BWitcher

Well if he wasn't, this debate wouldn't be taking place would it

It's corrupt then. A governing body, yet again waving rules. It may be a sensible thing to do, but rules should be adhered too.. the sport will never learn.

It should have absolutely nothing to do with Kings Lynn.

What both teams agree too is completely and utterly irrelevant. This is meant to be a professional sport, not a Sunday morning game of football.. actually scrap that, illegal players wouldn't be allowed in any form of competitive game either even if 'both teams agreed'.

Absolute Rubbish. Rules are there to be adhered to. When they are not, the sport is corrupt.

Sticking to the rules is never worse. The ruling should have been enforced that the same guest is used for both meetings. If Kings Lynn have used Morris in the first, he can't guest for Poole in the 2nd. Very simple. No rules broken. It would be unfortunate for Poole, but they'd have to find a legal guest. Like every other club has had to do over the years.

Who the heck is bothered by the rules being broken...and yet again by the same team? That would be the multitudes who have turned their back on the sport because of flagrant disregard for rules, gentlemans agreements and in the 'best interests of speedway' rulings.

You are over the limit. You have broken the rules. 'Agreements' and 'Both sides agreeing' are everything that is wrong with the sport. Common sense is utterly irrelevant. RULES should be stuck too.

The very top riders would have found it a little harder under the old system. The very good riders, but not actually the very best, would find it way way harder under the GP system.

It's not something to disagree on. You only have to look at Nicki Pedersen.. 3 x World Champion. Still at the highest level at league speedway.. but at the very highest level, it's moved on and he can't consistently keep up.

I think the fact people are asking whether certain riders would have won as many titles under the old system shows the old system was flawed. The World Champion should be the best rider that year... Not the best rider on one particular night. We have that now. We didn't before. Which was more exciting etc is a different argument.

I don't have a downer on riders of the past, once again you're resorting to making things up to try and rescue yourself when you are wrong. My favourite rider ever is Sam Ermolenko. To me, in his era the riders were way better. I still think of him being better than Rickardsson However.. the reality is, the sport has moved on, it's even more professional than it was then, standards are higher. What riders such as Nielsen, Ermolenko etc were doing has been taken to even greater levels now.

Standards are consistently being raised in every single professional sport. Only a complete fool would argue against that. Yet again, you try and prove something and get it completely wrong. Crump and Pedersen, both younger than Hancock were both still riding in 2011 when Hancock was World Champion. Crump was 4th that year.

No, you have been shown to be wrong. You still have your opinion, but the reasoning behind that opinion is completely incorrect. An opinion with nothing to back it up is effectively worthless. There is a definitive correct answer. Riders today operate at a far higher standard than they did in the past. Every single rider past and present will tell you that. The conjecture is which of the riders of the past would have raised their game to the standards required now and which would have just relied on natural talent and not put the 'extra' in.. the kind of rider you get in all eras, even now. My opinion is the real top boys of the past would all have done whatever was required, they were leading the way then, they'd lead the way now if in this era. Below that though it's far more open as you had a crop who had the talent but were more interested in partying etc. Be harder to be as successful now with that mindset.

Once again, when you are shown to be wrong, you introduce something completely irrelevant to the debate. As for 10 years ago, you were spouting the same nonsense then! Do you even watch the GP's? I seriously have to question that when you have riders like Zmarzlik racing the way they do now.

Well, given as he rarely ever misses out on a GP semi, and the previous rounds you mention would be a lot easier than a GP.. not much chance of that.

I've not questioned your opinion. I've stated the reasoning you gave behind it is nonsense. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that makes your opinion look like.

A view totally lacking in foundation and fact. I'm assuming you are talking about Doyle with regards to a rider who has 'only risen up the ranks' due to other riders retiring? May as well say the same about Mauger then. That just shows what a foolish statement that is. Doyle 'rose up through the ranks' because he looked at what other riders were doing and tried to improve on it. Basically stopped messing around and took the whole thing to a far more serious professional level. Funnily enough, just like Mauger did. As for the 45 year old, might want to work on your Maths first of all. Secondly, he too, after many years of 'going through the motions' realised he had to either step down from GP's completely or refocus and take the thing a whole lot more seriously. He chose the second route. You don't need to be 'kidded'. It's a reality, riders today are far more professional and are way above the standards of yesteryear. That's not even a debate. That isn't to say riders of yesteryear wouldn't be able to compete if they rode in this era because many of them would adapt and become more professional themselves, certainly the likes of Mauger would. There are some who would not however and drop down the ranks... just as there are some now who have all the talent but lack the overall package.

Agreed

So, if wildcards perform better than qualifiers, why would you want more qualifiers and lower the standard of the competition? The system works just fine as it is. I already said 'except in the big one'. However, as we know, the big one was a heavily rain effected meeting that made it more of a lottery. That happens and you have to adapt and to his credit he did. Whether he'd have been able to have lived with the Jonsson, Ermolenko, Nielsen over a full GP series still remains very much in doubt. Personally I think he would have been in the mix but I think he'd have lost pts in the overseas rounds, Sweden for example.

People are missing the point. In fact you are making the point made even stronger. A GP system eliminates everything you have just said above.

Except he wasn't. He was outperformed by both Jonsson and Ermolenko all season long, bar the big one of course. Jonsson for example won Swedish Final, 2nd in Nordic, won Semi Final (beating Havelock on his home track). Both Jonsson and Ermolenko were comfortably ahead domestically as well.

I think you will find the 'wildcards' have outperformed the 'qualifiers' by some distance over the years. You seem surprised that 'wildcards' haven't had more success... why would they? The best riders are generally already in!

I watched the whole season and he was very good, but not the best in the world. He was nowhere near favorite for the World Final. It's all well and good quoting British Finals and Commonwealth Finals but he doesn't race his main rivals there. In his World Semi he was beaten by Per Jonsson (first time he had met him), that on Havelocks home track. A GP would take place around the world on different circuits where I categorically believe he wouldn't have kept up with Jonsson and Ermolenko and probably Nielsen (who did have a stinker in the Nordic Final). The final itself was also a heavily rain effected meeting. With all that being said, he was a worthy champion and his form over the year was exemplary.

I would have backed Nielsen, Ermolenko and Jonsson all to have finished above Havelock over a GP campaign. As for wildcards winning a World title....