BWitcher

That's the entire point we have been making.

No Sidney. You are wrong as you STILL don't understand what we are talking about. Nobody is saying the BRITISH leagues are as strong now because the top riders don't ride here. The comparison, as I have told you over and over would be Poland where they do.

Good post Chunky, it's worrying that it has to be spelt out in such a fashion to be honest. Even more worrying it takes digesting.. it's just so obvious. Now take your analysis a step further into Sidneys world.. Had he been watching those number 5's from the first format.. but in the second format for ten years or so, he would not be ranking those riders very highly. Whereas in the first format he.. and the rest of us to be fair would be thinking very differently. Simple example is to look at what happened in 1995/96. A rider like Jan Staechman, never more than a 6-6.5 rider in the top flight in its usual format.. but in those two years in the larger league jumped to 8.20 and 8.44. Shane Parker always a 6-7 pt rider in those two years was 8.54 and 8.67. Had they rode their whole careers in the larger format they'd be listed amongst those high quality heat leaders around at the time... they didn't, so they don't get a mention in such a conversation. It's not the average per se, the average is just a measuring stick, it's the simple reality, the less often you see a rider lose.. or the more you see them win, the higher regard you hold them in.

It does, in the appropriate section.

Being critical of the management and 'supporting the team' are two completely different things. Indeed, it could be strongly argued the absolute worst fans are those who stand around happy clapping instead of voicing their displeasure at the decline in fortunes of the club/sport they claim to love so much.

Surely your worst fear is having nobody to stand next to... that in itself is becoming more of a challenge at meetings.

"You felt a lot of the teams had three heat leaders". Really! Amazing! A seven man team ALWAYS has three heat leaders. Now you are claiming that Hans Nielsen's average had no impact in you deciding he was good? lmao. The average comes from winning most of your races. It's part and parcel. Had he not had a good average you would not have thought he was one of the worlds best. Period. You also thought many of the second and third heat leaders were amazing because they had high averages, due to the league format they were in. Every post you make confirms what I say, you just don't see it. The second and third heat leaders of that time were the akin of riders such as Kenneth Bjerre, Jack Holder, Jakub Jamrog, Rune Holta etc.I bet you don't rank those as highly do you? Yet they are the same level.

Agreed.. and that's why it's never going to happen or work.

Every time Sidney claims he doesn't judge riders by how many races they win you 'like' his posts. Every time Sidney refuses to accept that the size of the league dictates how many heat leaders there are you 'like' his post. It's not a difficult concept. I've for some time been against the merging of leagues but we are past the point of salvation now for a top flight, or indeed any level of league it seems. Perhaps the only way out of this is to go with a big league, create more heat leaders, create more 'top guys' who don't lose very often and generate excitement when teams visit with a No 1 who doesn't get beat often and you will only get to see at your track once that season.

You judge riders by how many races they win. End of story. Anyone who tries to claim differently is talking absolute nonsense. Now you can apply different criteria and importance to particular races or events but the simple reality is, the more you see a rider win, the better you will naturally think they are. Nowhere is there someone claiming a rider was brilliant who comes last every race.

Averages is irrelevant. The rest of your post is my entire point! That's entirely due to a large league. A smaller league you're seeing the riders much more often, and they are beating each other more often.. it's simply natural they don't have that mystique about them as you're seeing them lose a lot more regularly. Remember, the real 'top' boys will still be the top boys.. but the second and third heat leaders won't appear as good. Another way of putting it.. a fan just watching GP racing would think Craig Cook and Chris Harris are garbage.. a fan watching Craig Cook for Edinburgh over the years thinks he's brilliant.

Yes you do and it absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise. That's how all riders are judged. When riders win the majority of their races they are considered great riders. The less they win, the less great they are considered. I'd love to hear how you and Steve Roberts 'judge' riders if it's not based on how often they win. Strangely you've never listed any riders whom you classed as 'world class' who didn't do the exact thing which you say you don't judge riders on...

Not again. If those top boys were riding in the same format as now they wouldn't be as revered. Why? Because they'd be facing each other and other riders near their level far more often, getting beat on a much more regular basis. Just as they do in Poland.. which is where you need to make the comparison. Nobody is saying the best riders are in the UK anymore.

I'm confused by this too. Stood in the stand on the back straight every time and never walked up a grassy bank? You go through the turnstile, along the back of the stand and choose from one of numerous 'entry' points?

Chunky makes a good point. The other major aspect of a bigger league is it simply creates more 'stars'. The bigger the league, the more heat leaders there are and the less often you see the top riders in the league beaten.. which adds to their 'mystique' and makes you want to see them when they visit.

It's not the racing.. it's all about perception. Formula One is awful racing.. but look at the popularity and the glamour.

Perhaps because the thread wasn't about praising Belle Vue, it was about "Most unfortunate team", to which I added further information to Moxey's post. The thread only went a bit silly when Grand Central tried to make the ridiculous assertion that the absence of Ermolenko didn't mean anything. It meant everything, as the collapse of the Wolves lower end showed. That's not a knock on Belle Vue, quite the opposite, it's stating that certain Wolves riders couldn't rise to the occasion without the presence of their talismanic captain... whereas Belle Vue did.

Exactly, Belle Vue won, you don't feel anything less about the victory because the other side had injuries/bad luck or whatever it might be and rightfully so. That's sport.. the ecstasy of victory, the agony of defeat. Wolves lost that night, but I'm so glad I was there to experience it. This is why I enjoy the play-offs so much, it's the closest thing to replicating it.

Where have I been a sore loser? It wasn't meant to be for Wolves that season. Belle Vue scored the most pts and won the league. Simples. All I have done is agreed with Moxey and stated that above and beyond the injuries the absence of Ermolenko for that meeting was a major factor. Just as the absence of Nielsen would have been had Oxford had a match of similar importance and scale.

Never up for discussion, it was an amazing night and as a Belle Vue fan would have been unbelievable. Doesn't change the facts you are wrong about the impact Ermolenko not being there had. Note.. it wasn't even just he was injured, it was he was not there, lying in a hospital bed. Belle Vue took advantage and rose to the occasion. There are no sour grapes here like you are trying to insinuate.

Which shows you have absolutely no idea about the topic discussed. Indeed the points you made only further highlighted and boosted the point I made.

I think you've completely missed the point. At that time Ermolenko improved the performance of every single rider in the side, especially the lesser ones. The reserves wouldn't have been psyched out had he been there. He was that good and that much of a captain in those days. Not only that, but his mere presence would have intimidated Belle Vue, his absence gave them a massive boost.

Very good points. It's also why the absence of Ermolenko on that night was so critical, not just for his on track riding, he literally WAS Wolverhampton at the time and his presence alone was worth 4-6pts extra across the team with the way he inspired other riders.

We also lost one of our reserves to injury in that same short time period you mentioned and had to promote a junior rider.

Stephen Morris was the rider in question I believe... I think Wainwright had already been excluded in the first running of the heat. Although the memory may be playing tricks! It was a huge crowd and great atmosphere.. if only we could relive something similar.