You don't need bonus points in the 6N.
It may just be me, but I don't think the eventual table means anything at all. OK, it means a little to the winners, but not that much.
The first thing everybody wants is to win a Grand Slam. The reason they want the GS so badly is because it means you're definitely the best side in Europe, and you've just emerged victorious from some of the most intense rivalries around.
I remember back to when England were good. We were the best team in 1999, but fell at the last hurdle to Wales and missed out on a Grand Slam. Scotland, who were the same shite team they've been for 15 years, won the tournament. But no one cared.
2000 we then lost to that shite Scotland team in game 5 to miss out on the GS again. We won the tournament, but no one cared, especially England because we'd just lost to a **** team.
2001 foot and mouth ****** us around; we had to wait to win the GS in the Autumn and again lost out. We won the tournament again, but no one cared, especially England because we'd just lost to a **** team.
2002 a world class French side beat a world class England side to the GS.
2003 a world class England side finally got there and walloped everyone.
Point being - in 5 tournaments and 24 5/6 nations matches, England had won 20 of them. But all we'd got to show for it was one Grand Slam, and the great era of English dominance is underlined only by that one lone 6N achievement. Compare that to Carling's side who won a number of Grand Slams.
Put my memory since then into place - I remember who won in 2005, 2008, 2009 & 2010 because they were Grand Slam years. Every other year - I couldn't give a flying **** who won. I'm guessing the French and Irish probably shared it about. Bonus points wouldn't make a shred of difference to that.
) but in reality it's fine as it is
