White mischief

Sitting at the back of the Ellis Park boardroom during a recent Press conference was quite instructional – none of the laptop hacks, microphone jockeys or camera mules seemed to believe a word that was being said from the main table.

The conference – such a grand word for a cluttered melee – had been called following a meeting between Jake White and the worthies of SA Rugby, the like of Brian van Rooyen, Johan Prinsloo, Arthrob Petersen and Peter Jooste, to discuss a letter written by the Springbok coach, which had mysteriously found its way into the Press, and in which he had allegedly objected to some of the conditions of his employment.

I never saw the actual letter, and no-one confirmed its contents, but the gist of it, and no-one denied it either, was that White was threatening to resign unless he got some clarity on what he was to do to transform the Springbok side, i.e. the quota system, and received some assurances that he would be subjected to less interference when it came to the selection of the Bok side.

After the meeting, which in time-honoured fashion seemed to have taken place over lunch at the Touchdown restaurant, we were unsurprisingly told that there really were no problems, that Jake was “going nowhere, he is going to Australia,” (this was before the recent excursion to Australia during which John Smit and his men were everything but inspired by the famous name on the trophy) and that, in fact, those involved were quite surprised “to note that there had been difficulties.”

And the Press, including many fresh new faces many years removed from the cynical, hard-bitten bunch who used to go to these kinds of meetings when I started out, clearly did not believe a word of it.

I was reminded of this gathering while reading the papers following what many thought to be the worst test the Boks have played under White.

Shortly before the team left there had been newspaper dispatches quoting Peter Jooste, as the convenor of the national selection panel, that André Pretorius would be added to the squad to ensure that the team had a second flyhalf available.

At the time I had thought it a bit of a contradiction to White’s stance that he did not need a second flyhalf because he could use Percy Montgomery or Jean de Villiers if he were to lose Jaco van der Westhuyzen. My suspicious journalist’s mind wondered whether this was the kind of interference the coach had been referring to in the letter his Cape Press cronies had brought into the public ambit.

Then, in The Sunday Times, White told Clinton van den Berg categorically that he did not intend to make changes to the squad; stating that he believed the team for the 2007 RWC was right there in Sydney with him. “I’m going to keep the same guys and polish them,” said White, yet again stating his conviction that continuity would be the key to success.

But in Business Day a day later Jooste, an increasingly contactable source of copy, was quoted as saying there would definitely be changes to the starting 15 to face Australia in the (Nelson Mandela Challenge Plate) series decider later this month. “There will be changes, that is for sure,” said Jooste and added that he would sit down with White on his return from Australia to discuss the Bok team’s shortcomings with an eye to strengthening the team.

It makes you wonder. Who is really picking the team? Does the coach get to play who he wants or is there a move to clip his wings? Are certain officials making mischief for White? Is his star waning? Is it just the inevitable fallout of a poor Springbok performance? Were the problems really sorted out that day at Ellis Park?

You be the judge but somehow, knowing the Byzantine ways of SA Rugby, I think not.