Luke still has Bok ambition
17 May 2011
Luke Watson says he would be open to representing the Springboks again and believes they are in a stronger position than any other team to win the World Cup.
Watson was speaking in Cape Town en route to Port Elizabeth where he will commence duty with the EP Kings after two years at Bath in the Premiership.
He left South Africa in late 2009 having established a reputation for being outspoken on a range of issues, most notably representing the Springboks. At a dinner at University of Cape Town Rugby Club, he was alleged to have said, among other things, that he felt like vomiting on the Bok jersey when he debut in 2007 because of what it represented.
Although it was never confirmed that he said this, many of the senior Springboks, who had been vehemently opposed to his late inclusion in the 2007 World Cup training squad, used the claims to further justify their dislike and disregard for him.
Watson, whose father Cheeky was a prominent activist during the struggle years, intimated that his thinking and attitude at the time had been influenced by others. He, however, suggested that he returns a different person.
‘I grew up in a fundamentally different environment to most – every word was watched, every decision I made monitored,’ Watson told keo.co.za. ‘I remember being interviewed by CNN at the age of 10 and asked whether I support the Springboks. I said “yes”, but was quickly rapped over the knuckles by the powers that be because it wasn’t the correct thing to do politically.
‘I never really had an opportunity to establish my own identity and make my own decisions. These 18 months in Bath have been incredibly beneficial in that regard. It’s given me the opportunity to assess the things that I value.
‘It’s easy for me to sit here and tell you how mature I have become. But I can only hope that over the next few years you will notice that there are certain values and principles have have been altered. I’m still going to be the Luke Watson that speaks from my heart, not too worried about the consequences that come with the truth. I’m not going to shy away from any issues because of opposition I’ve received in the past.
‘Yes there are things that I still don’t agree with at a national and regional level. But if I do get the opportunity to represent my country again I will do so very proudly.’
Watson is unlikely to force his way into the Springbok World Cup squad, and never gave the impression that he expected to. But that didn’t stop him from sharing his views on where they stand at present.
‘As far as talent squad and depth goes, I don’t think any team can match the Springboks,’ he said. ‘If the All Blacks lose Dan Carter or Richie McCaw there are big, big holes to fill. We’re not in the same situation. Most of our players are very easily replaceable. We’re in a very strong position if the right team is selected and managed correctly.’
Watson added: ‘I’d like to see a couple of the youngsters who haven’t got an opportunity to play Test rugby get that chance before the World Cup. For example, for me it’s ridiculous that Duane Vermeulen hasn’t played any Tests. He has been the most consistent loose forward in the last two or three seasons of Super Rugby. Yes we have great loose forwards, but surely you have to find an opportunity somewhere for him.
‘Also, I’d like to see Pat Lambie play two or three Tests at 10. Peter Grant deserves an opportunity as well. We’ve seen what Morné Steyn can do, but we should go to the World Cup knowing that we have options in terms of playing different styles against different teams.’
The 27-year-old, who will compete with Eastern Province in the Currie Cup First Division and Vodacom Cup (in 2012) until the Kings’ entry into Super Rugby in 2013, said he wasn’t available to any other franchise in 2012.
Watson acknowledged the prevailing perception that he was taking a massive step backwards in his career, but explained the decision, saying: ‘I was in heaven in Bath, earning pounds and captaining the side. Life was easy. I could have stayed in Bath and taken comfortable, easy route. But I knew there was something greater that I could achieve.
‘I understand that people would look at the move from one of the top sides in Europe to playing Currie Cup First Division as a step down and a risk. But I look at the long-term potential of this decision, especially its ability to uplift a community and region. Sure there are a lot of things that are not ideal. But there are a lot more that are.
‘I really believe that the players and the resources are there for the Kings to be successful. It’s incredibly difficult to keep the talented players in the Eastern Cape without a Super Rugby franchise. The Kings solve that problem, although I appreciate that it will take time [to hold on to the region's best players].’
360 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 » Show All
17 May 2011, 20:37 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit)-250: Good post … calling it a conspiracy theory between White and Smit is as moronic and one sided as the people that are so anti Luke.
I’m no fan, but hey everyone makes mistakes and it looks like he is here to correct them. When all is said and done, he remains a talented rugby player.
Look at the rugby Quade Cooper is playing, not too long ago he was being arrested for housebreaking or some stupid cr@p. Luke isn’t the 1st or the last professional sportsman to screw up – at least he seems to be taking a new better approach.
17 May 2011, 21:34 pm
this guy had a difficult childhood i reckon.
his father was so driven and involved luke too early in his development.
kids are easily influenced by parents and naturally follow their guidance.
as a result, luke became a bit of a rebel against the establishment without fully realising why.
as he matured, married, became a father, moved away from the overbearing influence – he has become his own man.
now he just has to keep away from the media and become a normal professional south african rugby player.
and play his best with his mouth firmly shut.
17 May 2011, 21:37 pm
White was sh’t scared of Luke … for one he tried to muscle the kid when he was a junior and told him if he wanted to play in HIS team he must convert to hooker because he was too small for flank… and Watson rightly told him to shove it… that he was a flank and that was the position he played and was going to play… and in senior ranks through 2004-2006 Watson was THE standout open side flank in this country by far… even the opposition like McCaw and Smith who played similar roles to Watson in their teams couldn’t fathom what the hell was wrong with SA coaching when they were getting pummeled 49-0 and the rest while leaving their very best open side flanker right out the picture.
In S12 and S14 through 04-05-06 Watson was THE standout flanker in all SA franchises… far more efficient than Schalk at the open side position.. and rugby players like Frik Du Preez knew it and were getting agitated at the stupidity of the coach to ignore it while getting hammered 49-0 and not acknowledging the absolute facts.
White protected his designated enclave of players at expense of ostracizing others.. very poor koptoe type school master over lording attitude.. so why you think he’s not wanted in SA coaching environment after winning a world cup? its because the players who played under him know it.
White was afraid of Watson and perhaps with good reason.. because he knew that his authority would be threatened.. he also thought rightly or wrongly that Smits authority might be, and so he threw out smoke screen bullsh’t like he’s too small or he don’t need fetchers except for beers from fridges and the rest of the bullsh’t jargon to evade the realities.
White needed to protect his protégées, Burger and Smit with every little trick he had in the book or up his insincere sleeve so he made Watson this pariah… poisoned the players under him to despise him and effectively ostracized and maligned him to be the cancer stick in the association.. why would Smit go and say such a thing if it hadn’t already been conditioned and implanted in his goody two shoes self ambitioned head long before already?
Same thing at Stormers.. why did Watson HAVE to go play in Bath.. when he had a good, or a far better season as captain with WP in CC in 09 than either Schalk or JdV had had before him.. Watson galvanized the younger players that have come through now to make the nucleus of the team through that 2009 CC season and at the end of it he was the one who had to make way for Burger.. who isn’t a captains behind in comparison.
Its because of the powers that be behind the scenes.. Burger was always earmarked by a select breed of influential rugby aficionados out of the wine country to be the so called WP messiah.. so even if he don’t have the real credibility as a captain he has been forced to assume that mantle … and Watson was the last and worst candidate for them to allow to aspire to that because he did NOT represent or conform to the holy entrenched WP 100 year old traditional heritage that Burger does.. even if Watson was the better player or the better open side flank.. he either had to play 8 and not his preferred position because Burger OWNED NO. 6 jersey.. even though Burger ain’t a No. 6 period, or he had to make way for Burger totally in 2010 because the gauntlet was laid down that either Watson departs or Burger does.. so Rassie basically was between a rock and a hard place.. somebody had to be the pariah messiah martyr and fck off so the other could flourish.. simple.
White and Smit almost made a pact of making Watson to be this black sheep scape goat that the rest of the team hated… the stupid utterances that Watson might have made long after when he made some off cuff remarks at a political type university closed meeting was far more a reaction to the way he had been treated by Whites Boks before then to what he actually felt from an ideological standpoint… it was a reaction to being the ostracized dumping ground which White and Smit had set up in order to protect their own little closed enclave of buddy buddy exclusivity… which in real effect was incredibly short sighted.. selfish and narrow minded plus immature of White who was basically sh’t scared of a young 20-21 year old rugby player, to do so.
There suck on that conspiracy theory.. its way more truthful than fanciful.. what you mostly wanna believe is the opposite.. that he was too small or too politically motivated or White didn’t need a fetcher, or he was too much of a cancerous infiltration into the team dynamic when in fact the real cancer was coming from the other side of the equation.. White and his little exclusive enclave were the real proponents of cancerous attitudes and not what was at all coming from Watson.. Watson was the scape goat and the recipient or the plaintiff in the movie.. White and Smit were the self protective instigators and the self serving objectors.
17 May 2011, 21:54 pm
@charo(charo)-252:
Yip that is the bottom line
what is the background to this whole saga is that around about 2000 or 2001 or thereabouts both Watson and Burger competed at No.6 at Craven week for their respective regions, and both stood out as top rated open side flanks for the future.
White already earmarked his preferred candidate and was far too conservatively enshrined in his closed mind attitude to bend out of it. Watson as you correctly observe did have some rebellious instinct however together with that self resigned rebellion type resilience came some strong leadership potential. This is what White was afraid of. Instead of embracing and utilizing that robust attitude he preferred to negate and deny it.
In the long run Watson turned out to be the far more effective open side proponent to Burger as was plainly evidenced when Brussow usurped Burgers role through Burgers suspension and injury in 09. And this could all have been properly short circuited long before in 05 already if the coach at the time was big enough to acknowledge his own failings in recognizing what was plainly visible to most instead of digging his conservative and rather negative heels in in order to protect his so called own against the objective of the whole.
Fortunately for them it panned out and the team did pull through to take honors at WC 2007, but the snot en trane that preceded all that was to my mind unnecessary and what we are left with now is the actual legacy of that short sighted attitude because this team simply hasn’t moved on at all since then for almost the very same closed minded reasoning.
17 May 2011, 22:15 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-253:
skoppie – your best post ever.
pretty much the way i see it as well ….. with possibly a few side agendas.
lw was the media darling at the time and used this focus to promote his own, perhaps paternally distorted, rebel attitude to gain revenge against white and smit too.
however, who cast the first stone? was luke’s hardegat attittude the reason white disliked him (schoolmaster v pupil mentality) or was it white’s fixation with size and, dare i say it, team spirit?
a bit complicated and, no doubt, there are different, valid views.
off the topic……..
seen your offerings re mercenary sharks union and their jonny-come-lately supporters.
mate, try being a bananaboys supporter in cpt in the 70′s and 80′s.
the sense of entitlement shown by the weepee supporters was an eye-opener.
natal has never been a big producer of top rugby players – too many english genes? so being a supporter of them was more difficult than any other group in the country.
perhaps some of these weepee blokes gaaning on about history etc should put themselves into a long-suffering natal rugby supporter’s shoes.
fortunately, once again, the english, colonial outpost once again proved it’s intellectual prowess by embracing professionalism and leaving the “historical” unions in their dust.
love it 8)
17 May 2011, 22:15 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-254:
So what I was actually trying to lead to here before I side tracked myself was that both Burger and Watson had similar parental influences.. one was the shiny white knight in shiny armor from out the established traditional heritage.. and the other was the complete opposite.. the revolutionary anti establishment stand up and fight for your independent rights type swart skaap of the status quo.
Watson was influenced by Cheeky and Schalk by Schalk senior.. One was brought up to be the new generation leading proponent for the ardent WP and Bok aspirations and the other was brought up to admire the resistance of the struggle movement to overthrow witbaas oppression.
Such an environment of directly opposed propaganda and aspiration is a recipe for a small scale nuclear fallout between the relevant opposition ideologies in the movie. White inherited the stage and Smit was the cornerstone of his castle. Burger his knight in shiny armor, and Watson the villain of the piece and the dirty black hearted scoundrel rascal.
It all panned out perfectly to script.. except for the fact that the villain is now almost the next messiah to some, and if Boks fail badly at this impending WC Watson’s job (perhaps even both senior and junior) as the next messiah(s) becomes a whole lot easier.
Its almost as if the entire conflict of interests has been brought about through the younger generation but driven by the older one. Schalk senior and Cheeky for instance were and are two of the far bigger players behind the scenes in such a saga than anyone actually cares to see as the underlying conditioning.
Had it just been a bunch of young kids all coming together to compete like for like on equal measure on a rugby field as players playing out their socks for recognition and future selection then the playing fields would have been even and none of the bases loaded. But it weren’t the case.. some had an inside track scenario far more favorably aligned to the traditional heritage of the desired ideology than the other… and therein lies most of the inaccurate reasoning and sentiment that drove this thing way out of kilter to what was or should have been in effect a simple rugby decision or solution.. as it would have been in an environment not laced with so much traditional or revolutionary influence from the parents… from both sides… and the coach siding with one and not the other.
17 May 2011, 22:20 pm
@charo(charo)-255:
erm…not “english colonial outpost” – “british”
before jockbok crucifies me 8)
17 May 2011, 22:25 pm
where on Earth is SodaJoe these days ?
why is it that we lose the good ones only to be replaced by the Boy Georges of this cyber-World ?
17 May 2011, 22:26 pm
brilliantly put and extremely insightful skop
your legend grows .
17 May 2011, 22:27 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-258: yeah…i miss that oke
17 May 2011, 22:29 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-253:
thats deep sh*t right there, Skop. I almost feel like I should be taking Communion after that.
17 May 2011, 22:30 pm
@charo(charo)-255:
You know in spite of all my little digs at the sharkievarkie last outpost colonialists here and my somewhat one sided reasoning as to why I generally back the other team, even Bulls, which for me is some kind of step into the vast ulterior parameter of thinking, I actually think Sharks might very well win Saturday.
If I analyse the setup carefully I reckon Sharks have a better balanced side overall and they also have a better playing dynamic and strategy currently. Bulls will employ their usually one dimensional approach of moer en maak sag up front while kicking and controlling play through FdP and M. Steyn. WO vs Bosman or Dippenaar vs Terrblanche and back lines in general won’t be very influential Saturday apart from perhaps if Lambie really steps up or Jacobs is brought on early enough and shows why he’s still one of the most effective game breakers around, or Basson dazzles like he’s able to.
Sharks overall carrying and continuity game is far more robust and effective through Alberts and Deysel and even through utilizing Daniel to roam, link and fetch and / or Botes in the thick of the loose, they will have a far better momentum than Spies, Potgieter, Steggman in my estimation.
So actually for me in real honest assessment here I don’t really have a preferred winner Saturday and in all sincerity may the best team win, because far as I’m concerned at this point they both pose equal threat to Stormers ascendancy, whereas in 2007 S14 final I backed the Bulls for some reason in that game wholeheartedly. Maybe on game day I’ll suddenly pick a team from these two to support for this particular occasion, but from where I sit right now they can both fck each other up and cause as much mayhem to each other as possible and I’ll simply sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
17 May 2011, 22:40 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-262:
as i said during our good meeting at your local a few weeks ago – don’t take this blog and it’s bloggers too seriously.
when you don’t get sidetracked by jibes you post the most intelligent views on the complicated, maddening, political and illogical thing called rugby in south africa.
thyat’s why, when i see your reponses to sharks bloggers, i understand it is a reaction more than a rational view.
17 May 2011, 22:41 pm
sharks will do the business in Durbs……its a moer of a tough place to play….M Steyn kicks poorly there, will not have the same impact as he does at Loftus.
Sharks front row , if bissy, beast and jannie, will get the upper hand and spies will add to his array of poor matches as alberts terrorises him!
Botes always plays well against Bulls and is fit again…..he will counter steggies at the breakdown.
Bulls are still struggling …sharks do not have a lot to fear imo.
17 May 2011, 22:43 pm
“Former Wallabies coach Eddie Jones has slammed the Super Rugby format saying it will take Australia 10-15 years to build up its playing depth.
Jones told Radio Sport the expanded format has exposed Australia’s lack of playing stocks.
He says there’s no way Australia can have five top class sides and they are just diluting the pool.
Jones says there’s no short term turnaround and the Brumbies, Rebels and Force don’t have the talent to do immeasurably better over the next few years.”
17 May 2011, 22:45 pm
sharks must trust there game plan and not get into a skop en jag fest with bulls….keep ball in hand and take the bulls through multiple phases…..those big bulls locks will struggle with a fast paced tempo…..
mc cleod must get ball away quickly and Lambie must dictate ….as he can.
Show up the 1 trick pony M Steyn once and for all.
17 May 2011, 22:46 pm
@charo(charo)-257:
I’m watching
17 May 2011, 22:47 pm
Weather looks good in Durbs at this stage, about 19dg and 12kmh winds !!
Should be a spectacle !!
17 May 2011, 22:48 pm
breaking news…..
Dan Carter expected to announce that he will sign a new contract today with NZRU turning down a reported NZ$8m 3-year contract from Racing Metro (Paris) amongst many others.
watch this space
17 May 2011, 22:49 pm
@justrugby(justrugby)-268: see you early in the a.m bud!
17 May 2011, 22:50 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-269: great news for Sanzar
17 May 2011, 22:51 pm
@grant10(grant10)-270:
Cool !
17 May 2011, 22:52 pm
Cheers all, Skop excellent posts about Luke !!!
17 May 2011, 22:56 pm
@grant10(grant10)-266:
well i’m hopeful.
adi is playing at 12 so it will be interesting to see how he goes against timotei.
shouldn’t be too difficult to defend a a straight runner – adi’s so-called lack of defence is is bullpoo in my opnion.
to me basson is the big danger – if he gets good ball.
that bloke is such a beautifully balanced runner – reminds me of carel dup.
otherwise;
front row – sharks
locks – bulls by a long way
loosies – sharks because spies is a passenger
halfies – hmmmm petty even
centres – with adi starting i would say about even
back 3 – about even.
close, close game. might depend on a bad bounce or a ref blunder.
17 May 2011, 23:04 pm
Luke still has to prove his credetionals as player. First and foremost. At the highest level.
Lets’s not get too carried away. And he still walks in the shadow of his father. Like it or not. Cheeky did that, Luke pretended to. No escaping that. Luke in fact clings to it.
17 May 2011, 23:04 pm
fact is that Luke was Not the best flanker during all the periods that skop is calling. THE standout player not.
at the moment he is probably Not in the top three number 6′s in the SA.
i don’t have anything against the oke. but that’s just it. apparently if you don’t rate him it is because you don’t like him. where the problem starts.
it’s alot like comparing any other position. ex. some would argue who is best between lambie/ grant/ jantjes/ ebersohn/ cronje/ james/ pienaar while we all know steyn is still number 1.
a matter of your personal preference and the combination of the ideal 15 you would like to choose. maybe brussouw fits. or burger. or stegmann. or botes or daniels. luke or whoever.
how many cricket players in india. 11 get to represent. it helps if you are connected i figure.
what about every player that was almost there. that didn’t get the break. maybe because of bee. whatever. why is there such a massive furore over the selection non selection about this guy. why was grobbelaar never exalted.
schalk got irbb player of the year during that time. surely the stellenbosch conspiracy is not able to organize that. his play is shorting something these days. but after what 5-6-7 years of human wrecking balling.. what do you expect.
wrt to these serial bloggers who think there is someone actually giving a lemmings *** and that there are fanbases surrounding any one contributor – well that is just funny. the ping of only one string.
17 May 2011, 23:15 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-253: im goin to copy this post and save it then every time i log on to Keo, i will open my blogging account with by pasting it so that the word can spread.
Excellent stuff.
17 May 2011, 23:17 pm
@shooter(shooter)-276: Yes, good post.Shall I support you,
Seriously, with all SAs talent over the years at 6,7,8 Luke Watson never really featured in my opinion
Journos wrote him into a team and politics actually selected him into a team.Luke is so far off the S15 rugby pace after his time in Bath that he would be a slow water boy
17 May 2011, 23:22 pm
266. grant what went wrong? you are so negative about some players. one trick pony? now that’s just uncalled for.
you need to use 24 alliterating words in one sentence if you aspire to be besem and skoppie.
morne has done 5 years at the bulls behind hougaard the original liefling. apprenticeship of note. and a nicer guy blah blah. but it’s true. he played 12 15 and 10 off the bench. he has always been dependable. sometimes spectacular.
the guy you want to win a tight game for you. and wha is wrong with his play when the bulls are dominating? so which area is it that you are actually dissing him for? the bulls’ gameplan? his ability to kick 90% over a season? his ability to kick one step drop goals from anywhere close and maybe further?
defence? or when the bulls ran in more tries than anyone in the season?
when did he let the bulls or boks down? remind me.
being progressive is a big (balancing) act.
17 May 2011, 23:24 pm
of course its just one opinion .. but when Frik Du Preez, and plenty many other ex Boks of the period plus opposition players and coaches alike recommend that Luke Watson WAS the best open side flank to play the game in the S12 through 2005-06 here and NOT get recognized is tantamount to dire inequivalent and bias and nothing else. (as in past tense – same as Burger WAS IRB player of the year in 2004 – which by virtue of his coaches denial Watson was never even given the chance to ever be nominated let alone recognized) it simply shows an agenda and somewhat of a conspiracy… and a pretty big one at that.. Shooter maybe for ideological reasons prefers NOT to see Watson’s potential and actual contributions at open side flank same as White did not, could not, and simply would not.
But Frik Du Preez DID, so did George Smith, Richie McCaw and Aussie and NZ coaches alike, and many objective enough supporters around the globe and in this country. Obviously prejudice and ideology play a big role in likes and dislikes of anything and anyone, but objective rugby reasons were simply NOT used to deny Watson his opportunity to show what he was made of on the bigger stage through his best years as a rugby player which was 2004-05-06… Now is too far gone, just like Smith, Burger and others are past their prime, so is Watson and younger more virile and mobile players step into the breech as it should be.
As for throwing up Grobbler as a counter argument thats just plain stupid, Grobbler never was in any way anywhere near to the quality and ability of Watson or Van Niekerk or Wickus Van Heerden or Ernst Joubert for that matter, all players who to my mind were top rated rugby loose forwards here who were not given enough scope to show their worth.. but Watson at No.6 through 05-06 was simply unsurpassed in S12-S14 competition and players who voted for him as best players player knew it as did his opposing opponents like McCaw and Smith when the coach of the national team couldn’t or simply wouldn’t.
17 May 2011, 23:31 pm
@JL1(JL1)-278: exactly. but we shall see. i mean. do we, because of pressure, now play riaan viljoen in place of francois steyn? or do we select every player who makes politically motivational speeches?
but i won’t go further than that. because this has become a big ball to play with.
17 May 2011, 23:34 pm
Obviously Van Niekerk had his time in the sun as did Van Heerden who was the backup to both Schalk and Smith, but Ernst Joubert was never recognized and should have been.. same as Watson was recognized by many but was chosen to be an enigma or a cancerous influence or some such servile and bias judgement as a strangely false purpose for keeping him out the team.
Thing is though many in and around the rugby fraternity both here and abroad could see it, the closed community of the Bok enclave could not, and therein actually lies the bias because why the outright refusal to even consider the possibility, when in S12-14 the kid was almost winning some games single handedly and making waves at open side that no other flank was doing during that period when we were losing 49-0 and the rest.
17 May 2011, 23:35 pm
Horsemanure.
The side issues are precisely all the speculations raised above.
The real issue was whether he was good enough as a player, i.e. better than Burger and the other flankers in SA to merit selection as a Springbok.
That is, and should only have been, the issue. Some say Yes, others say No. White said No. Those that said Yes, decided that those who said No must be motivated by other side issues, such as political, midget, captaincy or cancerous discrimination – take your pick of conspiracy theory.
The biggest pluk many have is not pa’s politics or even pukie on the bokkie (tho oom frik probably shat out his rooibok braai); rather it was that Watson was percieved as having being given special dispensation and being backed by political powers that included a forced inclusion bypassing how every other player was selected.
As for personal assessment of the characters of the respective players involved, it has always taken two too tango. And the Watson jnr has always had very powerful ambitions of his own. How does a player who supposedly only want to come back for rugby purposes then agree to be represented by the biggest media PR machine in SA rugby?
This is fine, its human nature, but make no mistake, none of them are holier than the other and all are indoctrinated in their own way. In short it take two to tango and this story is not black and white at all.
17 May 2011, 23:40 pm
With all due respect to the guy, he is a good club rugby player but he isn’t good enough for the SA backrow. In fact, I don’t think he’d make any of the 6N backrows. That said, he’s as good, if not better than Pierre Spies.
17 May 2011, 23:43 pm
my ideological reasons are not suspect. i don’t have to remind you about that.
i understand he maybe did not get selected for the boks.
but recognition he got. by players and some.
it is only my opinion that he was not the best. for every high profile player that rated him, there were one who didN’T think he was THE best.
that’s the only point i’m making.
as for grobbelaar. it is an anology i’m making. if you could take an acid an imagine that finkel WAS Watson – i.e grobbelaar’s play with luke’s name, circumstance and talk and controversy. would it not have been exactly the same? question therefore. is it really about the rugby still. because because every-one has an opinion – merit could be relative.
17 May 2011, 23:43 pm
@shooter(shooter)-281: Naah you still stuck on politics that is your entire problem.. its you making this a political showdown… Its you looking at the ideology and not the rugby player… same as White did and every other nay sayer that was too sh’t scared to even consider giving the guy a chance at LEAST to prove one way or the other on the open rugby field.. you already made your mind up simply because the boys surname happened to be Watson of all people that he was inferior… exactly the same way White and his closed circle of yes men did.
Total insincere conspiratorial type closed minded ideological thinking… and that is the entire problem of the entire Luke Watson showdown… it was always political even before the poor kid played his first junior rugby game he had to carry that stupefied rubbish cr@p on his shoulders instead of simply playing rugby and showing and PROVING what he could do… they banned him from Bok selection in their MINDS before he even laced his boots up to run onto the field. Like you are doing still.
Watson saga is klaar, he cannot come back now at age 27 and compete against the young players of today.. when he should have been used was 2005 and 2006… even when Burger was INJURED and we LOST 49-0 he didn’t get a look in while he was winning games for his franchises at open side in S12-14. Now you wanna come spin me nursery tale rhymes when there was NOBODY close to his caliber then and that is precisely why we lost those big margins but the coach STILL would not even consider to even vaguely consider him. Pure fear factor stupefied bias reasoning and nothing else whatsoever.
Bullsh’t baffling brains here supreme.
17 May 2011, 23:44 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-282: Tiaan Strauss, never moaned, never threw his toys out of the cot. A real man, he just got on with it. Not even a bad word against Kitch after not being chosen and then being told he was the best.
Gary Teichman dropped by Mallet, but Teichman did not puke, he just carried on.
You know why?Because the game will always be bigger than the individual
17 May 2011, 23:53 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-282: if you’re a player and asked to comment on other players. you don’t hear too many like smith/ mccaw say… no he is really ****. i love playing against him…
no no no. they say pc things like ‘he is one of the best in the game today.’ or ‘ ‘he is a class outfit and probably deserves to be up there’, ‘i will be surprised if he doesn’t play for the boks this year’….
but really. i laughed when loftus boooed him.. because he was asking for it in general for a long time. the same will happen when ex torres goes to white heart lane in a chelsea shirt… it’s part of the game.
but in SA we must take it personal. ha, long way we have to go.
17 May 2011, 23:56 pm
NOW he is only a decent club level player perhaps correct.. BACK THEN he was international quality absolutely and the BIG issue here is Burger was INJURED through 2006… we LOST 49-0… Watson was REFUSED even a chance to show what he COULD do and you arseholes still talk sh’t out your naysaying arses forever and a day…
White was PREJUDICED no two silly arsed ways about it… Watson was negated through 2005 and 06 when Burger was injured… we were losing by big margins… every rugby scribe and ex player that knew something about the game was calling for his inclusion… AND he was voted by his own players as players player of the season… But White ostracized and ridiculed and denied his ability and his POTENTIAL.. that is the bottom line
And you idiots are thick because your own inherent negating tendencies plus your conservative rallying a round a doos of a coach with a bias objective and agenda in this regard won’t see simple clear black and white reasoning
Its simple… and its futile to talk sh’t round this topic forever.. i know clearly why this coach could not or would not give the guy a chance and it was because he was afraid and protective over his own position plus that of his captain and his no.6 protégées… simple.
I’m not going round and round again and again about this issue cause its clear as day what the conditioned reasons for his omission were… talk sh’t around it all you like, won’t change the real reasons around it ever.
17 May 2011, 23:57 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-286: dear skop. i have been living in botswana for most of my life. i live here today.
i couldnt care about your black/white politics even if you want me to care. i told you my observation from an objective as possible view.
i get that what you are saying, that i am making an issue of the side show. which i am doing IN my argument. but that is not the basis of my argument. my opinion in terms of rugby is stated in 276.
17 May 2011, 23:57 pm
@JL1(JL1)-287: then Tiaan Strauss left for Australia… come on, on top if it, he went on to play for the national team. bad comparison boet.
Teichman,was forced into early retirement, thanks to who?
come on Boeta!
17 May 2011, 23:59 pm
Cab. good post. sounds like something you hate your mother hear to say..
but too true too. hey i’m an alliterist and i didn’t even know it.
18 May 2011, 00:06 am
Tiaan Strauss was cut up about it and went to Australia as direct result and started playing rugby for them
Teichmann was very big about it and Mallet I think apologized later.
White came and stuck out his hand at the good Samaritan church as if to say sorry old chap alls fair in love and war sorry I fckd you in the eye when I should have given you the chance but we all good Christians here so lets just turn the other cheek and forgive and forget.
Keo climbs into bed with Jake.. finds out he’s a snake… then runs to Luke who was the cancerous snake in the bad old days
what a lovely merry go round circus.
18 May 2011, 00:09 am
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-289: now that’s just an empty promise
? joke
not so long as keo writes articles on the guy.
anyway. neither would i. i know about such scenarios first hand. in sport. about not making it. about who is to blame.
etc etc.
before that. why was clive eksteen and claude henderson never made number 1 bowler for SA after taking 50 plus wickets domestically for 5 season in a row. no. we had some other average guys, some who was ok and some who ‘did a job’.
contentious and very long issue, this of selection etc.
i understand your opinion. and take notice of it.
all we can say is ‘and then’.
18 May 2011, 00:16 am
@SHARKattack(mabu)-291: What happened to Teichman was a travesty. Great player.
What a lot of people dont talk about was the bad blood between Joost and Stauss which was one reasons he left. Struass was brillant too.
I am not sure what hapened but Joost hated him so much.
18 May 2011, 00:21 am
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-286: would he have made the difference?
i think in his game he got close to selection in MY 15 team. but at the time i remember not having put his name down in my team as the one for the 6-7-8 spot.
come to think of it. maybe other players have been selected in the past, in any position, that maybe should not have been there for that long. in that sense he could have been chosen? ag you know. it’s been like that since the days from playing barefoot rugby at trials for far north.
he just has a lot more decibels behind him.
btw, i think grant10 is going to try and influence you to become a sort of cheerleader for another player, who is almost at the exact same precipice of a career being made or nearly.
18 May 2011, 00:28 am
this whole thing actually started and before i got sidetracked i wanted to say.
BBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
It’s gonna be a tough one. we’ll take a win even with 1.
18 May 2011, 00:31 am
@KevinRack(KevinRack)-295:
I see you ignored my post about B.Lawrence and your criticism of him during the Lions vs Brumbies match.
Are you prepared to admit that you were wrong yet ?
18 May 2011, 00:37 am
@KevinRack(KevinRack)-295:
“Great game **** ref. Lawrence should be fired for numerous calls going against the Lions.”
“But then again its SANZOO. I wonder why Bryce was not sacntioned by Paddy after his terrible reffing the Lions game. He was worse than the poor saffa ref that made one mistake against the kiwis and sanctioned by know head Obrein. Kiwi ref kiwi in charge of refs you do the maths.”
I dunno, Kevin, you tell us
Brumbies vs Lions Match Officials =
Referee: Nathan Pearce (Australia)
Assistant referees: James Leckie (Australia), Andrew Lees (Australia)
Television match official: Matt Goddard (Australia)
Meanwhile, Bryce Lawrence was in SA refereeing Cheetahs vs Crusaders. The Crusaders lost, under a Kiwi ref, in SA, with the turning point of the match being Viljoen stealing ball from the ruck whilst clearly coming in from the side – he then passed the ball out to Ebherson for the Try that put Cheetahs in front.
*ahem*
18 May 2011, 00:39 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-298: I told you I wont tell you where I live.
Stop stalking me.
I am not that type. I like girls not old men
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.