In Black and White
11 Nov 2007
Jake White, in his autobiography ‘In Black and White’ confirms that Luke Watson was never wanted by the Bok players.
Watson has never been initiated as a Bok player and White holds back nothing in detailing the circumstances that forced him to select Watson for one test against Samoa.
The Rapport Newspaper and Sunday Times newspaper brought exclusivity to the extracts of the book, due for release next week, and Rapport focused mostly on the Watson affair.
Both newspapers also detailed the prominent chapters in the book with White discussing political interference, transformation, player selection, the hell of 2006, the media’s role in South African rugby, the dislike for playing at Loftus among players outside of the Bulls, his relationship with John Smit and Victor Matfield, among others, and the political minefield that dogged his four year tenure.
He insists that Watson simply was never good enough and that the Watson family tried to broker a deal with him to include Luke as a Bok and be secured a future in South African rugby.
White writes his biggest regret is not beating the All Blacks in New Zealand and that would have been his greatest motivation to continue as Bok coach.
607 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 » Show All
11 Nov 2007, 18:43 pm
Jeez. Check this article out. Seems like the Watsons really are a bunch of dirty tricksters:
Luke Watson will remain a Springbok outcast, despite earning his first Test cap earlier this year. South African coach Jake White has confirmed reports, which surfaced at the time, that Watson was never wanted and accepted by the Bok players.
Hoskins has steadfastly defended the decision, despite claims that it was Watson’s political connections – through his father anti-apartheid activist Cheeky Watson’s association with leading political figures and SARU officials – that earned him his Springbok selection.
“I stand by his [Watson's] inclusion in the [Springbok] squad,” Hoskins said at the weekend.
While Watson may have the backing SA rugby bosses, White has confirmed reports that Watson was never initiated as a Bok player – a traditional team ceremony – because of the objections to his inclusion from the players’ ranks.
White, in his book, insists that he feels Watson simply was never good enough to be a Springbok and that the Watson family tried to broker a deal with him.
According to White, who will have one last fling as a Bok coach when he takes the South African team on a two-match tour of the United Kingdom later this month, other the players felt they had earned their places on merit in the team and Watson did not.
The players simply “tolerated” Watson in the Bok team for the mid-year Tests against England and Samoa, but he was never accepted as part of the squad.
White also spoke about the misinformation that was spread in the media to raise Watson’s profile, in an attempt to justify the SARU hierarchy’s decision to foist Watson onto the team.
The players became irritated that Watson was receiving so much attention and the fact that SARU/SA Rugby officials interfered in team selections.
According to White all the Super 14 coaches – with the exception of Stormers coach Kobus van der Merwe, who was not contacted – told him that they would not have picked Watson.
“They all said ‘no’ and it confirmed my opinion that he was not good enough to be a Springbok,” White is quoted as saying in his book.
White adds that the players then declined to initiate Watson in the traditional team ceremony and other players asked not to be considered for the Test against Samoa because they did not want to be associated with a team that included Watson.
After the Samoan Test, Watson and centre Waylon Murray had their capping ceremonies.
Murray had 16 people, all friends and family, present.
Watson was capped on his own. His father sat outside, having coffee with SA Rugby deputy president Mike Stofile.
The Bok coach also reveals that in a clandestine meeting he was offered a deal by the Watson family, which would have saved White’s career, if Luke Watson was named in the World Cup squad.
According to Chapter 37 Brian Bierbuyck, who was also the Watson family’s lawyer, was asked to negotiate with White.
White speaks of a document with “nine demands” – which included that Watson goes to the World Cup – was put to him. In return, the Watsons would have ensured that he is not axed as Bok coach and would continue beyond 2007.
White said he was flabbergasted by these developments.
“Brian mentioned something about the power to know what tomorrow’s news will be. He said there would be a report in the media about a so-called third force in South African rugby and that I [White] will be connected to this.”
The Star newspaper on May 15, did in fact publish a report in which Watson’s father, Cheeky Watson, claimed a sinister ‘third force’ was ruling SA rugby and that his son is paying the price for his political background.
“I realised that Luke – or his family – did indeed have extraordinary political connections and it appeared that they had the support of powerful people in government and in rugby.”
White, in his book, says: “Articles have been written about my supposed feud with his father.
“I’ve met Cheeky once, and until he started criticising me in the press, I had absolutely nothing against him … My views on the Watson family’s political past are completely ambivalent, as I’ve never been a political person.”
White writes that Watson had every opportunity in the game, unlike his father, “so when I read quotes or heard people saying he’d suffered while growing up, I have to admit, I found that difficult to stomach. As a rugby player, it doesn’t appear as if he was left wanting as a child.”
11 Nov 2007, 18:47 pm
watson’s a poephol…and so is his politically minded family…F**K EM!
11 Nov 2007, 18:53 pm
351.. Can’t see too many Xmas cards being exchanged between the White and Watson families in the future…
I would still like to hear the other side of the story.
11 Nov 2007, 18:56 pm
Joke White, the master of innuendo’s, leaks and martyrdom is at it again.
Why am I not surprised. Bribes by the Watsons to play for his team? Only White will believe that. Why didn’t he leak this saucy bits in the same way that so many other “I-am-a-martyr” pieces were leaked?
He is a psycho case. Telling himself things over and over untill he believes it himself.
Six months ago he didn’t want to be coach. A couple of weeks ago he cried foul play when his bosses did what he wanted. To be fired.
Then his rotten book was already at least 98% completed.
Then he suddenly decided: I want 6 months off.
The latest: I am not interested in the English coaching post. As if England wanted him. Who would in any case appoint a coach with a schysophrenic personality.
Funny. Corne Krige is now also a White praise singer. The same guy who alleged that White drew up the questions for the shortlisting which led to White’s appointment. Who in any case is Krige to have an opinion. After all, he is the worst captain in Springbok history.
Go to hell Jake. Take Krige and Keo with you.
11 Nov 2007, 19:03 pm
Calling the Super 14 coaches for a comment on Luke’s abilities?
Joke, Joke.
11 Nov 2007, 19:03 pm
I sing White’s praise. Done and Done…
Mettie, you seem to be a doos who can’t think for yourself!
11 Nov 2007, 19:13 pm
It also looks as if a number of the Unions didn’t want Jake either.
Why not just say that none of the selectors felt that Luke wasn’t yet up to it? I seem to remember that at the beginning Jake stated that he would advise any fringe player why he wasn’t selected and what improvements he’d have to make. Luke wasn’t exactly a non runner.
11 Nov 2007, 19:14 pm
And that after Luke Watson was selected S14 player of 2006 and narrowly lost to Kabamba as Player’s player of the year.
Joke, you must be jaking (spelling correct). I cannot imagine the S14 coaches turning against the player of the year to the extend that Joke says. And the players: after selecting him as co-player of the year!!!!
Joke, you clown.
11 Nov 2007, 19:15 pm
David – what I can’t understand is why the Watson family went to those lengths to get their son in the team…It’s like going against the grain, it’s like quota’s. Etc etc…My family certainly would never pull strings to get me in, regardless of the circumstances…you end up getting in for the wrong reasons and then you become part of negative press, as is the case now for the poor *******!
11 Nov 2007, 19:18 pm
Mettie – Luke Watson is a ***, Just like you, come to think of it.
11 Nov 2007, 19:24 pm
BokBoi most of what Mettie is saying makes sense. You are calling him a *** just because he goes against what you are preaching so maybe read what he has to say. Jake did say he wanted to quit and when SARU let him go he whined. Why?
11 Nov 2007, 19:32 pm
Bagel, the real question here is whether or not we will win the World cup in 2011 in NZ.
11 Nov 2007, 19:33 pm
Bagel, the real question here is why the World Champ’s team is made up of Bulls and Sharks?
11 Nov 2007, 19:33 pm
Bagel, the real question here is who’ll be next Bok coach?
11 Nov 2007, 19:40 pm
359… BokBoi That is jakes side of the story.
Luke and his family are entitled to give their side.
11 Nov 2007, 19:55 pm
BokBoi, it is not something new for a father to buy or organise his son into a team , i can guaratee you a Kudu or rooibok was offered before in Springbok history, remember the Maties under Dok Craven, sure you will find a favour or 2 somewhere.
Yust watched Jake on Carte Blance, Dereck Watts rightly said he was surprised that Jake even gave the over from Cheeky Watson any thoughts. Make one wonder about the honesty of Jake.
11 Nov 2007, 19:57 pm
over must be offer
11 Nov 2007, 19:59 pm
Bagel, it was required of Jake to apply for his job one day before the World Cup. Hell, I’ve got sympathy for the guy. Imagine, you are preparing for the biggest project in your career and your boss come and say: apply for job. Ridiculous.
11 Nov 2007, 20:00 pm
“As if England wanted him. Who would in any case appoint a coach with a schysophrenic personality.” -Mettie
Lets see, he won the
rugby world cup
tri nations
irb coach of the year 2004
irb coach of the year 2007
team of the year 2004
team of the year 2007
he’s been coaching for 17 years?
won the u21 rugby world cup..
i guess you’re right mettie, why would they want him? Doos.
11 Nov 2007, 20:02 pm
Kayoss, agree
11 Nov 2007, 20:03 pm
Bokboi #359
I agree,. The trouble is we all know how one eyed some parents get about their sons. We see it every day at school matches. I must admit, I didn’t think I’d see it from Cheeky, a man I always admired for his integrity, if Jakes comments are correct. Having said that, I also know of a certain ex Bok who believes that his son was the victim of quota selections. Something very few other people agree with.
I suppose that you just can’t rule out the human factor from any situation.
11 Nov 2007, 20:04 pm
He does have an impressive CV…
11 Nov 2007, 20:06 pm
I just don’t like how he handled Luke now. He is just a kid and Jake has slammed him and screwed his career!
11 Nov 2007, 20:10 pm
I just dont like the attack by Jake on Lukes caracter, this player realy played good rugby in 2006. And that in a strugling WP/Stormers team. Jake was always a guy who said to much.
11 Nov 2007, 20:13 pm
Agreed SuperBul, but… You are a Bul? You think Luke played good rugby? OW! My head…
11 Nov 2007, 20:14 pm
Boerbul
He actually told SARU before the WC that he wasn’t going to reapply.
Bagel
I agree that he treated Luke badly long before his father intervened.
11 Nov 2007, 20:16 pm
After watching Carte Blanche I feel even sorrier for young Luke. Hell, the kid just never stood a chance – what a pity! I too have admired Cheeky Watson for the integrity I thought him to possess – I am bitterly dissapointed (if all the allegations are true….I shall not judge until the full truth has been disclosed from BOTH sides)I am a touch pissed with Jake for saying, “He isn’t a good player – the most overerated player at this level…..” – Jake seems to have forgotten about Barbie, Albert and quite a few others HE has selected. I admire Jake, and he was a great coach, but all is STILL not what it seems.
I mean, Cheeky (fanatical parent and transformation poster child of the 70′s)going to those lengths – its evil, BUT demanding to have contracts renewed and holding “employers” to ransom – seems to be similar evil.
So WHO is evil, who is wrong, who is the victim?? This is SA rugby folk – WE ALL LOSE whichever “side” you choose. In my mind, the big loser, along with the talented Luke Watson himself; is SA rugby – once more……Bah HUmbug!
11 Nov 2007, 20:18 pm
Bagel yes i did feel he played great rugby i even said here on Keo he would be a great buy for the Bulls, But you know HM is a great spotter of talent and he picked my other favourite new recruit,Wickus.
11 Nov 2007, 20:19 pm
Jake really lashed at him on Carte Blanche too saying he is overrated. Talent was never an issue with Watson in my eyes…
11 Nov 2007, 20:19 pm
Ja-nee, Jake didn’t mince his words on Carte Blanche, but then it is what the name of the program implies.
I’ve met Jake at a rugby function of school in Somerset West earlier this year. He had the same attitude then, not afraid to call a spade a spade.
11 Nov 2007, 20:21 pm
YES all, remember when the ENTIRE country from Loftus to Newlands was calling for Luke to be selected……He deserved to be there on merit at that stage – end of story. Jake made some really childish comments about his kids being “fetchers” – when they go and get a beer out of the fridge for him……Even the Kiwis (players, coaches and commentators) could not understand why Luke was never selected. I’l never forget Richie saying that in early 2006, Luke was the best player in SA, and the toughest opponent he had played against…..(during that campaign)
Hell, I am so pissed off with all those that have pissed on Luke’s career right now…..Back to war!
11 Nov 2007, 20:23 pm
Super Wickus isn’t really such a great investment to be honest, had a great season last year but in the future HM should move Kuun back to the flank, that kid is class…
11 Nov 2007, 20:23 pm
I find the point of view of Bulls supporters like Tacitus very interesting. They all asume that any bok coach should ally themselves with the Bulls if he wants to survive.
In the same breath they rant on how any inteference from the left is unacceptable. They wonder why everybody else hates them.
HYPOCRYTES.
11 Nov 2007, 20:24 pm
I just think Jake picked the wrong player to call “He isn’t a good player – the most overerated player at this level…..â€
Opens a can of worms and opens himself if we start scrutinizing his favourite picks.
11 Nov 2007, 20:28 pm
voshd everything you said sounded good except the hate part… I now deem you a moron.
11 Nov 2007, 20:29 pm
Cheers all off to study…
11 Nov 2007, 20:30 pm
Ruck
The “whole country from Newlands to Loftus” never wanted Luke in the team. Maybe the Newlands part, but certainly not much farther than that.
SuperBul
For once I totally agreed with Jake. About Luke being totally overrated. And the other Bok players obviously shared that sentiment.
11 Nov 2007, 20:31 pm
Bagel ,
Wickus is a gem, he is back where he belongs, this is a great buy. If he slagged down at the end of the season , just remember he wasnt in the elite rested group at first, he still had to play himself into contention for the WC squad, so in Jakes own words he was not conditioned is well as the rest of Jakes BOYS. But still he was a great asset to the Boks cause.
11 Nov 2007, 20:32 pm
#382 – Bagel, I believe they’re trying Kuun at flyhalf – he can play anywhere. Only kidding.
Flank IS his position – and they have to let him play there. It’s like Rassie deciding to convert Schalk into a hooker…
11 Nov 2007, 20:33 pm
Or the other Boks don’t like a charismatic English speaking guy whose father fought against what their fathers believed in… Or maybe they just though he was overrated, I mean only Richie McCaw along with the rest of Australasia thought he was class…
11 Nov 2007, 20:35 pm
#387 – No Tacitus, there were calls from far and wide to have Luke included when he was playing such great rugga. Maybe not you – but many Bulls commentators and journalists were definitely on the Pro-Luke wagon at that stage. JJ Harmse, and quite a few others.
11 Nov 2007, 20:40 pm
I would love to see Keo follow up with the S12/14 coaches at the time and find out why they told Jake that Luke was overated.
I’m open to their opinion, I just feel that Jake has gone overboard about ridiculing the kid because of his father.
I also have the suspicion that if Eddie was involved two years ago, he would have included Luke in the mix. Not as 1st choice, but a decided contender.
11 Nov 2007, 20:40 pm
Tac , a lot of players will also write thier autobiographies soon , expect different views the moment they retire expect a lot of revelations to come, it will be stange if 30 or lets say the 72 players under Jake all feel he is the best and agree with him.
Who would you think would like Luke the least?
Other loose forwards?
His biggest gat gabba JS?
11 Nov 2007, 20:44 pm
luke watson, to me, has always played like your typical school first xv hero, a bit on the flank, a bit at scrumhalf, sometimes flyhalf – always where he is likely to be noticed and applauded.
unfortunately, first class rugby today requires players to be specialists at their positions. it’s a bit more mature than 17 year-olds playing for the spectators from the girl’s school across the road.
11 Nov 2007, 20:48 pm
#392 – Agree. I am really upset by the manner in which an adult, Jake, “bitched” like a female about a player – as I have said before – I would be pissed off whoever the player was. Its just not cricket. Its nasty!
11 Nov 2007, 20:49 pm
charo realy?
Matfield , Schalk…… never in the backline?
11 Nov 2007, 20:51 pm
there is no doubt that luke watson is a disruptive influence.
his departure from the sharks was welcomed by the squad – there is no doubt about that if you listen to unofficial comments from the players.
it seems that his participation with the stormers has been equally divisive – simply because fester recognised his ball playing abilities only.
to those in the anti-jw/js brigade – do you seiously think that the boks would have regained their dignity with luke as captain?
11 Nov 2007, 20:51 pm
cant believe i am defending a WP player, must be because Jake is involved.
11 Nov 2007, 20:56 pm
hey Tacitus – you can make fun of the stormers team all you like, but you and i both know rassie has beaten the bulls with fewer resources in the past. are you sure you aren’t just a little bit worried. you should be.
11 Nov 2007, 20:57 pm
Charo – I am a Jake White “fan” and have always applauded John Smit’s leadership…..Be honest Charo, at some stage you must have questioned if John Smit was the best hooker in the country when his form was “wayward” at times. I never felt Jake should drop him though – his leadership was integral to Bok success.
I would never make Luke a Bok captain or any other, which is why I would be relieved if Schalk did take over down here. (I am sure this would be better for Luke 2) BUT: I rate Luke as a player, always have – always will. He has been roughshodded, and thats a pity – as a player, not a captain.
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.