Nick Cain: Yes to bonus points, no to TV-driven fixture lists

There are so many contradictory knee-jerk spoutings about the Six Nations that you sometimes wonder whether Glenda Slagg has taken up residence in the Twickenham press box.
This week Glenda was at large in the guise of the ‘glory, glory’ lobbyists declaring the opening round of the 2013 tournament as the greatest ever, with assorted commentators rubbishing the idea of bonus points and invoking the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ edict.
The first three games were entertaining, often of high quality – and it was great to see. However, when you are talking about the international showpiece event for Rugby Union in the Northern Hemisphere, surely that should be the rule rather than the exception?
One of the reasons for the fanfare, not least by the BBC, was because usually the opening round of the Six Nations is too predictable. It is also why the anti-bonus point lobby would do well to look at the tinkering that goes on already, where the BBC and the other host broadcasters, France Televisions and RTE, thrash out a running order with the Six Nations Unions with ratings-driven climaxes in mind.
Over the last eight seasons we have had four itineraries (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011) where the Round 1 fixtures have been
England v Wales, Ireland v Italy, and France v Scotland (two home, two away). In three seasons (2007, 2012, 2013) the Round 1 fixtures have been Italy v France, England v Scotland, and Wales v Ireland.
Each template has generally produced two mismatches – Italy against either France or Ireland, or France against Scotland – and a cagey, attritional affair between England and either Scotland or Wales. Thankfully, the set-to between Wales and Ireland has not proved as predictable, but one in three fixtures getting the fans on the edge of their seats is nothing to crow about.
One solution is for the Unions/broad-casters to stop trying to predict outcomes and to rotate the fixtures so that they change on a yearly basis, as happened historically, rather than being interventionist by ‘fixing’ Round 1. The futility of being so controlling was highlighted last weekend when Italy confounded all the predictions by beating co-favourites France, and, at last, looked truly competitive.
Another answer – though logistically impossible – would be to have a Lions tour every year, because I’m convinced that the urgency and flair we saw in Round 1 was heavily influenced by the desire of British and Irish players to hit the ground running and impress Warren Gatland.  Whether it was Simon Zebo’s heel-flick, Owen Farrell‘s 20-metre pass to the galloping Geoff Parling, Stuart Hogg’s swashbuckling running, or Brian O’Driscoll’s superbly timed scoring pass, it was about putting down an early marker for the Australia tour with the Lions head coach.
Bonus points are debatable, but pretending that the Six Nations is as pure as driven snow given the rigging of the fixture order over the past decade is absurd. So is the idea that the tournament is always riveting. The pressure, and the lack of preparation time, means that Six Nations coaches frequently adopt a safety-first tactical approach.
By contrast, a system of winning and losing bonus points encourages attack over defence – and it explains why in recent seasons the Six Nations has been upstaged frequently by the Heineken Cup, where a team earns a bonus point for scoring four tries or more, and a bonus point for losing by seven or less. The argument that introducing bonus points would mean that the Six Nations had somehow crossed the Rubicon into uncharted territory from which there is no return is also unfounded. If the format has worked so successfully in a tournament of the Heineken Cup’s stature it is not exactly untried.
It has been aired that France would have been deprived of their 2002 Grand Slam under the bonus point system by England, whom they beat in Paris (20-15), with both teams tied but the English ahead on points difference and tries. However, it is a proposition which can be dismissed  immediately by introducing a ruling that a Grand Slam win – which can be won only on the final weekend in any case – earns the victors four points (as opposed to the usual two points). This rules out any possibility of the team in second place having more points.
Why not introduce bonus points into the Six Nations for a trial period of two seasons to see if it enhances the tournament, or detracts from it?
Then the participants, the fans, the administrators, the sponsors and broadcasters can all have their say from a vantage point of knowledge rather than prejudice. My view is that the mantra that we have heard endlessly from coaches in the pro era that defence wins matches – especially at international level – should be challenged.
The try count in the Six Nations has fallen from 75 per tournament from 2000-2003 to a low of 48 in 2012.  A ‘who dares wins’ sense of adventure should be encouraged by the guardians of this sport every bit as much as aggressive defence.  Naysayers can argue that the cut-and thrust of the Round 1 games at the Millennium Stadium (Wales 22 Ireland 30), Twickenham (England 38 Scotland 18), and the Stadio Olimpico (Italy 23 France 18) delivered that adventure. It is also a fact that it was achieved without bonus points.
However, one swallow doesn’t make a spring. It is very rare to get three games of such quality in a single round of Six Nations matches under the current system – as a survey of Round 1 matches over the past eight years makes clear. It’s time to give bonus points a trial run – and to return to a true fixture rotation rather than one cherry-picked by Unions/broadcasters.