BWitcher

1993. Wolves lost Ronnie Correy, Graham Jones, Charles Ermolenko and Phil Ashcroft in a week. Raced Ipswich with 5 juniors. It happens.

Nope, not in the slightest. Blackbird is head and shoulders the better rider, period. As said, by that line of thinking, you would be putting Bates in for Lindgren.

As expected I got the usual backlash from a few of the lackeys with the same stock phrases of "Were you there" on facebook. It matters not one jot whether I was there, Blackbird is the superior rider and 9 times out of 10 will beat Bates... so you put him in. What the lackeys fail to realise is that isn't an attack on Bates. Bates put in an awesome performance. If we followed the lackeys line of thinking, Bates would have been replacing Lindgren in his 3rd ride. Anyway, an excellent win and another Belle Vue team that fails to live up to its hype... long way to go for both teams however.

Good win for Wolves again, despite the efforts of their team manager.. or lack thereof. It's really quite simple.. Blackbird is by far the better rider, he should be having 5 rides. Especially when you are trailing by 4! Yes Bates won a race against Cook.. that will happen occasionally.. but Blackbird is head and shoulders the better rider. Matters not as we won this time, but these decisions, or lack thereof can cost you matches. Similarly.. PK coming out in blue and excluded? PK should know better but surely to hell the team manager should be observing such things!

It's amusing that despite that fact there is no evidence there are more injuries, despite the fact that what evidence that has been put forward supports the fact that there are no more injuries than in the past... we still keep getting long posts citing the 'reasons' why there are more injuries..... when there aren't.

Well as this is the only fixture he attends at Belle Vue, the fact he is specifically discussing this fixture and his experience in attending it previously in the sentence you have quoted... on a thread discussing this fixture it's pretty obvious. The track is generally dire for this match, mainly due to the time of day it is raced at it must be said. Not counting the infamous postponed meeting from a few years back....

He's referring to the Good Friday meeting. If you can let us know when one of those has produced anything resembling a decent meeting...

My point is there have always been injuries in speedway. Not entirely sure what yours is, other than you saw a match where someone fell off. Is that something not seen in the old days?

One of them without even crashing so the point is???

Well I can remember Wolves losing 4 riders in the space of a week to season ending injuries in 1993. Ronnie Correy, Graham Jones, Charles Ermolenko and Phil Ashcroft. As for 'believing what SCB's stats' tell him... you can believe that Kings Lynn won last night, but I think Lakeside won.

15 years on and they STILL have not learned that presenting meetings live on TV with about 5 people in camera view spectating does nothing but DAMAGE to the sport. It doesn't matter one iota if the racing is fantastic (the fact that it wasn't and often isn't makes it worse), if nobody is watching it. The impression it gives to Joe Public is, no point going there. The majority of the public are like sheep.. if they see lots of people doing something, they want to do it themselves. One of the most basic concepts of all and yet the dimwits in charge STILL haven't worked it out.

No it isn't bizarre at all. It's simply another example of speedway finding something good, and botching it. This bull about 'going home disappointed' is just another one of their pathetic excuses for declining crowds. When? Very regularly. In football, you know that fairly successful sport, many teams reduce their prices for games shown live on TV. You, like those in speedway haven't a clue quite simply. ALL sky meetings should be reduced in price. EVERY incentive and effort should be made to ensure that the viewer who stumbles upon speedway will see a packed stadium with a vibrant atmosphere. Why? Quite simply because they will then be inclined to consider going along themselves. Instead they are treated to one man and his dog and a morgue like atmostphere... which will attract nobody.

Why? Has Darcy Ward retired? I hope for his sake there are hundreds of pages to come as he enjoys a long and prosperous career.

The reality is WK, without meaning to, you are a big part of the problem. The situation generally plays out as follows:- Starman/Sidney come out with something nonsensical. They are corrected and given the reasons why their nonsensical comments are wrong. They can't act rationally, stamp their feet, refuse to accept it and hurl abuse at those who have corrected them. The odd poster like yourself then chimes in giving support to such childish actions and hence they continue to do so.

Nothing wrong with defending an opinion, it's when they are flat out wrong about something and STILL refuse to accept it that the problems begin.

Yep, just me that isn't happy... not. I call it as it is and make no apologies for doing so. It upsets a few a*** lickers, but hey ho.

If that is true and we have agreed to our opening 2 away fixtures without the most important member of the team it's another shocking display of ineptitude.

I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with you Sidney as like starman you suffer from an inability to read the thread. Otherwise you would have seen that I stated I originally had the same thoughts as starman with regards to the definition of drunk, however I LEARNED and admitted that I would have been wrong. You see that's what adults do. So essentially the comment you found so hilarious ( not surprising as insults is your level ), lacked any credence. It could however easily apply to someone who refuses to change their view even when they are shown to be wrong. Which brings us back to old starry again. Finally, as said before, I am wrong many times, but I dont spend my time posting on a forum about something I am wrong on.. That would be stupid.

Lmao. Yes I apologise for standing my ground when I am right. You see I don't argue when I'm wrong, that would make me look a complete fool and open myself up to laughter and ridicule.. Ring any bells?

Again, not sure what language you are speaking here. I think it's quite clear I know the definition of the word 'drunk' in the English language, which I think is what you are asking/assuming? It has been explained in some detail to you on the thread and the evidence provided to back that up, but you persist in claiming something else.

I think I see where you are coming from. SCB, myself and others have 'assumed' the language used on this forum is English and have based the definition of 'drunk' on that particular language. Little did we know you have invented your own language, with your own meaning to words. So silly of us. Once Jerran Hart gets out of prison I'm going to ask him to tweet Lewis Bridger, see what his definition is. Any ideas when he'll be getting out Starman?

That's probably because there would be nothing to discuss on the thread, if it wasn't for Starman trolling with his made up fantasies and refusal to comprehend the English language. As and when we hear more from the FIM and Ward then there will be more to discuss.

Fair enough Shall we leave it there then?

Oh no, not Stevebrum!

Still digging? It doesn't matter what you take it as. It's clear. Not affected by alcohol. The moment you consume ANY alcohol you are affected. That is what is does. It's really not a very difficult concept to understand. What I will admit, and it is no doubt where Starman is coming from, is that most of us tend to use the word 'drunk' to refer to people we can visibly see are impaired by alcohol.. i.e. staggering around etc. Indeed before this thread, that is how I would have defined the word too, so I would have been wrong. The difference is, I learned.