South African rugby boss Oregan Hoskins says he played a key role in helping outgoing Springbok coach Jake White survive his four-year tenure.
Without his support, Hoskins said on Thursday, White would not have been able to continue in his role as coach of the national side.
”All I want to say is that my conscience is abundantly clear towards Jake. I’ve stood by Jake — right up until his contract ends, which is the end of the year.”
Hoskins, president of the South African Rugby Union (Saru), made these remarks in an interview with the RugbyFanz website.
White’s future, said Hoskins, ”was questioned a number of times and, of course, people will say it shouldn’t have been questioned, but it was questioned a number of times”.
Each time this happened, a huge majority of the presidents’ council backed White.
”It’s never been done in the history of South African rugby that a coach has been kept on for four years despite him, at times, having lost badly. In the past, we have always fired a coach and that didn’t happen this time,” Hoskins said.
In his new autobiography, In Black and White: The Jake White Story, the Springbok coach paints a somewhat different picture of interference by Hoskins and his presidents’ council.
This was extremely disruptive to the squad, White writes.
On rugby officialdom in South Africa, White says in his book that he ”always knew that South African rugby was riddled with people who had no interest in the game, only on what they could siphon from it.”
In his reaction to these remarks Hoskins, unlike some of his Saru colleagues, refrained from asking for disciplinary action against White.
”The public will judge for themselves when they read the book. The public are key stakeholders in rugby … They will be able to sift the truth from the untruth. Leave it to the public to decide,” Hoskins said.
”It is not in the organisation’s interest to get into a tit-for-tat, mudslinging match with the national coach. I think it is good for the public to hear Jake’s story … The more transparent our rugby is, the better.”
Many South African fans were incensed when it emerged shortly after the World Cup that Saru had no intention of retaining White’s services.
Asked about this, Hoskins insisted that White had made it clear he did not want to continue coaching the Springboks after the World Cup.
”I’m quite happy and I’m content with the fact that I’ve done what I was supposed to do as the president towards Jake,” said Hoskins.
”I’ve done the best that I can. If my best is not good enough, then obviously I am not the right person for the job.”
‘I would do it again’
Meanwhile, there was nothing wrong with forcing White to include Western Province flanker Luke Watson in his squad, Hoskins also said in the interview with RugbyFanz.
He said he had no regrets over how he handled the matter.
”Yes, I would do it again,” he said.
The Watson saga was seen by many as a blemish on Hoskins’s tenure so far as president of Saru.
But he insisted it was his right to force White to include a player in the national team.
Were he to be faced with a similar situation again, said Hoskins, he would do the very same.
Earlier this year, Hoskins forced White to include the flanker in his Springbok team for a match against Samoa.
Fans and sport writers viewed this as an example of political meddling they felt was threatening to ruin the Springbok team.
Watson’s father, Cheeky, was an outspoken opponent of the apartheid regime and many viewed Hoskins’s actions as a political move at the behest of members of the ruling African National Congress.
Hoskins said this was not the first incident of its kind.
”It was done in the past under previous presidents — and wasn’t carried by any of the media, incidentally. It wasn’t a new step taken by a president,” he said.
”I would do it [again], but I would do it extremely, extremely reluctantly. It would be a last resort and in fact I hope it doesn’t happen.”
Hoskins it was vital the next Springbok be told clearly what the requirements of the job were.
”That can be done in a number of ways: it can be done in contract or it can be done in another co-defined manner allowing the president, as presently happens, to intervene in the final composition of the squad.”
Hoskins’s only regret in the Watson saga appeared to be his timing.
”I would do things differently in the sense that I would have put Luke Watson in the squad in 2006 when he was the best player in South Africa,” said the rugby boss.
”In the case of Luke Watson and Jake White, the relationship between the two was extremely strained for a very long time. It had gone past the breaking point and I felt the player was being prejudiced.” — Sapa