|
In his autobiography, In Black and White, Jake White makes additional revelations about the inclusion of Luke Watson in the Springbok squad. It is common knowledge that Luke Watson only became a Springbok because Jake was forced by SARU to include him.
According to extracts published in newspapers Jake claims that an attempt was made to influence him by promising him that he may keep the coaching job in exchange for picking Luke. This approach was apparently made by a lawyer representing the Watsons. Luke's father, Dan 'Cheeky' Watson, has since denied knowing this lawyer, but mentions that the lawyer did write a letter to him regarding the ending of the agreement between Craig Livingstone and Luke Watson.
Cheeky Watson further states that he was against Luke going to the Springbok training camp or playing against Samoa and that Luke had the same feelings. If this is so, could Luke not just have withdrawn?
It is a sad indictment on the way that rugby is run in this country. The administrators should not force the coach to pick players that do not fit into his plans. I did not agree with all of the selections either. I'm still of the opinion that Percy Montgomery is a bit suspect under pressure but I accepted that he fitted into the game plan. Sure, Luke is a hero in Cape Town, but Hougaard is a hero in Pretoria and Floors in Bloemfontein. Why no pressure to include them?
I used to be a Luke Watson fan, and a Cheeky fan many years ago in the early to mid seventies when he played for EP. When he defected I was heart-broken but I also understood why he did it and agreed with his move. Unfortunately it would seem that he's brave stance of those years have come back to haunt him and Luke. Perhaps the administrators felt that they owed the family a debt and chose this route to repay it. If so they have dealt Luke's future Springbok chances a severe blow. Many, like me, who in the past thought that he should be given a chance to prove himself in the Springbok jersey have now become decidedly anti-Luke.
If this interference in team selection continues rugby will be the loser. The administrators must remember that sport is a business and if the paying public loses faith in the product the money will disappear. The calculation is simple, if the spectators stop turning up the sponsors will invest somewhere else. Without the sponsors' money the big contracts will dry up and fewer youngsters will see rugby as a potential career. Think it can't happen? It has already happened on a smaller scale in certain areas, EP rugby being a brilliant example. When last have they managed to get any meaningful numbers through the turnstiles?
SARU should ensure that this never happens again. It's happened, it's history. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past.
|
