senna to the point of tedium.

[Mr V]

Roebucks entitled to his opinion as much as the rest of us, the difference is he gets paid for it

[Sodemo]

How dare anyone say anything bad about Schumacher!

[diz]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Also, I see little difference between his writings and many in this forum. Except he can spell, construct a sentence and makes an effort with grammar

[davyboy]

I guess most people, like me, buy publications like Autosport for information and analysis rather than opinion... but to be fair most of their editorials are well thought out. This one I'm not so sure about, even for Roebuck... however its best for people to wait and read it before posting more as there's a possibility that some of us will see it differently to the way I've seen it. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what others [who've read it] think.

[VIVA GT]

OK, I've now read the article during my lunchtime. I admit that I'm not a big TGF fan, although I admire his achievements, I don't always admire his methods.
However, (allowing for my personal view on the man), I think that Nigel Roebuck has been very fair, there are a number of extremely praise-filled sentences within the article.
I can only conclude that our different opinions about the 'bias' of the article is probably tempered by our own particular opinion about the subject.

As someone else has said in this forum, Mr Roebuck is just as entitled to his opinions as anyone else, let's face it, all of our postings on here are 'just our opinions'. Nigel roebuck is just fortunate to do this for a living, and not as a hobby like we ten-tenthers!

(Interestingly, turning the page to mark Hughes' page. The headline is "It amuses me when fans argue the case for 'their man', skewing the evidence to amplify their point". That seems rather appropriate...)

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Also, I see little difference between his writings and many in this forum. Except he can spell, construct a sentence and makes an effort with grammar

Not being able to spell,construct a sentence or make an effort with grammar,didn't stop Mark Blundell from writing articles for the ITV website.

And if he ever says "stepped up to the plate" again on TV,I swear I'll............


i ope mi grammer is has gud has wot yores his Adam.

[John Turner]

I have also now read the piece, and must confess that I really see nothing new in Roebuck's writing here. The surprise to me, is that he has had to write it again when he has so recently covered much of this off. I agree with him, too, about why Senna seems to be let of the hook for setting the example for Schumacher to follow with regard to on track driving ethics. I have often found myself agreeing with davyboy, but on this occasion sit firmly in the opposing camp. Clearly, different readers will draw different conclusions in accordance with their perceptions, as Viva GT has pointed out, but in my view, this is fairly typical Roebuck fare and as balanced as you can be without falling into the 'love or loathe' pigeon holes which the editor, Andrew VdeB, alludes to in his editorial in the same issue. As for the 'Brit' thing, I think that Ensign14 and Adam have pretty much knocked that one on the head.

[Alan Raine]

I've just had time to read the article. It's nothing new. I think Nigel Roebuck believes in the days of Fangio and Moss, where a bit of fair play came into racing. Personally I agree with most of it. Senna took racing to a professional level and Schumacher took it even further where rules were bent a little more!

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I guess most people, like me, buy publications like Autosport for information and analysis rather than opinion... but to be fair most of their editorials are well thought out. This one I'm not so sure about, even for Roebuck... however its best for people to wait and read it before posting more as there's a possibility that some of us will see it differently to the way I've seen it. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what others [who've read it] think.

Are you saying that all comment pieces and articles on any subject should be utterly even-handed?

"Despite his failings, Hitler was actually a really nice bloke..."

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

"Despite his failings, Hitler was actually a really nice bloke..."

We remember him for his failings and evil doing,not his strategical genius.

[Adam43]

Well he had his strategic failings too.

I've read it and there is nothing new in there. And this thread is having a go at someone for having a go!

Interestingly it isn't really Roebuck chosing to write this so soon after his retirement - the whole magazine is a summary of Schuminess. So he did what was required, give his view. How was this point missed, there is even a free (small) poster.

It is a decent article, with interesting stories. I don't agree with some of it, but interesting nonetheless.

[strider]

I agree. It's a feature article in an issue which discusses whether or not Schumacher is the greatest. Roebuck is simply giving his opinion and never claims otherwise. He weighs the good points against the bad, as he sees them, and then gives his conclusion. Perfectly fair, in my opinion.

[Russfeld]

It was when I heard Roebuck's musings on MotoGP that I finally went off him for good. But my was revenge sweet at Valencia.