About legacies

I never thought Victor Matfield was anything close to outspoken; on the contrary I thought he was a pretty decent guy, very realistic in terms of rugby, as he knows what it takes to climb on to the top.

Just the opposite of what the Watsons have always done.

That's why it's so thrilling to see him talking about legacies, or the Bulls building a Crusader-like legacy, with just less than a week to go before the final. Should you not be concentrating, talking your chances more down than up and focusing on what's surely going to be a massive game?

All odds may be in your favor, but in rugby it is tackles, not odds, what wins titles; And only after a number of titles has been won (and the key word is after) careless journos write on legacies. Duncan Johnston says Victor Matfield has gone one step or six too far... For once I agree.

There's only one legacy in Super Rugby. And it has not been a matter of winning one year or two. In Canterbury they have a culture of rugby, a culture of winning. Players have come and gone and still the culture has been mantained. The Andrew Mehrtens left room for the Daniel Carters, the Blackadders, for the McCaws, the Marshalls were substitued by the Ellises... and the important things, the things that have made of the Crusaders a successful team have been preserved.

Back to Earth, you have not won anything yet, Mr Matfield, and you would do well to stop thinking in legacies and start thinking about the Chiefs, or keep dreaming at your own risk.