Six Nations: Bonus points?
This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with bonus points and the Heineken Cup...
Bonus points for the Six Nations?! It's the end of civilisation isn't it?
We're not entirely sure why it should be. A look down the last ten tournaments shows that bonus points or not, barely a jot of difference would have been made to the standings.
Of course, the bonus points would have had an effect on the mindset of some teams and maybe you'd have had more attacking line-outs instead of penalty kicks at times. So results could have been different.
But it's the nature of what is there to win that differentiates the Six Nations from its southern hemisphere counterpart.
The Rugby Championship is played home and away for starters. So you can argue that, in terms of the overall standings, you are looking at making a minimum of making a net gain in championship points from fixtures. The All Blacks might argue that coming away from South Africa with a losing bonus point is not a bad result if they can deny the Boks the same back home. The rule of thumb is that you have to win your home games - we all know how much of a difference home ground advantage can bestow.
That's not a factor in Europe, where the one-off fixtures mean some teams have significantly tougher schedules than others, not least because some will play at home three times, some only twice. Just looking at this year: Ireland and Wales host two of their three harder games at home, while England and France have to travel twice out of the three. It's already a slightly skewed schedule by nature, awarding bonus points would skew it even more.
Of the games against Italy and Scotland, matches which coaches of the other four would surely think would be possible to get a try bonus point from, England host both of them at home, while the other three would have to travel at least once - travelling to Italy is significantly harder then hosting them. Ask France.
Then there's the nature of what's up for grabs. Even the possibility of a team winning the championship by pipping the Grand Slam winners on bonus points devalues the prize. Suffer no illusions: it is the Grand Slam which is cherished above all other prizes on offer. The same goes for the Triple Crown, even more susceptible to having its winner finish behind one of the vanquished teams.
It's understandable that try bonus points are being debated. After all, Wales won their Grand Slam last year despite scoring three tries fewer than third-placed Ireland. England, who ironically are said to be the most vociferous supporters of the bonus point proposal, finished above Ireland despite scoring fewer than half of Ireland's 13 tries. Clearly a way of encouraging teams to open up might need to be found.
But using the bonus point system goes too far. There's no long season to catch up, no return matches to redress the schedule strength imbalance, too much opportunity for the competition table to be flawed because of the schedule and, need we remind, the generally miserable February/March weather.
What would be the best compromise in our view is to change the way things are decided. At the moment, points difference separates tied teams in the table: why not separate tied teams on tries scored? And if that is equal, try difference? Reward attack and defence through the course of the tournament, not just per game.
That way winners stay winners, Grand Slams and Triple Crowns remain untouchable, but sides who have attacked well throughout the tournament are ultimately rewarded if they can't quite reach their zenith. Maybe on the climactic day you get a scenario where teams need to win by a certain margin of tries rather than points.
Imagine the final day. Wales, who have managed few tries in the tournament, need to beat England for a Grand Slam. But if they lose and England win, Ireland could still take the championship spoils by scoring three tries more than England in Italy, so England need to score tries as well as win. France could also do it, although they need to score five tries more than England and two more than Ireland. At the bottom, whoever scores the most tries between Scotland and Italy avoids the Wooden Spoon.
A fiendishly Heineken Cup-style mathematical scenario. But better than one in which the same Wales team does beat England for a Grand Slam, then finds that England's superior bonus point tally sees the English crowned Six Nations champions.
While this season's tournament, after a damp start, is bubbling up like water in a weary kettle, uncertainty continues to simmer over Europe's showpiece tournament's future.
The next round of talks is set for February 6, where the French and English are unlikely to waver from their line that proportional representation, and thus revenue distribution, from and for the three European leagues should be the norm, while nor are the PRO12 countries going to accept a competition format where we could in all probability see a Heineken Cup without Scottish or Italian representation or where the four countries involved are sharing a third of the revenue between them while England and France reap a third.
We're trying and trying, but we can't see a way out of this one. You take away Heineken Cup representation from those countries and you cut off a huge source of revenue and player incentive for them. In times such as these, no sponsorship deal for Europe's second tier is going to yield enough money to ensure that Scotland or Italy keep their international players playing locally - nor, for that matter, the cash-strapped Welsh. It's a death knell. But we can see why England and France feel aggrieved about the current situation - especially given their teams' strength in this year's edition. We can understand why heels are being dug in.
It would be easier in healthy economic times, but with cash so scarce the economic reality is that you are dealing with the national economic mights of England and France, up against Irish and Italian economies in turmoil and miniscule local economies in Scotland and Wales. You can have all the national pride you want, but only in England and France are sponsors able to back that up with 'proper' money.
Hopefully a solution will be found. It's the stuff of dreams, but one colleague said to me the other day: "You know, way back during the first revenue disputes, I was hoping we'd wind up with a 18-team 2-division, salary-capped, pan-European league, complete with promotion and relegation and with all the clubs or franchises getting the same league revenues and prizes based on their own successes."
If only it were that simple now.
Loose Pass compiled by Richard Anderson
Comments
melkdave says...
@Capelone
The problem with the S15 approch,is 2 fold
1)It would also kill off the AP and T14
2)How would you decide the 15 best NH teams,STade Francis in the past where a rugby powerhouse,Munster atm are declining,Cardiff where a powerhouse ,now are struggling,ect the list goes on and on.Also how would you decide what team replaces any non performing Euro S15 team,What country would it come from ect
Posted 12:39 10th January 2013
melkdave says...
@Norm
Your toally missing the point of introducing revelance to the PRO12 though clubs having to battle withother teams in their counry for qualification. by finishing as high as they can in the league Myself i think all 4 irish teams could qualify on merit if Connaght where given equal funding by the IRFU,on the straght top 6 proposals.My solution is to ensure every country gets representation.I also have no problem with only 4 teams from the AP or T14only geting HC qualification,and it being only a 16 team competion when you include the Amlin and current champions..But then clubs that need the revenue miss out on that from the group stage games.Munster ,Gloscester,Stade Francis ,and many other clubs are all capable of qualifying,and would be worthy qualifyiers,But they should be able to prove it by actually getting qualification on merit imo.
Posted 12:30 10th January 2013
kybone says...
norm- Name the 11 clubs that are better than all baring the top 4 Prem teams. The English clubs are dominating the amlin with 4 out of the 5 pools topped by a Prem team. The Prem teams, as a cluster, also have more wins than the French despite having fewer participants. This must mean that the bottom half of the Prem is stronger than the bottom half of the Top14. There certainly aren't many Pro12 clubs that spring to mind. Ulster and Leinster certainly, maybe Munster but after those 3 im struggling to find a Pro12 team btter than any team in the Prems top 8. So as i see it, using your idea, there'd be 6 French clubs, 6 English clubs, the top 2 Irish clubs, then which ever you'd consider the best out of Munster, Glasgow, and the Ospreys to make up your 15.
Posted 14:51 09th January 2013
APV1 says...
@ norm - if all the Pro12 Teams are so darn good, then why are they worried about the proposal?
Oh, that's right. They're not all that good and don't deserve their place. Now I remember.
Posted 10:35 09th January 2013
norm says...
Melkdave
Hmmm sounds equitable! Unquestioned 6 AP and 6 T14. 2 irish.
Because # 6 in the premiership, Gloucester, are a more deserving participant in top flight than the # 3 Irish province, Munster? Yep all those times they have turned Munster at Thurmond and kingsholm would suggest this is equitable.
If you want a meritocracy rather than automatic national allocations then fine let's use the S15 model. Pick the top 15 NH clubs, do you see 6 English clubs? I see 4 at best, and harlequins aside they are all bottom half French and Irish canon fodder!
Posted 23:25 08th January 2013
carpelone says...
Agree with RugbyLeRoux.
Pro12 is even more boring to watch than to be talked about.
The HC with the repeschage of the two best up runners is a joke. A European League with 4 English teams, 4 French, 3 Irish, 2 Welsh and 1 Scot and 1 Italian.
You can have you Super (eerrr) Rugby league.
Kill both HC and Pro12.
Posted 18:57 08th January 2013
APV1 says...
@ kybone - nicely put. Thank you.
Posted 12:42 08th January 2013
BackingLeinster says...
Reading this I think the idea of a pan european leauge would be the be best solution though it would mean maybe a two division system. Each union involved gets to nominate as many teams as they think fit (within reason) so you'll probably end up with 40 teams. Then have 4 conferences of 10 teams each. Then play offs between the conference winners. England and France can decide wether they want to relegate teams or not. Bottom team in each conference maybe.
Each year teams are place within different conferences so the derbies are less frequent and so add more spice when they do come around. Then interlace that with a knock out cup competition.
Each team gets an equal share of all TV revenue, would really level the playing field. No salary cap but a limit on spending to what the team makes from rugby (tv revenue,gates,merchandising,sponsorship) but no Daddy Warbucks coming in and propping up the team.
This could produce 40 teams playing at the highest level and a huge pool of players to draw from for the internationals. Could help close the gap with the southern hemisphere.
Posted 12:32 08th January 2013
froggy73 says...
@kybone: You are spot on.
Posted 08:03 08th January 2013
kybone says...
All- Actually a team that loses 1 game can finish on 22 points.
I think we're all pretty fed up of discussing the HC situation now. I do notice how the article has neglected to mention the current state of the Welsh teams. Its alright saying that the Anglo French model will be a 'death knell' for Welsh, Scottish, and Italian teams, but just take a look at whats going on! The death knell is sounding now! If you actually look at the HC you will see that all 6 pools have a Pro12 team rock bottom and only 1 Pro12 team tops a pool. The 11 Pro12 teams have only 11 wins between them where as the 7 French clubs have 22 and the 6 English clubs have 15. With only 2 rounds to go there are still 6 Pro12 clubs yet to register a win. Looking at all that, can anyone still seriously suggest that all those sides deserve to be in the premiere competition. Can anyone explain why Pro12 teams having to fall into the Amlin would sound a 'death knell' but the English and French dont sound a death knell when they're in it? I mean if you look at the Pro12 table there's a very good chance that all 4 nations would be represented anyway. So all this doom mongering about no Scottish or Italians teams qualifying, and rugby in those countries subsequently dying out is complete tosh. Glasgow are 2nd for Christs sake. All this is about is Pro12 teams getting a free ride into the HC, but what these people don't seem to realise is that this is the very reason that the league has steadily become the bag of bollocks that it is today. Nothing to play for, no consequences so we just coast through the season resting players, even for big games, knowing full well that we'll pick up our ill deserved HC cash at the end of the year.
Posted 21:52 07th January 2013
melkdave says...
If bonus points come into the 6Ns ,it ashould only be for scoring 4 or more tries.No bonus for losing by 7 or less,and no points for losing. a match.If you want teams to score tries reward them for it,and tfor that only.So 3 points for a win and scoring 4 or more tries.Also to safe guard the prestige of a grand slam,,if achived 10 point bonus for that team.Thus your rewarding teams for scoring tries and attacking,and the prestige of a grand slam ,which should cntinue to top everything.
As to the Heineken cup,cut the allocation for Pro12 nations down to half of their teams.IE 2 for Ireland,2 for Wales,1 each for Scotland and Italy ,that way every nation has representation so every league gets 6 teams ,then you add Amlin champions and present HC champions for your 20 teams,If they are already qualified in the leagues,then you goto the next highest team in that league ,not nation as now ..Thus the Pro12 gets some much needed revalence with HC qualification battles between the different nations teams ,and revalence because now league position at seasons end matters .Win win imo.As to funding,thats easy every qualified team gets the same amount of money,for the group stages ,then those that qualify for the QF get a bonus annother bonus for reaching the SFs ,and annother for the final.and a prize for wining the championship.You are then rewarding the club,directly ,and not its umion for success.Then its up the club what it does with its bonuses/winings.
Posted 15:32 07th January 2013
Iyhel says...
Well then I assume that we have different definitions for the WS either side of the Channel... (including the French wiki ;-)
If I dare say, I find the French definition more suitable, as opposed to the Grand Slam.
But I guess that there is no more place for romantism in the pro era...
Posted 14:55 07th January 2013
Derrynane says...
lorenz78 says... "with 4 points/win a Grand Slam winner with no bonus point can at best have the same points of another team winning 4 games with a bonus point". Not true.
If GS winner has 5 wins with no winning or try scoring BPs they will end up with 20 points.
If team which loses 1 game to GS winner wins every other game with BP they immediately have 20 points. If they finish the game they lose to GS winner by less than 7 points they will get 1 losing bonus point (could also do it by scoring 4 tries in match with GS winner).
Posted 13:50 07th January 2013
Bandage says...
Hi Lorenz78 - if a team wins all 5 matches with no bonus points, they'll finish on 20. If another team wins 4 matches with bonus points, and gets a losing bonus point in the other, they'll finish on 21, so it is possible, although unlikely.
However, I think in 2002, under a bonus point system France would have won the Grand Slam and England the championship.
Posted 12:30 07th January 2013
Sincero says...
Iyhel says...
Argh, could we stop talking about wooden spoon for the table-bottom team? The wooden spoon is for the team that loses every match. There can be years without wooden spoon as well as without Grand Slam.
Sorry, but that's the 'whitewash' you're thinking of. Wooden spoon has always been for finishing bottom, wins or not.
Posted 12:17 07th January 2013
APV1 says...
6N - I don't know... I like the idea of rewarding attacking teams, but how much can you run in a (very) wet and windy February? We have to play the conditions and they can be absolutely dire during the 6N, regardless of which stadium you're in. Even the MS in Cardiff doesn't always close the roof. So there's a greater reliance on kicking territory and for 3 pointers. And that's reflected in the AP too (or does the 6N reflect the AP?).
All teams are getting better at attacking - just look at England during the November matches - and that's great. But I'd rather see England win the 6N and RWC by kicking 3 points, than lose because we flung "Hail Mary" passes all day long.
The HC debate has been done to death and people know my thoughts. As I've stated before, I am a genius and if you want to see my (brilliant) concept, just have a wee butchers at the dedicated HC threads. My idea also makes the Pro12 more competitive, thus making it more exciting. This will, in turn, lead to more bums on seats and greater revenues (gate and sponsorship). That's where the Amlin teams can make up the difference.
I appreciate that we may all have to agree to disagree, but let's keep it civil and not feed the trolls.
Please.
@ Iyhel - according to Wiki (the font of all knowledge), you're incorrect. The Wooden Spoon is "awarded" to the bottom-placed team. Losing all matches is known as a "Whitewash" (in this and many other circumstances). Wiki has been known to be wrong in the past, are you sure that you're right?
Posted 12:02 07th January 2013
northandsouth says...
Sry to be officious, but to save needless debate... Oxford English Dictionary definition for "wooden spoon":
an imaginary prize said to be awarded to the person who is last in a race or other competition
Posted 11:59 07th January 2013
Iyhel says...
Argh, could we stop talking about wooden spoon for the table-bottom team? The wooden spoon is for the team that loses every match. There can be years without wooden spoon as well as without Grand Slam.
Posted 11:32 07th January 2013
lorenz78 says...
@kingshark: agree on your analysis. Actually with 4 points/win a Grand Slam winner with no bonus point can at best have the same points of another team winning 4 games with a bonus point. Make the head-to-head score the first tiebreaker and you have no chance of a team getting the Grand Slam and not winning the tournament.
Regardin Pro12 teams admission to the HC: is it inconceivable to reduce the number of teams to be admitted, while guaranteeing at least one team per nation? I.e.: 8 from Pro12 go, if the two Italian are bottom of the league (11th and 12th) the better is admitted (in place of a better ranked team - a distorsion from competitive point of view would be there of course)
Posted 11:15 07th January 2013
northandsouth says...
I appreciate you are anti-bonus points, but this seems a very biased discussion of the relative merits. For example, you point out that a team might be disadvantaged by playing more hard teams away, but might also be disadvantaged by not playing more weak teams at home, but utterly fail to acknowledge the two balance each other out. To use your example, England: they will be disadvantaged by playing 2/3 'harder' teams away (less chance of getting bonus points), but will play a higher proportion of 'easier' teams at home (more chance of 4 tries). If you disagree with bonus points, fine, but arguing they skew the balance more is nonsense. You've obviously decided you don't like bonus points, then reverse-engineered your arguments to sound balanced. Also, your point about the Rugby Championship being home and away ignores the fact that in recent years the Tri-nations teams played each other 3 times a year with each team enjoying an imbalanced home-away against each other, and bonus points were not seen as skewing the fairness of the table.
Posted 10:54 07th January 2013