Old school: Philippe Saint-André
France coach Philippe Saint-André is totally opposed to the proposed introduction of bonus points for the Six Nations Championship.
The 45-year-old, who is set to take France into his second Six Nations as coach, said he would feel cheated were his side to win the Grand Slam but another team finished top on account of accruing more bonus points.
It was revealed earlier this month that consultation report has been drawn up for the six countries to discuss whether to bring in the bonus-points system which would see sides earn points for scoring four tries and losing by a margin of seven points or less.
On that basis France's Grand Slam in 2002 would have not been enough to see them top the table as bitter rivals England would have edged them courtesy of four offensive bonus points.
All the British Isles major club tournaments as well as the European Cup and Challenge competitions award bonus points, but the Six Nations has consistently refused to do so, declaring the history and success of the tournament meant change was not necessary.
The report says that foremost among the countries wanting a full debate on the matter are England.
However, Saint-André, an Anglophile having spent more than eight years coaching across the Channel, believes imposing bonus points would destroy the whole ethos of the competition.
"I like the system as it is important for World Cups and club competitions," the 69-time capped former France wing and captain told AFP on Tuesday.
"However, maybe I'm old school but I wouldn't feel at ease if a team won the Grand Slam and don't win the Six Nations because another team gets more points on account of bonus points.
"I would feel cheated if that were to happen because it goes against the spirit of the competition.
"Me, I came into rugby because as a child I used to watch the (then) Five Nations and it was all about either the Grand Slam or the wooden spoon."
Comments
Stokesy says...
Regardsing the arguemnet that bonus points will further increase the home advantage (which already skews every tournament for or against half the teams in the competition) I'm afraid I don't buy it. Again we can only look back at what was - which I understand is not a perfect comparison as the teams may well have played differently under a BP system - but we can see what impact it would have had.
There are only 5 years where the BP system would have changed the position of teams in the tournament - every single one of those the team that got the benefit under the bonus point system only had 2 home games. Italy 2000 would be promoted to sixth place - 2 home games. England 2002 (yeah I know the whole France Grand Slam issue - that point has already been made) only 2 games at home. Ireland 2005 - 2 home games, Italy 2008, Wales 2009 - both 2 home games.
If the bonus point system inherently gives those teams with 3 home games an even bigger advantage than they already have - why is it that in an analysis of the past tournaments there has NEVER been a team that got a boost out of 3 home games with home advantage that had an impact on the tournament results?
Posted 09:20 25th January 2013
APV1 says...
@ jamesliveinhope - excellent point. So, as many of us have said, let's leave it well alone.
ENGLAND FOR THE GRAND SLAM!
Posted 12:35 24th January 2013
JoseArtigas1 says...
If bonus points applied this year England would practically start with +3 points over the opposition as they have both Scotland and Italy at home and a poor looking Wales under the roof is Cardiff, it could only be more advantageous if the Scotland match was in March with the better weather. Whereas Ireland for example have only two home matches against France and England, their best chance of a bonus point is away to Italy in March. How can anybody say that is a fair system???
Posted 10:47 24th January 2013
jamesliveinhope says...
is there not a danger that, if you engineer the points system to avoid GS winners being overhauled by BP earners, that you defeat the purpose of the BP system in the first place.
Posted 08:31 24th January 2013
melkdave says...
Only in favour for bonus points for tries,score 4 or more get a bonus point,nowt for anything else.As to relegation/ promotion not really a fan of it atm,as others have said would a newly promoted team be able to gve the others a game,It took France quite a few years to get its first victory in the 5 Nations ,and Italy though improving at a great rate ,still arnt what most fans would consider contenders for the title atm and thats after 12 yrs involment.What i would like to see,is the European Nations Cup become a yearly competion first off.Then the 3rd aurtum international team spot go to the likes of Georgia ,Russia,Spain ,Romainia,and the USA and Canada ect ,Rather than atm to Samoa,Tonga ect. as now.Thus giving those teams regular fixtures against the established 6Ns teams.and perhaps a mini tourament between themselves ala Samoa,Canada ,USA,Fiji this year..This hopefully will allow these teams to improve to 6Ns standard quickly ,thus allowing for potential promotion.relegation matches in the future,and boost rugby in those countries.Samoa ,Tonga ect of course get matches against NH teams on their summer tours as compensation.As we ae moving back towards the old traditional tours atm.A win win imo.
Posted 14:45 23rd January 2013
Stokesy says...
@Brit50 - exactly. We all agree that the GS should trump the bonus poiint system... and there are ways and means of doing that. And in the non-GS years the use of the bonus points could make all the difference in terms of teams pushing forwards right down to the last minuts of the last games, instead of taking the 3 points to keep themselves just clear.
Posted 14:30 23rd January 2013
Stokesy says...
@HighsideUK - you would need to make it 3 bonus points, as it is possible for a team to pick up two losing bonus points by scoring 4 tries and losing by less than 7 without the winner picking up a bonus point. 4 unconverted tries vs 3 converted ones as an example. Other than that I quite agree.
Posted 14:25 23rd January 2013
Brit50 says...
Its not about the players and coaches. Its about the paying public. We need bonus points to force coaches into playing for tries. Rugby, as a spectator sport, will not appeal to the next generations in its present unadventurous state in Northern Hemisphere. Plus, we will fall even further behind the skills of Southern Hemisphere. Some of the best rugby was played in this last week of Heineken cup simply because teams were forced to go hunting for tries and bonus points.
Posted 10:18 23rd January 2013
Waz4before says...
I think this argument needs to move on - surely its generally accepted from all that have commented on this concept that whoever achieves a grand slam should or would be awarded the title (even if that means having to award bonus points for the 'slam itself). The argument surely is one of would the addition of bonus points make a positive difference to this competition, particularly in a non-Grand Slam year? I was against it a few years ago but now think it should be trialled with the caveat that a Grand Slam guarantees a title! Maybe it could be trialled for 5 seasons and then reviewed?
On the additional comments of promotion/relegation from the 6n's -- I'm all in favor of that but something like a 5-10 year window needs to be set for this to allow the T2 nations to prepare and be given additional caching where necessary. It makes perfect sense but given the Celtic fuss over HEC qualification you can only imagine that they would strongly oppose such a suggestion ...
And further afield - this is where the Anglo-French proposal for the new European format works well through the creation of a 3rd tier European competition which will further strengthen the T2 nations domestically and eventually their international sides (you just have to look at the progress in the 7's Series of sides like Spain, Portugal and Russia to see what difference investment and opportunity make!)
Posted 03:11 23rd January 2013
JoseArtigas1 says...
I'm against bonus points in the 6 nations as each match should remain a virtual knock-out, after all that is how test matches are played and the business end of virtually every competition. Furthermore it would mean teams with three home matches would have a huge advantage it those years.
I cannot see how promotion/relegation could benefit anybody: rugby in Scotland r Italy (if they were the relegated team) would suffer greatly while the promoted team could not immediately be up to the standard necessary to give the other nations a match.
I would be in favour of inviting Georgia into an expanded European Championship for an eight year (or so) trial period. They have won the European Nations Cup for the last few years, have a strong team and rugby is hugely popular there. Start the Championship a week earlier - Georgia would probably need to play their 3 away games first to avoid poor weather - with a break after every two matches so it would still end on the third weekend in March. With 3 home and 3 away matches bonus points would be feasible. If Georgia can't prove they can make the grade after 8 years then reevaluate the situation.
In fairness though why do we need the change the 6 Nations? The weather will always be dodgy at this time of year and the standard of rugby will stand or fall on that more than bonus points. The 6 Nations has actually changed at a good pace since the Championship began in 1883 and has changed hugely in the past 20/30 years, I don't see how it needs another face lift. Rant over!!
Posted 23:02 22nd January 2013
HighsideUK says...
Quite simple. Award a further 2 bonus points for achieving the grand slam.
Everybody is happy.
That way the slam would guarantee you at least 22 points - which is more than the 21 points anyone else could get for 4 bonus wins and a bonus point loss.
Or even more simply - just say that if anyone manages the slam then they are the winners.
What's the problem?
Posted 21:51 22nd January 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
Scotland have some good scalps recently. Just struggling in 6 nations. The problem with relegation is we absolutely can't drop anyone.
Posted 21:02 22nd January 2013
BiggyFint says...
If it aint broke don't fix it!
Posted 19:43 22nd January 2013
Vonvon says...
@ APV1: totally agree with you. Six nations is a historic sport event. Both elements must be taken into account. Change is okay but what is amazing about the 6 nations is the strength of the traditions.
It took 24 tournaments and 43 years to France to win its first tournament so I guess Scotland is not that bad (yet). I would miss the Flower of Scotland (and I'm French)
Posted 18:49 22nd January 2013
kije says...
bad idea, don't like it, don't want it. If it's not broke don't try to fix it.
Posted 18:45 22nd January 2013
Lucasrg says...
@jamesliveinhope ..."something of Bonaparte about that image of PSA" LOL!
Btw I'm only in favour of a bonus point system of giving it to the teams that scores 4 tries more then the opposing team
Posted 18:34 22nd January 2013
APV1 says...
@ Propmelsey - The Calcutta Cup is one of the oldest and best matches in the world. Don't take that away.
Posted 17:45 22nd January 2013
leinster_goy says...
what's up with saint-andr? terminator eye?
Posted 17:13 22nd January 2013
J_HDK says...
Bonus Points would only be rational if there was a Home and Away Leg of each match. Which would probably mean Two pools. with winners playing off for title at neutral venue.. then seconds playing off against each other etc.
Posted 17:04 22nd January 2013
RugbyLocos says...
Bonus points ? - What a rediculous proposal !!! - what team wants to be back door champions?
Posted 16:47 22nd January 2013