St Luke slays Loftus louts
9 Mar 2009
Keo, in his Business Day newspaper weekly column, writes of a player’s triumph and defeat at Loftus.
The Stormers lost in Pretoria but Luke Watson definitely won against a Loftus crowd whose game plan lacked imagination and was devoid of all invention.
The crowd behaviour was as abysmal as the quality of rugby and indeed it was Watson who seemed to intimidate the near 50 000 voices by simply accepting their challenge of continued booing by asking if that was all they had to offer.
It reminded me of former All Blacks wing Jeff Wilson toying with the Newlands crowd a decade ago. Wilson, playing for the Highlanders in the Super 12, was jeered the first time he touched the ball, but midway through the match he was begging the crowd for a reaction as he scored his third try.
With both hands reaching for both ears he gestured for increased noise levels, as he could hear nothing coming from the crowd. It was hilarious and the vocal bullies had nowhere to turn but to further embarrassment. What did these morons do 10 years ago in response to Wilson’s third try? Predictably they booed.
It was the same in Pretoria. What else did the louts of Loftus have to give? Nothing, and when Watson calmly robbed Pierre Spies of the ball in contact and fashioned another clever turnover all the crowd could respond with was another boo as effective as South Africa’s cricket challenge in recent weeks against Australia.
The humiliation belonged to those attempting to ridicule.
Watson, like many of his fictional heroes in the Bible, thrives on confrontation and conflict. Adversity is another must in his working day, as is being condemned by those non-believers of freedom of speech.
In going to Loftus, all the above elements were script guarantees for the stereotype of the persecuted and defiant Christian and naturally, armed with self-belief and backed by God, Watson prospered.
The Loftus crowd, many of them believers of Christianity, misread the contest because effectively they were doing battle with one of their own, but whereas they lacked conviction in their application of resentment, Watson was committed to his stand of defiance.
Watson, disgusted at wearing a jersey with a Springbok emblem on it, is not popular for saying so. He is even less popular for calling South African rugby a game run by Afrikaners, even though there has never been a disciplinary to confirm if he ever did utter the supposedly wicked word ‘dutchmen’.
Watson, the public relations man, is a boring project because his rants and contradictions are as predictable as the Loftus crowd booing. His rugby, though, has more enterprise and is powerful.
He has never produced a Test performance of authority, but his international career has been brief and conditions and playing circumstances cannot compare to the environment of Super Rugby, which is a world made for the skills of Watson.
His Super Rugby pedigree cannot be disputed. Whether you despise his personality or revere him, he can play Super rugby and in Pretoria he did a damn better job of it than local hero Pierre Spies, who for all his athleticism still goes into mute mode when the Bulls tight five engine can’t get out of neutral.
Watson in the one-on-one match-up outplayed Spies, which does not mean I’d pick him ahead of Spies for the Springboks. I wouldn’t, but to dispute Watson’s superiority over Spies at the weekend would be a betrayal for anyone gifted a healthy set of eyes.
Watson is a clever player, whose athleticism is matched by an ability to read the game and by good skills. He may physically struggle in contact but his mind never battles to go forward.
These factors helped him beat the Loftus louts, but because of his persecution complex about being a privileged white Watson in a black South Africa these factors are meaningless in Watson’s fight to beat out of himself the need to be a South African rugby martyr; liable for the actions of those who lived in an era he has only ever read about.
Watson, the rugby player, won in Pretoria, but it is Watson the rugby player who never wins in Watson’s world – and that will always be the tragedy of a player whose world does not allow him to simply be a rugby player.
1,045 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 … 21 » Show All
9 Mar 2009, 17:09 pm
#426 hjk:
apologies, i see where u r coming from and most of those you mention make my point exactly. the PFP was the only white party to stand against racism, but their leaders were far from the left in a modern sense, they were educated elite capitalists that were against racism – not dissimilar from the conservative party or republican party in britain.
Labour which is more on the left has a more socialist bent. There were very few like that in SA, even to this today. Perhaps only Joe Slovo who headed up the SACP, which was almost entirely black.
Which is why when one hears every tool and his dog trotting out the blase-expression “commie liberals”, nothing was further from the truth, they were liberals but the real lefties were very few and far between.
In fact, interestingly, the party that had commie roots, was the NP. Its true, go look it up. It was all nationalism and afrikaaners worker interests etc. Big commies so am not when the ‘rooi gevaar’ crept into their learning curve. Those okes got so confused with their own theology and rhetoric no-one knew what was cutting, still to this day, niks.
9 Mar 2009, 17:09 pm
#486 Xkreni-WP: Lout indeed. Thank you dude for proving Luke’s point.
ladies and gentleman. Here is the prime example of what Luke was talking about.
9 Mar 2009, 17:10 pm
#443 pommie: spot on on your prediction, half way there anyway…
9 Mar 2009, 17:10 pm
#498 hater: You really live up to your name. If you could change SA, what would you change? Honestly?
9 Mar 2009, 17:10 pm
#494 Xkreni-WP:
Sorry, you’re not my type.
9 Mar 2009, 17:12 pm
#457 Biggles: Question, is sa rugby run by Afrikaaners or Dutchmen, yes or no, if its yes whats the fuss when someone merely points it out however if its a lie, i.e. SA rugby not run by Afrikaaners then Luke must be brought to book for telling lies
9 Mar 2009, 17:13 pm
Cheers all. Hope our Proteas hang in for the draw tomorrow.
Felt like I was posting between a huge fight above and below me the whole time. Phew!! out of here now.
9 Mar 2009, 17:13 pm
#490 GARY H:
that oke should be jailed, straight.
9 Mar 2009, 17:14 pm
Luke is 15 years too late as far as his obsessed ideals to “transform” rugby go. Rugby has changed already, and it will continue to do so, and I hope it will. It is very exciting to see a black guy who was picked to play for the Boks on merit play against the best in the world and succeed. One, it can only help the Boks to be the best in the world, or strive to be that. Two, it IS a sign that we are moving forward. I am thinkin go guys like THE BEAST (what a player); Brian Habana (one of my all time favorites); JP Pietersen and believe it or not, I have to give Adi jacobs credit. When we are playing “stampkar” rugby as teh Boks tend to do, he is the “little guy” aka Giteau who can slice through the toughest defence. And believe me, I was not happy when he was first picked, but he has proven his merit to be in the mix at the top. WIthout the help of Luke Watson.
9 Mar 2009, 17:14 pm
#501 cab: Hmmm. I think I see where you’re coming from. It feels to me as though we have different ideas of what a ‘liberal’ is, and I suppose there isn’t a definitive answer. All the PFP (don’t forget the NRP, which was also pretty prog until it merged, if I remember correctly, with the PFP) people were pretty ‘liberal’ in their views. I do believe that there is more to this, though. I’m not sure exactly what your meta-argument is, so I’m not sure what we’re debating, or maybe we are actually just missing each other.
9 Mar 2009, 17:14 pm
#506 WP Till I Die:
I know, too much of a man.
You like to be the one turning the little boys around.
That is why you support the team you do, always like to come in a little behind.
9 Mar 2009, 17:15 pm
#503 hater:
Fine by me you racist piece of ****
9 Mar 2009, 17:16 pm
#510 hjk:
no you are probably right in the true sense of the word ‘liberal’, but the impression most have, not you, is some sort of commie lefty – to which I say they were quite far removed from that part of the spectrum.
9 Mar 2009, 17:16 pm
#506 XhosaKid: There are not Dutch men running SA rugby – those would be people who are Dutch citizens and are male. Would people like Mike Stofile, Oregan Hoskins, Silas Nkanunu and the like qualify as Afrikaners?
9 Mar 2009, 17:17 pm
#506 XhosaKid: hisory will tell you that what Luke is trying to get in the spotlight for WAS very true. And maybe some whites are tenaciously trying to hang on for as long as they can, but make no mistake, Luke is fighting with the wrong weapons at the wrong time. People ARE willing to sit and listen, and if not, the ANC will make sure they do.
9 Mar 2009, 17:17 pm
#386 tight head: yup, already tried to, it does make it sound as if you dont know what the hell you’re talking about!
9 Mar 2009, 17:17 pm
Anyways, Go Bulls.
I will support any team playing the briesies. Especially with little Lulu there. Should he play for the Boks again, my team will be the Bulls and the All Blacks. Might as well join our bigotted brothers from another colour
9 Mar 2009, 17:18 pm
I am not interested in getting involved in all this political stuff, I just have a genuine question. Maybe Luke Watson answered it somewhere and I missed it, and if so could someone tell me what was said?
As far as I am concerned Watson is entitled to his opinions, same as everyone who posts here is entitled to theirs, but my question is, why did Watson play in the Springbok jersey in the first place? Wouldnt it have made more sense to make his views known at the time and refused to play in the team, rather than after the event?
I am just genuinely curious and wonder if anyone knows the answer?
9 Mar 2009, 17:18 pm
#514 hjk:
i understood he was talking about the real power, not the appointed figureheads, i thought he meant the men heading up by the big six unions and the general exclisive priviliedged fanbase.
9 Mar 2009, 17:18 pm
#511 Xkreni-WP: That is a disgusting comment. Comments like this should be made in a private forum, and not here. You’re a disgrace to this site.
9 Mar 2009, 17:19 pm
#517 Xkreni-WP: Good for you
9 Mar 2009, 17:19 pm
#450 hjk: any person who can draw any resemblance from apartheid and today’s SA is clearly smoking something.I will not even go down that route, quiet clearly you are too much of an idiot to try and salvage, I hope you have a great life
9 Mar 2009, 17:20 pm
#513 cab: Sorry – I meant to agree with your socialist/communist jibe at the Nats. They were a bit confused, but they did manage to hang on to power for just over 40 years. Mandela and his legal team used the Nats’ confusion to great effect during either the treason trial or the second sabotage trial where they had Nat people under cross-examination, to see if they could recognise a communist statement if they heard it. They quoted pieces out of the Sermon on the Mount, if memory serves, and the witness (whose name now escapes me) deemed it to be communist. He was rather red-faced when the defence revealed that it was ****** Himself who said it…
9 Mar 2009, 17:20 pm
#520 Isigidi: He can say what he wants. It just exposed him for the person he really is
9 Mar 2009, 17:20 pm
#355 pommie: I’m not a brown person from the Cape. Why don;t you ask Dawn if she is insulted. You appear to be insulting her.
9 Mar 2009, 17:20 pm
#511 Xkreni-WP:
You’re the one who mentioned sucking c*ck. Obsessed with such things?
9 Mar 2009, 17:21 pm
#518 cat66:
that is indeed a problem, but his speech i understand was aimed at what the bok emblem had come to represent in the past and for his father and the generation of ppl he respected. this would in fact be in line with his many subseuqent statements that he wore the emblem with pride.
the fact remains tho, there are many that are more than entitled to want to vomit on the Springbok.
9 Mar 2009, 17:21 pm
#497 St.Petersburgbok: f u
9 Mar 2009, 17:22 pm
So everybody is still fighting?
9 Mar 2009, 17:23 pm
#528 XhosaKid: come on now, none of that
9 Mar 2009, 17:23 pm
#512 Xkreni-WP: And he is proud to be trash too. Anything else. Luke forgot some adjectives when he described you.
9 Mar 2009, 17:24 pm
#323 Ig: No Ig that might be where they descended from but it became a name of ridicule used by English speaking Saffers to try and denote that they were of Boeren achterstand. Whichever way you look at it its not the name but the intent it conveys thats disparaging.
9 Mar 2009, 17:25 pm
#530 SpringbokSarah: never mind, I just read his post. F away…
9 Mar 2009, 17:25 pm
#522 XhosaKid: Yours is called an ad hominem argument and rugby players get yellow carded for playing the man and not the ball. Your answer makes it seem that you are unwilling to engage the issue. Calling me an idiot tell me a lot more about you than it does about me, I’m afraid. You call yourself “Xhosakid” which to me means you’re a young person who speaks Xhosa. Maybe learn to respect your elders a little more. I hope you have a nice time growing up, and that you actually learn something. I’m not trying to be mean to you either, I hope you grow up free of the hate I see on this blog. Have a nice life too, young person.
9 Mar 2009, 17:25 pm
#501 cab:
Do you not think there was ever a ‘Rooi gevaar’
Maybe the Cuban missile crisis was also all imagined?
Interesting.
Funnily enough, the Russians have answered up lately on what their role/missions were in Africa in the 80′s – and that was to help FAPLA and SWAPO achieve their aims of driving back the SA army – all the way out of Namibia.
Do you think the Russians did this because they were against apartheid, or could they have had clandestine objectives, that is a foothold closer to the old enemy – USA.
(This is a serious question)
9 Mar 2009, 17:26 pm
#467 Puma: I’m glad you have finally seen this, I have been advocating for this to happen for some time, in modern day cricket, a team can’t afford to have a specialist wicketkeeper, there must be an allrounder keeping and Boucher is not, his stat over 100 games show the truth about his batting ability
9 Mar 2009, 17:28 pm
#504 hjk: Tolerance. And a desire to make it a better place for all. Leadership we could trust, and for prejudice in all shapes and forms to be eradicated.
9 Mar 2009, 17:28 pm
#519 cab: He may be correct about the President’s council, I’m not 100% sure. I’m wondering about the Elite fan base, as you put it – if it’s a problem that there are lots of whites in that grouping, the way around it is for black people with money/power/influence to become “elite rugby fans”. I’m not trying to be facetious, but if Luke has a problem with rich white people liking rugby, I don’t see what can be done about it. Butana might want to legislate against well-off whites likeing rugby, maybe?
9 Mar 2009, 17:29 pm
#537 hater: I can go with that. I do believe we have common ground between the two of us here.
9 Mar 2009, 17:29 pm
#535 Stawm:
Quite simply put, Southern Africa was a massively important strategic point in the Cold War – having an ally in command of the southern tip of Africa (and hence exerting a sphere of influence over the southern ocean route) would have been extremely important to the Soviet Union.
If they were at all able to invade South Africa given enough of a platform out of Angola or Mozambique, they probably would have.
9 Mar 2009, 17:30 pm
#509 savethespringbok: How is he too late, when people at Loftus according to Richie called him a “k@ffir boetie”.
9 Mar 2009, 17:30 pm
I get soooooooo angry when I’m called a “********”…. because I’m actually a “Crout”…
My forebears arrived in the Cape in 1662, 10 years after Jan (The ********) Van Riebeeck…. but my people were from Steinbruckfurt in Wesfale, on the German side of the border…. in Germany !!
Zo, I’m ze German… Yawohl !
Ich bin kein “Duchman” !!
Swein hund !!
9 Mar 2009, 17:31 pm
#530 SpringbokSarah: Did you read his comments?
9 Mar 2009, 17:32 pm
#540 WP Till I Die:
Exactly because of this the Yanks and the Brits turned a bit of a blind eye to international condemnation of the South African and Rhodesian regimes under sanctions, and in many cases quite actively helped those governments.
9 Mar 2009, 17:33 pm
#535 Stawm:
no, i know about the cuban missile crisis, they were assembling nuclear warheads off the coast of the USA.
the only nuclear warheads ever produced on the african continent were by the nats who acquired the teechnology from abroad with payment in gold worked off miners backs.
I think SA was a big bully who was the relative superpower in a region and the skirmishes they foght in, they were overwhelmingly more powerful in weaponry and rubbish. Like the Nazis they contentrated their efforts into creating a war machine and a macho military culture, but unlike the nazis they never really fought in a proper war with real losses.
9 Mar 2009, 17:33 pm
#535 Stawm: While the soviet Union existed, there was a Rooi Gevaar. If there was a marxist govt in SA it would have shifted the balance of power and control of the Indian Ocean and the Southern Atlantic firmly in the direction of the Soviets. Not to mention rich Uranium, gold and platinum resources that they could then have developed for the friendly SA govt.
9 Mar 2009, 17:33 pm
#543 XhosaKid:
Yes, but try to be the better man.
9 Mar 2009, 17:35 pm
#528 XhosaKid:
well that is just brilliant.
Keo.co.za’s version of the traditional Xhosa Toi-Toi?
The Xhosa mindset…so preditctable, so laughable, so pathetic.
9 Mar 2009, 17:35 pm
#497 St.Petersburgbok:everyone can see what you are. Most would rather no associate with your type. You are entitled to your views. Bigotted as they are I suppose.
9 Mar 2009, 17:37 pm
#545 cab: Not quite so. The SAs were usually outnumbered. It’s a long discussion, but if you could possibly get hold of the Kyknet series “Grensoorlog” it’ll put things into perspective. It’s a fairly balanced series, with interviews with SWAPO guys, Cubans, SAs and a lot of other people.
True about SA’s nukes. I believe they were intended to be used if the unthinkable happened and SA was invaded by a force from Zim/Moz/Angola/Namibia. I understood there were 6 or 8 of them, of tactical size (10kt).
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 … 21 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.