Paul Lewis: Excitement bonus of this system

Paul Lewis

This is a defence of the poor old bonus point. Earlier in the Super 14, knowledgeable commentators and members of the public were exclaiming at the idiocy of the system and longing for a return to the simple old win-loss-points for and against formula.

The bonus point should stay. All the proof needed was a quick look at the Super 14 table ahead of this weekend's matches. In extreme mathematical theory, nine sides could have made the top four.

The reality is only six or seven were actually in contention but, in spite of all the criticisms of Super 14 - many of them in this column - any objective analysis must acknowledge the excitement created by the bonus point.

Those who diss it make the point that teams like the Blues had a false position in the table. Before this weekend, they lay fifth. Under the old system, the Blues would have been ninth before they got caned by the Canes and no show of making the semifinals. Do away with the bonus points, the critics say, and get back to the purity of win or loss and those who score the most points and concede the fewest; a more accurate picture of performance.

Fair point, too. Except that, if you look at the current Super 14 table (before this weekend's results), under the old system of two points for a win, one for a draw and none for a loss (and no bonus points), the Hurricanes, Bulls and Sharks would have pretty much qualified for the semifinals already. The Chiefs, Waratahs and Brumbies would have been fighting it out for the fourth spot.

The Force and the Crusaders would have had an outside chance but, and here's the clincher, all the sides in contention under the bonus point system know they need not just wins, but wins with bonus points.

That means certified sleep inducers and defence-oriented teams like the Waratahs finally chose a backline this weekend designed to breach defences and score tries. They didn't - but they tried. The same was true of other teams. Even those which didn't alter personnel were mindful of the need to score points to make the playoffs.

This, surely, is A Good Thing. By any measure, it is more exciting watching nine teams trying their hardest to score points and win matches by colourful means than it is to have three teams (under the old system) pretty much guaranteed a semifinal spot by round 10 of 13.

Under the bonus point system, the uncertainty - and the interest - will persist until the end of round robin play.

When rugby is as much under siege as it is from dropping audiences and dwindling interest, surely that is Another Good Thing. As for the Blues, well, yes, by any chalk they were lucky to have been in contention. But if you asked the NZRU if they were happy that fans in the biggest rugby stronghold still had an interest, it is doubtful their reply would be anything other than enthused agreement.

Also, the Blues (going into this weekend) had scored more points and more tries than any other Super 14 team save the Hurricanes. They had also conceded more than any other team save the Lions.

That is reminiscent of the old 'Tottenham Hotspur' philosophy - an English Premier League football club which for years embraced attack. Tottenham tried for years to play in a way which out-positived the opposition (and which, if Spurs' fans are entirely honest, negates the fact that it had a lousy defence) and which basically says: 'Never mind what they score; we score more.'

The Blues have done the same, although not necessarily to such a clear plan.

If you play like that, you have to win or people end up saying rude things about your defence, as they now are with the Blues.

But it is at least exciting and the scourge of defence is one of rugby's greatest issues. The rules and structure of the sport have seen defences blight what used to be a much more attractive game.

Let the Northern Hemisphere witter on about fairy dances rugby - conveniently forgetting their big, rough tough, possession-based sides that come here routinely lose because they can't score tries and have the creative instincts of a bollard.

Like the 2005 Lions. Look, too, at the selection of the 2009 Lions to South Africa. Most are predicting a 3-0 victory to the Boks. Why? Because the Brits have such a paucity of real talent they have been forced to select a team designed to defend or, best case, not to lose by much.

The forwards are big, rough and tough "beasts", as head coach Ian McGeechan described them. This in spite of the fact that many South African Super 14 sides demonstrates they have come a long way from the hulking beasts of the veldt who only knew intimidation and a spot of viciousness and whose favourite pastime was running over a rooinek Englishman in a tractor.

The Boks have genuine pace, try scorers and creators and too much talent to be conned into a solely up-front, bash-'em-up exercise which would suit the Lions. The Boks have grown their ability because of the Super 14 and the bonus point.

It gives us more than it takes away. Let's keep it.