Humphrey Appleby

A team competition implies a certain strength-of-depth, otherwise why not just have 1-rider teams to allow more countries to be competitive? There's really only 9 test playing countries, but no-one suggests turning that sport's premier competition into single wicket cricket to make things more competitive. This best pairs competition just shows a complete lack of imagination and devalues one of the better events in the calendar. There's nothing new or unique about it whatsoever, and whilst it might be tolerable if it alternated with the SWC (as originally indicated), now it seems that it's actually intended to replace the SWC.

Which is what?

Carry On Speedway has a certain ring to it...

They were probably lucky to scrap together the 15 'teams' they actually have, as evidenced by the statement in the press release that said "It will be great to see as many as 15 nations". What's the betting that a Poland II and III will end up in the Race-Offs?

Well it's pretty much the same, content wise! Obviously the online version doesn't get delayed and you get sent it wherever you are. On a A4 tablet it's about the same as reading the paper version and it's still readable on a iPad Mini.

Even the format isn't very unique. Didn't the ice racing once run a 2-day World Team Cup with a pairs format, and a slight different heat format on each day?

The site was supposed to have been fenced, amongst other things, as a condition of the long lease. That wasn't done, so the lease was substantially shortened which became particularly problematic when the area became desirable for redevelopment.

Smallmead essentially ended-up being a traffic island with all the new development around. A dilapidated stadium was totally incongruous with the surroundings, quite aside from the lease issues.

I’m amazed how the State Titles still have any relevance at all for visa criteria.

How hard can be it to organise a pairs event?

Of course they're not, even if we're talking about vastly different amounts of money. The F1 teams didn't think they were getting enough money out of the sport, despite the fact they provided much of the show, and took control of the commercial rights. Something that the professional speedway leagues should have done, rather than simply allow the FIM to sell them off and take all the money. 3 million is nothing like the profits generated by F1, but it's more than speedway is currently getting.

I'm fully aware of how things were arranged, but that does not mean those arrangements should have been accepted by those employing most of the professional riders at the time. Very different in F1 where Bernie Ecclestone and the F1 teams didn't accept how the FIA were running things.

The FIM should have been insisting on minimum facilities and city locations to host the World Final. Sweden and Poland had suitably sized stadia in cities that could cater for the spectators, but Denmark did not and that was the start of moving major events to fields in the middle of nowhere. In principle Germany also had suitable stadia such as in Munich, but a World Final should never have been allowed to be held at Norden or Pocking. And if the BSPA allowed the ACU to concur with these decisions, far less abdicating the commercial rights to the sport's premier competition, then it sums up what a short-sighted shower they were.

Yes quite, but would you also describe Teterow and Hallstavik as world class stadiums?

I very much doubt you could write the rules of most sports on a sheet of paper (unless it was a very large sheet and writing was very small), especially a sport that caters for multiple formats. 'Tear up the rulebook' is just one of those silly mantras that gets bandied about by speedway people, and you of all people should know better than to repeat that. Whether or not there should be points limits, guests, averages and the like is one debate, but whilst they're deemed to be necessary by the sport, then there's always going to need to be a degree of complexity in the regulations. If there was nothing written down about these things, it would be total chaos and even more open to ad-hoc and biased decision-making. 'Four riders doing four laps' would frankly get pretty boring pretty quickly if there wasn't any structure to it. That's why the sport quickly evolved from ad-hoc scratch races to team events. And in reality, it's really only the team building stuff and certain technical elements that are highly contentious. The rest of the rulebook, whilst it might be better written, isn't controversial.

Maybe the Under-21 rider will ride in a sidecar attached to the tandem?

Not sure what the big secret is, unless of course the FIM/BSI haven't actually worked out what the format is going to be.

Can only assume then, that the programmed rides of each team will be shared between the 3 riders (thus having 4 programmed rides each assuming 7 teams). Have a recollection that format might have been used in Poland or Sweden before.

The format has been tried before and did little or nothing to grow the sport. The sport also needs to be focusing on its core markets rather than getting distracted, because it's dying on it's a**e even in the countries that support professional leagues. It's a bit replacing the Football World Cup with a five-a-side tournament in the hope of giving the minnows more chance to be competitive, but all you'd do is disinterest your main audiences, and the minnows will still be outclassed.

Well assuming the classic 7-pair format and 3 riders in each 'pair', that makes for 21 riders per meeting. The SWC currently has up to 20 per meeting, although I think prize money is just paid as a lump sum on a per-team basis (and isn't very generous). However, the current SWC format needs 4 meetings (plus 1 or 2 qualifiers) and I'm guessing these are insufficiently lucrative, especially the Race-Off if the host nation isn't represented. You can realistically incorporate up 12 teams in just two rounds using a pairs format, whilst guaranteeing that the hosts will be in the Final, and offering the potential to run the whole thing over a weekend. Alternatively, you could have 14 teams split into 2 Semi-Finals, with the top 3 in each going through to meet the host nation in the Final. That requires 3 rounds. No idea though, what the other changes could be that would increase costs, unless they're talking about the prize money.

How then it is a team competition if you're giving countries with only one decent rider the opportunity to dominate. You might as well combine the SWC with the SGP on that basis.

Would be far better to have a GP in an more accessible place, like erm... Riga?

Yes, but that's because the current format allows for the possibility of the race-off to happen without the host nation. It would be very easy to solve that issue. I think most people would consider a best pairs competition to be a diminished SWC, but let's see...

A best pairs competition will only require 2 or 3 rounds, compared to the 4 or 5 for a 4TT. Similar numbers of riders involved in both a pairs and 4TT meeting, so similar per-round prize money can be offered.

If they haven't been turning up for the SWC in droves, I can't see why they'd turn up for a diminished competition in droves.