Peter Jackson: Bonus points could cost Grand Slammers the title

Six years ago France went into the final match of the final round knowing exactly what they had to do to win the Six Nations – beat Scotland in Paris by 24 points. Ireland, having set the challenging target earlier in the day by posting a 51-24 win over Italy in Rome, France duly managed it with a try deep into injury-time. It meant both countries finishing with the same record, four wins and one defeat.
France were declared champions by virtue of a superior points-difference and Ireland runners-up. Under the bonus points system as applied to just about every other major competition, the positions would have been reversed. The Irish under Eddie O’Sullivan would have finished first, the French second.
Given today’s news that bonus points are being given serious consideration by the Six Nations’ committee for next year’s tournament, the two-horse race between France and Ireland in 2007 is worth recalling in more detail.
Four points for a win plus a bonus for four or more tries and another bonus for losing by seven points or fewer would have given France a total of 18 (five against Italy, four against Ireland, four against Wales, none against England and five against Scotland).
Ireland would have gone one better with 19 (four against Wales, one against France, five against England, four against Scotland and five against Italy). Contrasting cases can be made for each scenario.
Those who argued that France deserved the title did so because they had beaten Ireland at Croke Park courtesy of a late Vincent Clerc try, a game which will forever be remembered by those who witnessed it as the day the Irish contrived to lose an emerald Grand Slam.
Had bonus points been in operation, then many neutrals would have acclaimed the Irish as worthy winners because the failure of the organisers to fix simultaneous kick-offs in Rome and Paris that day gave the French the luxury of knowing precisely how big a win they needed, an unfair advantage.
How ironic that of the six Unions involved in the tournament, the Irish, among the most conservative by tradition, should have been in the vanguard of those resisting any radical change. They had only to cite the two-horse race between England and France in 2002 to support their stance.
France won the Grand Slam that year with England second. A bonus point system would have had France level on 21 points, with Martin Johnson’s England ahead on both points-difference (131 to 81) and tries (23 to 15).
The Grand Slam winners finishing second? Imagine what that would have done for the credibility of sport’s longest-running annual international competition. So why not leave well alone?  Why run the risk of two teams delivering the same results which England and France delivered in 2002?
Because there is a growing subscription in the corridors of power to the view that the grand old tournament needs a little spicing up, that the extra reward will encourage teams to keep going flat-out for tries to the very end.
A bonus point won here or dropped there can make all the difference between finishing first or second.    The same goes at the other end of the table.  Fifth place is worth the best part of £500,000 more in prize money than ending up with the wooden spoon.
Money, as usual, doesn’t so much talk these days as shriek. The ever-expanding prize fund means that in excess of £12m is to be won and lost over the coming weeks.