Halifaxtiger

Early days yet but I am delighted for Adam and his dad Paul who has always stood with him. Keep it up boys, one very happy and proud sponsor.

Much deserved Leicester win. Sadly Plymouth are in disarray and what looked to me like a decent team simply is nowhere near as good as it should be and team changes are inevitable. Ironically the much maligned Kling was man of the match, not unreasonably so. when your luck is down it's down, and Plymouth were victims of a shocking refereeing decision in heat 12 when Edberg took Kurtz off.

Take it from me, Plymouth is anything but a gaters paradise. If you attack the track you can pass anywhere. George English said it is like a mini Sheffield and he's right, but you get the bonus of some very hairy first corners as well.

I don't think there was ever any concern about the weather for this one but I am about half a mile from the track and it is bright sunshine. Seen two last heat deciders in the last two days and I think I will see another with devils taking two points. Should be a cracker at one of my favourite tracks.

I have said before that in my experience Berwick have upped their game more than any other club in the country over the last few years and this meeting was good evidence of that. The overwhelming impression I got was of a promotion that pulled out all the stops to make their TV debut a success. They undetook a targeted advertising campaign, making the most of the TV coverage and the reduced prices and that was always likely to draw in an increased attendance. I'd say that's the biggest I have ever seen at Berwick and I'll be surprised if some of the newcomers don't return. Shielfield isn't a brilliant racers track but it was certainly at its best (or near its best) and produced a highly entertaining match, aided by the closeness of the score. Its often the case that we bash promotions on here and in many cases those sort of comments are both justifiable and reasonable. Its very pleasing, therefore, to give John Anderson and his team a great deal of credit for the way they went about last night, and I'd say they set a standard for others to follow. I can't help but think that had others made a similiar amount of effort we might not be staring the loss of the broadcasting contract in the face.

Quite. I don't have leanings either way. The one thing that TR's have in their favour is that as far as I am aware riders do not get paid extra for undertaking them. TS's would mean that they did. To put it into perspective, all riders earn £40 per point except the top two who earn £60. Double tactical in heat 8 5-1 for instead of 5-1 against. One costs £360, the other £40. That's a cost to a promoter of £320 for one race.......... Neither do I. But I have heard tales that that is the case (from those who are against it that is). On your first point, I would definitely agree. I was only hearing a tale on Thursday about a truly passionate fan who was subject to unnecessary abuse by a promoter. (he's contributed on this thread). When the points system came in, I thought it was daft. Now I actually think it was a very good move indeed. I am fully aware that a lot of people don't like it but I just have trouble working out why. At least you are one of those who are against all forms of tactical changes - which, in my experience, is unusual - because those who rail against it but support tactical substitutes on the basis that they are fairer simply don't know what they are talking about, as SCB has shown. I doubt if anyone has come in - or left - the sport because of tactical rides. In both cases, they'd be daft if you ask me. But people will come to the sport if it is more exciting and tactical rides do two things to make that more likely. First, there's the additional emphasis on the race. Second, they keep scores closer. I doubt if there is a single person here that hasn't seen a dead meeting brought back to life by a tactical change. Do we want dead meetings or live ones ?

These are the sort of responses that we usually get from the anti-TR rule mob. Its wrong, its unfair, its 'ridiculous' - without a single word of justification. If that's the case, why didn't have a big credibility problem in the 1970's when speedway was Britain's second most popular spectator sport ? Tactical substitutes existed then and as SCB has accurately said, they could affect a meeting more than any tactical ride does now. I remember reading with disbelief a quote on here in which a person stated that a friend of his loved speedway but wouldn't go because of the tactical ride rule. I remain to this day unconvinced that that was the truth of the matter, but if it was it was truly bizarre and ridiculous. I can understand people deserting the sport for its cost, crap racing and even seeing their team carved up by the points limits but because someone gets double points ? Daft. If I understood half of this I would probably (I think) dispute it. I have seen some lines on this forum but 'sport that wallows so serenely in it's homemade mathematical soup of defeat' just about takes the cake. The simple truth is that as Bewitcher says closer results are always more exciting to watch and not just in speedway but in any sport. Ask anyone about the best meeting they have ever seen and its almost certain to be a last heat decider - in my case, Mildenhall v Scunthorpe, NL play final 2011. In that case, the riders entered the last bend of the last race of the season with the NL championship still not decided. Breathtaking stuff. Happiness is 40-38 signifies two things: your team has won and its been a close result which, in almost every case, had you on the edge of the seat. It doesn't get better than that. I'm for anything that makes speedway more exciting and hence more likely to attract fans and that includes tactical rides. As soon as a rider puts on the black and white helmet, it means more emphasis is placed on that race for both sets of fans. In addition, it means that meetings are likely to be closer and I can't believe that anyone will actually suggest that that doesn't make for better entertainment. Speedway's tactical ride rule is almost unique (which is why some have trouble grasping it and are critical and/or mocking) but reflects the fact that the differences in the playing area (for want of a better term) are similarly unique. I can't think of another team sport where one teams playing area is twice the size of anothers and a completely different shape and the surface is also completely different. A comparison with other sports, therefore, simply cannot be made.

Come out and go back in. I now have sound.

No reason to doubt your word, Martin - you know a lot more about it than I do. The only thing is that as Hoggy is building a team to a budget, he can't be solely responsible for it. Very difficult to argue with your view of team selection

Do you (and others) actually have any real evidence that Dave Hoggart is solely responsible for Sheffield's team building ? If not, you are merely speculating and the comments you are making about him are both unjustifiable and unfair. Neil Machin is as much Sheffield's promoter as Dave Hoggart is - indeed, in my understanding, far more so. If you wish to start throwing blame about - and I really don't think that is at all necessary at this stage of the season - then make sure your allegations rest on reasonable fact not unfounded hearsay, gossip or guesswork and target the right person(s). I have been critical of Hoggy for bulling his team up and making unrealistically optimistic press releases that neither he nor the team can make good. But if these comments are speculation, he deserves better.

My own version is if it doesn't happen to suit us rule or no rule we'll ignore it. You can have the 'Interests of speedway' or the rule book but you can't have both.

A 'bit dusty' is a minor understatement for the first few heats and I'd say the track wasn't decent but awful at that time - despite Yearbyred's claim that I was being 'spoiled' (which from the reports about previous weeks I probably was). I have to say, though, that after the interval and some track work I thought it was an entertaining meeting - there wasn't a lot of passing but some of the racing was very close indeed. Although nowhere near as good as the first few seasons when STMP was one of my favourite tracks, it was certainly enough to make me come back later in the year.

Don't go there. If he does it, Jordan's face says it all. I can understand your position to a degree on the strength of the side. If the likes of Tigerite and Spinny (who are as passionate and fair about the Tigers as anyone) are concerned there's almost certainly a problem. What I object to is your comment that they are not competitive (which is rubbish) and the fact that you have been quiet since the start of the season and then chosen to stick the boot in when they have a couple of poor results. I made comment about the team during the winter but there's no way I would be crowing about the fact that I might (and might is the word) have been right. Nothing would give me greater pleasure where Sheffield Speedway is concerned than to look a fool with the predictions I made.

I wonder why you have chosen this moment to post. Could it be that for the first few weeks of the season that you were choking on your own venom as Sheffield won their first three home PL fixtures, qualified for the League Cup semi finals and put in creditable away performances at Leicester, Berwick & Scunthorpe ? Haines is averaging around the 6 point mark so how you can say he is 'nowhere near good enough for the PL' is beyond me. With the exception of the Redcar match, Albin has scored at least paid 7 in every meeting at home and his amazing riding style is worth more than that. As I said, there is cause for concern here at some of the low scores, particularly at reserve. But to suggest that Sheffield do not have a competitive team (at home, certainly) is nonsense.

I'd say you had a point - as did I, Spinny and several others who were concerned about the make up. I notice you haven't made any comments about it until the team were beaten at home by Redcar (as have others) and lost at Rye House so your view might stand up - which it probably wouldn't have before hand. I'd say Messrs Machin & Hoggart were wrong about the reserves but as I got it wrong about Hall & Albin that makes us about even. There is cause for concern here but gloating over the fact that you had a point won't help.

The question on that is what sort of reaction he would get when he does. I have had two reactions from critical remarks made on here from members of the speedway establishment (for want of a better term) when I have seen them. One was an abusive rant, completely brushing aside what I was saying (despite the fact that every single person I have spoken to subsequently agreed with me). The other - from King's Lynn's Dale Allitt - was a calm, reasoned and fair response which I accepted and commented on at the time. If it is likely that you would get the first, what is the point in raising it ?

Cook was very impressive indeed - I am not sure what he was riding but he was a lot faster than everyone else, winning a couple of heats by almost half a lap. Even when beaten from the gate by Howe he was in front after only a lap or so. Nasty crash involving Vissing and Auty. As they came out of the 4th bend Vissing picked up grip and fell and Auty smashed into him. I was amazed to see Auty get up and walk away immediately, and almost as amazed to see Vissing get up after a few minutes and walk back to the pits. It was announced that he had a shoulder injury. Very hot ( ) today and the track suffered for it, particularly on the 3rd bend where there was a big blue groove by the end. Gating was all important in the second half of the meeting and Monarchs made a few quick starts when it mattered. Tabaka was also impressive and Fricke promising, Blackbird putting some points in at reserve for Scunny where they have been absent in the past.

Little unfair. What you have to remember is that these lads paid all their own costs to get here and I am sure they would rather be racing than laid up with injuries. Very impressive performance from Williamson.

Problem is they are the riders that Sheffield can't change because they are on assessed averages. Nor could Sheffield use a guest for Hall, so they had to go for rider replacement. I do think that everyone needs to take a step back here. Sheffield aren't the first side to be mugged by Micky Dyer riding at reserve and won't be the last. If he had scored what an opposition reserve for any other team would have scored this would have been close. Stead and Haines did their job and although Wells still didn't perform as expected he wasn't rubbish. Hall was badly missed - he'd definitely have scored more than the 6 (excluding the TR) that R/R got for him. The crucial failure was Albin. He's definitely better than that and maybe, as Hoggy says, this was an off night for him. The one area that Sheffield do have problems in is their frightening weakness at reserve means that any slips from the top 5 and they are in deep trouble. You would expect - even with Dyer in the form that he is - your reserves to beat more than 1 opposition rider in 8 rides.

I think you have a point here. I have never totally been convinced its all about the shape, particularly after I went to the Scunny match last season - by far and away the best I have seen at the track. The surface that day was very different, only to return to a super slick consistency the following week. Its why I believe that Glyn - and make no mistake, I have a great deal of regard for him as a track man, Redcar hasn't been the same since he left - is pandering to riders opinions rather than setting it up for racing.

Bloody priceless

I am certainly aware that my critical comments can do an enormous amount of damage to a promotion but, as far as I am concerned, that's the result of their negligence, arrogance or incompetence and all I am doing is saying that I am not satisfied with what I have got (or will be getting) for my money. That is the same with every product we buy; if its not up to scratch we have a right to state our feelings providing they are reasoned, reasonable and fair and I'd back my reputation as a fair poster on this forum against anyone's. By your view, if you bought a brand new car and it blew up the next day you wouldn't complain for fear of damaging the manufacturer's reputation. That's not just nonsense, its laughable nonsense. It doesn't occur to you that people such as Volty and Spin King are critical because they actually care about their clubs and are desperately concerned that they will go out of business because of the actions taken (or not taken) by their promotions. It isn't just their selfish interests. I always put myself in the position of the person I am criticising. Here, David Hemsley confirmed that track changes would be made - if they have, they are hardly noticeable and haven't made any difference. As someone else has said, if he came out and said he couldn't afford to make changes it would at least be understandable - as it is, you can draw the conclusion that he is simply ignoring or brushing aside the criticism on the arrogant basis that he is right and they are wrong (in my view he isn't and they aren't). I, and many supporters, recognise that speedway tracks are often anything but profitable and also that a debt is owed to some individuals who keep those tracks open (although I'd say that does not apply to either Leicester or Sheffield). That doesn't mean (and this, it seems to me, is what you have to grasp)that they can put on a shoddy product, be exempt from criticism where appropriate and that supporters should simply be grateful for what they have, however inferior.

I'd say you can pretty much ignore his posts. When critical comments were made about the Sheffield line up during the close season, he described the persons concerned as 'mealy mouthed b$$tards' who should simply be grateful that they had speedway to watch. That included passionate, long standing supporters like Spin King whose very reasonable (and reasoned)concerns about the side were to be brushed aside or subjected to aggressive responses. Its little wonder that he has come out with something about Leicester that is very similar. I am sure that everyone at Leicester recognises the role that David Hemsley played in the re-establishment of speedway in Leicester. But that, in no way whatsoever, allows him to be exempt from reasonable criticism about it. Speedway tracks are not charitable institutions run by some benefactor, they are businesses. That means they have a product that they offer to paying customers and those customers have every right to air their view if the product isn't up to scratch. For me, you have all along fairly stated what a considerable number of people at Leicester and almost every away and neutral fan feel about the racing situation at Beaumont Park, and its clear that you have done so at least partly due to your concern for the future of the sport there. More power to your elbow, I'd say.

Dead right and you have every reason to be angry. As to the away fans, they will be anything but placated. The lads I know from Plymouth booked overnight accommodation in the area as they are going on to Newcastle today. They ended up going to Eastbourne instead. What sticks in my craw is the sheer lack of effort to get the meeting on- not for the first time in my experience. I doubt if any complaints about falling crowds at rye house will attract much sympathy.