BWitcher

Come on, you're more intelligent than that surely? It isn't an 'argument' to buy. It's a reality. The 4th ride is 1 & 5 v 1 & 5 or 4 & 6 v 4 & 7. So by 'not buying' the argument you are claiming that racing against two reserves is not easier than racing against two No 1's. Then of course if the other team didn't have their second best rider at 4, it's even easier still. The effects are quite obvious just by looking at the Wolves season. Schlein started at No 4, easier riders, average soared, went to No 1. Harder position, began to struggle. Meanwhile, Masters who had been struggling by his previous standards was moved to No 4, hey presto he suddenly starts scoring heavily and he moves to No 1, where of course his scores drop again. The difference between riding at 4 or 5 is 1-2 pts in terms of average over the course of the season.

Grachan has answered them brilliantly once he understood what the discussion was. He agreed. Ashby in the format as it is now would be a SECOND/THIRD heat leader. Glad you finally agreed Sidney.

There are no opinions being discussed. This is your problem, you don't understand what an opinion actually is. Your argument is the equivalent of saying 5+5 = 20 because it's your 'opinion'.

You've got it spot on. In a similar fashion it's why riders like Andy Smith, Chris Harris and now Craig Cook have been mocked over the years as being rubbish because they struggled in the GP's. Someone who just watches GP speedway on TV and has no knowledge of league racing would really think they were awful!

The only valid comparison. You don't change the riders involved, simply the league size and heat format. My point is simply, the bigger the league the more 'stars' you have. Especially in a 13 heat format. Hence in the 70's you had a lot more 'star' riders who had that mystique about them because you rarely saw them get beat. When it actually came down to it though, you still had a select few who were above the others as you do in every era.

The standard of riders in the league at the moment isn't relevant. That's an impossible debate. A 6pt rider now could be better than a 10pt rider of the 70's and vice versa (although far less likely in the second scenario). We can never prove that one way or another. The point is simple. The 10th best rider in the league in a large league in a 13 heat format appears a hell of a lot better than the same rider in a smaller league with a 15 heat format. If we look at Poland, perhaps the best comparison in terms of 'strength' of rider, the 10th averaging rider is about 8.5. Again, not something that sets the pulse racing when that rider comes to town. Not sure how many times the top riders face each other in the Polish heat format?

Barely relevant. In the 70's for example, Ashby might race Mauger twice in a season. Once at home, once away (putting aside tacs for the moment). In a set up as it is now, he'd be racing him 12 times. Take the same with the 2nd and 3rd best riders in the league and so on... the difference to the average soon builds up.

Another not grasping it. The THIRD highest averaging rider in the top flight this season is 8.13. And no there's a good chance he wouldn't be a Number one. If he's 10th in the averages, in a 7 team league... or even an 8 team league there's a good chance he won't be at No 1. However, we'll go with getting above 8.... tell me, who gets remembered as being 'great', someone you've watched for years averaging 10+ or someone averaging above 8-8.5. The first one has an awe, a mystique about them.. the second one... doesn't.

Completely disagree that Woffinden doesn't create a buzz of anticipation. Crowds increased when he rode for Wolves in 2016 for a short spell, both at home and away. The reason the top 10-15 riders were so anticipated in the 70's was because you didn't see them so often.. and most importantly you rarely saw them get beat.. so they had much more of a god like status. If you're seeing them 3-4 times a season, plus regularly on TV and in Grand Prixs AND you're seeing them get beat far, far more often, they haven't got that mystique around them. Edited to add: It's a good argument for a 'bigger league'. A bigger league creates more heat leaders, creates more 'out and out' no 1's and creates more 'stars'. So the effects you talk about can over time be replicated. Incidentally.. the THIRD highest averaging rider in the BL of today is 8.13. So I was over estimating Ashby by some distance. He'd be a 7.5 guy in this format and certainly wouldn't be creating any kind of 'buzz'. That's the massive difference league size and heat formats can make.

That's like comparing Lewis Hamilton to the number of people that drive a car.

Nothing to do with total rubbish Sidney. It is stone cold fact. I'm not trying to win the debate... it isn't even a debate. You don't debate something that is set in stone. The post I replied too was nonsense. A Swindon fan saying he travelled the country to watch Martin Ashby but wouldn't watch Woffinden. Really? What a surprise. Now had Woffinden plied his trade for Swindon for ten years he would have quite a different attitude. It has zero relevance to the ability of either rider. Ashby was a legend for Swindon, no doubt. But he was still quite a bit below the level of the big guns of the day. Whilst he was sporting averages of around 10-10.2... Ivan Mauger would be 11+. Under today's format, the real top guys averages would still stay strong as they beat the vast majority of other riders. Riders such as Ashby begin to tumble as they come up against the Maugers of the league more often.. and lose more often. He'd be around 8.5 to 9pt at best.

Probably the most worthless contribution so far to the debate. Although if you want to go down that route, Woffinden is watched by bigger crowds in the leagues he rides in than Ashby ever was. And again, had Ashby been riding in a different format he wouldn't have been anywhere near the hero he was.

Because the fabric of many of their arguments completely collapses

Oh jesus. Of course they had a No 1 and two good heat leaders. What made them a No 1 and heat leaders.. ah yes, their average. So no, you can't 'put their averages to one side for a moment'. Change the heat format in the 70's to 15 heats.. All of a sudden over half of those out and out No 1's suddenly aren't so good anymore. Knock bonus pts of their average and they're even lower. Meanwhile those 2nd heat leaders have dropped down even further. Combine the top 70 or so riders into a ten team league and those 'good 3rd heat leaders' are now bog standard 2nd strings, bordering on reserves and don't ever get remembered the way they are now. Your instinct told you nothing. You thought they were good because you didn't see them lose very often. Hence when it came to the British Final, it was usually the same small crop of riders who contested the top places most years.. because the others were far lower than them than their league figures actually showed.

I'm not making excuses. I'm explaining the reality. The cheers are not because a rider has crashed, it's because your team has gained. When it's a big crash occasionally there is an initial cheer if your team has gained, followed by complete silence. It's not nice when a rider may be injured but there is no malice at all in 99.99% of the cases. The sport needs more passionate support such as this to create an atmosphere.. not total silence all the time which you tend to get from the 'older' generation. Part of why it's in the mess that it is.

It isn't an opinion. It is absolute fact. The 30th best rider in the 70's would be averaging 8.5+ The 30th best rider in Poland for example is around 6.5. Hence the bigger the league, the more 'stars' it appears to have. That is indisputable.

You can't abide riders and team managers then, who have been seen on camera multiple times when a rider has slid off giving their team victory. What is 'abhorrent' is someone who believes people are cheering in the hope a rider may be hurt. The cheer is because their team has gained an advantage for 99.99% of fans. If Ermolenko fell at Cradley during a meeting the crowd would erupt in cheers. Did they want him hurt? Of course not (well a few nutters might). The same would happen back at Monmore with a Cradley rider. And it was FANTASTIC. As for the Proctor incident last night, of course there was no cheering, I doubt there would have been even in the matches I mention above, that wasn't a case of a rider 'sliding off and an instant celebratory cheer... it was an incident you saw developing and everyone thought was going to become a major crash. My reaction would have been a huge sigh of relief that he managed to fall so 'tamely' compared to what it could have been.

Spot on Chunky. Sidney likes to say 'forget averages'. It's a ridiculous statement. Your entire perception of how good a rider is quite simply is based upon how often you see him win. In a big league, with a format where the big guns don't race that often in a meeting and lower end of sides that weren't all that great it wasn't often you saw many, many riders get beat. A different race format and a few less teams in the division and suddenly those 2nd and 3rd heat leaders (and some of the no 1's) start getting beat on a much more regular basis, running regular last places towards end of meetings and their air of invincibility is gone and your whole perception of how 'good' they are changes.

Over 'here' is irrelevant Tai rides in Sweden and Poland. Both of which are a far higher standard than any of those riders rode in. You cannot 'forget' averages and formats as they are everything. The bigger the league the more 'star' riders there are. The ability of the rider in question doesn't change. That's before we get onto the fact there were no races such as Heat 13 and 15 where the top 2 raced each other and beat each other thus lowering their averages and making them seem a lot more beatable. Take the riders in the 70's, place them in the leagues and formats of today and you wouldn't rate 90% of them anywhere near as highly.

All good riders but also made to look better by the format at the time. Put them in today's format and suddenly they're classed as decent rather than very good. It's why some of them could consistently get to World Finals and contend, whilst others never really did (not just these but other 'heat leaders' from that era, not just British).

0.75 of a pt is a fair bit.

I suppose it depends which other British riders were in. Not likely though I suspect. It does in one way highlight the main drawback with the GB's.. someone can put together the season of their career and in the past end up World Champion, or go close to it.. Now, you've got to get in first.. then put that season together.

Team and Pairs are somewhat of an irrelevance in this discussion as no matter how good you are, you need partners/team mates.

Good point.. he may well have been. He averaged 9.89 for Bradford in 1991... interestingly in 92 it was only 9.50. Although he deserved his World Title that year I do think that, although he would have been in strong contention, Ermolenko and Nielsen would have beaten him over the course of the season. They were 10.25 and 10.24 that year respectively. Per Jonsson also would have been a contender, 10.04. This of course in a time when the BL averages meant something!

Must agree that Havvy would have been at the very least very close to winning a GP series in 1992, he put it all together that year.