BWitcher

Read the question again. To make it clearer for you, did any reserves from the old NL reach the World U-21 Final WHILE they were riding at reserve in the NL? I don't know the answer so am genuinely interested.

haha! Quite correct Edited

Correct, it was never a debate. Just you arguing against reality again.

Yes! Really struggling in life. I would say, you would get further in life by not peddling nonsense, making up things that plainly didn't happen and calling them an 'opinion'. Once again, as its clearly difficult for you to understand. What happened is factual, not an opinion. Gollob moved right and collided with Pedersen. 100% absolute fact. Not Opinion. The debate is whether or not Gollob should have been excluded or not and yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion on that! Edited

Keep telling yourself that Sidney if it makes you feel better. This post is again the ultimate sign you've got no argument as every time you come across something you can't argue against, you resort to the childish abuse. I haven't had to go round in any circles, in fact I haven't had to move. You've proved your own theory wrong all by yourself with the riders you've trotted out. To break it down very simply for you... If we take an average season.. 13 teams in the top flight.. 17 teams in the National League. That gives us 91 riders in the top flight, 119 in the National League. 210 riders in total. The top 25% riders would be above average, the middle 50% average, the bottom 25% below average. You've already confirmed yourself the top league was much tougher.. which by your own words suggest the majority, if not all the top 25% are in the top league. Which only leaves us with average and below average left. Debate is over Sidney. Anyway, back on thread, good performance from Darcy last night on his comeback.

Correct. Absolutely 100% Correct. Why do you think they start in that league? Why do you think riders dropped to that league later in their career? Because it was easier than the top league. Once again, Lee, Collins, Havelock and Loram are destroying your argument, not promoting it. They started in it when they were learning, as soon as they improved, they stopped riding in it.. In the case of Havelock, when he got older and wasn't so good anymore he went back to it.. as it was EASIER.

Whilst agreeing with some of what you say, Tai is well above Emil at the moment. Emil isn't being 'denied' anything either.

What it tells me Sidney is what we already know. You haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. Run along and learn the meaning of the word mediocre, then we can continue the discussion. You are the one adding extra's in such as 'second rate' mediocre and 'crap' medicore. None of these things said by me.. just you in your paranoia. Mediocre = "of only average quality; not very good." Now, if riders were 'very good' they would be in the top flight of racing for the most part. Not even the top flight was full of riders that were 'very good', but we'll ignore that for now. Riders in the old National League, i.e. the SECOND division weren't as good as the top riders in the British League... i.e. the very good riders. By definition that makes them 'not very good'. Which of course makes them of average quality or mediocre. Once again Sidney, its a FACT. This does not mean they were bad riders, that's your own fabrication. Continue to argue all you like, but you are wrong. You've even argued against yourself (again). The reason promoters loaned riders out to the lower league first was because it was easier! i.e. not mega tough like the British League was. Who has said it was a crap product? You've created this fiction yourself Sidney. It wasn't a crap product, it was an excellent product. Serious question for you now Sidders.. Did any reserves from the old NL ever reach the World U-21 Final?

It's not an opinion, you're just making stuff up. It makes as much sense as me saying it was Emils fault because he knocked them off. It didn't happen. Nicki didn't turn left AT ALL. If Nicki had done what Gollob did, every rider would be in agreement

That's not an opinion, its made up rubbish. The evidence conclusively showed Nicki didn't move from his line, which was heading straight. The evidence conclusively showed Gollob veered to the right and into Nicki. Nobody is arguing that except for you. The argument is whether it should have been All 4 back or not. There isn't a scenario except in your head that Nicki could have been excluded.

I'm still waiting for you to name all the second string/reserves that populated the NL that made it a 'mega tough' league in your words and were above average standard. Now bear in mind, riders such as Danny King/Simon Stead/Graham Jones to give 3 examples are deemed to be average standard.. lets hear all the NL second strings/reserves who match up.

What planet are you on? Ermolenko planet? Nicki hadn't even started to turn into the corner!!

Then you have a problem. Your main one being a lack of understanding of the English language. Mediocre = average rider. Riders in the second division are mainly just that, average riders. Some of them will progress to become good riders and move up a league, some of them will progress further to become great riders... some will regress back.. That's the reality, no matter how much you stamp your feet. When Peter Collins rode in the National League he wasn't a great rider. He was a promising rider with potential who in later years would become a great one. What he did later is totally irrelevant to the conversation regarding the strength of the National League.

So on your brilliant dissection of the situation, Nicki shouldn't have been excluded for 95% of his incidents, and most certainly was blameless in the infamous Hancock incident.. after all.. by your definition.. he was in front.

Yes, because it's utterly irrelevant! Because we are discussing the strength of the National League. So what someone did in totally different seasons in another league is irrelevant. It's like saying the Portuguese league was the toughest league in Europe in 1992 because Porto won the Champions League in 1994. Meanwhile once again you're unable to argue the point and are resorting to your rants. I know one rider who rode in both leagues to a pretty decent standard, you know how he describes himself? An average rider. How dare he abuse himself like that!

He could not get into Nicki's wheel?

If the roles were reversed and Nicki was on gate 1 you can guarantee the folk bleating would be saying it was a correct call.

There is no argument over who caused it.

It was 100%. There is no argument about that, only one rider rode into the other. It's just not often enforced.

Once again another pointless list Sidney. What they did in the BL is IRRELEVANT. It's what level they were at in their time in the NL. However, it is a big long list mainly of pretty mediocre riders. They're certainly not greats, they're certainly not very good riders.. they're riders of average quality.. which funnily enough is the definition of Mediocre.

100% Correct decision. Awful commentary. I love Sam, but he was making things up there. Nicki went perfectly straight, didn't lean over and was simply rode into by Gollob. Tough call, but correct. The incident wasn't bunching, it was entirely caused by Gollob veering of line into Pedersen.

Awful call from the referee. Lindback was far quicker, right on the inside, Emil trying to shut the door way too late turned into him.

Collins rode 1 year in the National League and averaged 8. So you can scratch him off your list of being a great National League rider for starters. Again you bring up.. 'went on to be'. What they went on to be is irrelevant. What is relevant is their abilities at the time they rode in the league. It's very very easy to name a bunch of no 1's over an ever expanding period. Go ahead and name me the same amount of second strings and reserves who weren't mediocre or journeymen. Should be easy for you, there's 4 times as many of them!

Nobody is discussing the racing Sidney, so once again, no idea what you are wittering on about. The quality of racing has nothing to do with the standard of rider. You can see some great racing in the junior racing, but the standard is poor. The overall standard of rider in the National League was mediocre... that is INARGUABLE. It was the 2nd division. You can pick out 20 odd riders over a 10 year period who were above mediocre standard.. but that leaves you with hundreds who weren't.. and many of those at the bottom end of teams who were less than mediocre standard... just as it is now!

Of course it was mediocre, it was the second division. That doesn't mean the racing was bad, or it wasn't a good division to watch. You're just plucking names out over a large time period, as HenryW above and others are pointing out. Read HenryW's post. It explains it.