BWitcher

Speedway is a 4 lap race, did you know that? So Lambert didn't get ahead, so you switch to Plan B. Simply chasing the win should NEVER have been an option as it was a losing option.

No, I have said it would have taken an Emil ef with no help. With help, although still very unlikely, he would have had a chance. Are you claiming in all your years of watching speedway you've never seen a team mate slow a race down to allow his partner to get through? Seriously?

Of course he isn't in Emil's class. We all know that. Hence he needed help. So you've told us once Emil got ahead of Lambert, Lambert wasn't going to repass him on his own. So at that point, Britain have lost. We have two choices at this stage.. chase Laguta and lose. Or try and slow Emil to give Lambert and chance and although still likely lose, we have a chance of winning. Yet you continually advocate taking the guaranteed losing option. Staggering!

So the Russian tactic was to 'secure' third. Why? Because that would win them the meeting. Why wasn't Britains tactic the same?

Making progress.. Now when you figure out WHY they won, you might then figure out where GB went wrong. Here's a clue.. winning the race didn't win it for them.. because, as we know, they didn't even win it.

Although to be fair, Tai only got by at the start of lap 4 didn't he? At that point Laguta did look over his shoulder and slowed to an extent. The key difference is, Laguta would have known, Lambert wasn't passing Emil 9999 times out of 1000 bar any mechanical failure.

The usual Stevebrum.. post something, then deny it.. oblivious to the fact it can easily be quoted. You are quite right about my style of posting, simply because I only post about things I either know I'm right on or strongly believe I am... something you should try some time. The difference between us is when I am shown to be wrong, I apologise, learn and move on...not try and deny what I said.

Not really, as there is only one argument in this case.

Champions League Semi.. you've lost 1st leg 2-0... you're winning 1-0 at home in the 2nd leg.. Corner in the last minute.. you leave six players back. "We couldn't afford to concede a goal" says the manager. Starman, Phil Rising, Stevebrum and a few others praise the genius tactics as said team is knocked out.

You've made 11 posts in the last 24 hours.. compared to your average of just over 3 a day since you joined the forum. Good to see you scaling back..... You've also made 6000 more posts than me.. and I joined three years before you did. Just sayin like...

I'm having a snack at the moment and literally spat some out as I burst into laughter. You're comedy gold Starman, sheer genius.

He was clearly being deadly serious. How can you argue against it?

That's the important question. If it was Tai, he'd done more than enough to warrant a pass. If it was Rossiter not spelling out what was required he should fall on his sword or be pushed.

You're still not grasping it are you. There isn't a counter argument to what you have said because you haven't got an argument in the first place! Going for the win was irrelevant. It made no difference to the end result whether Lambert did or didn't pass Emil. Let's just suppose Lambert had sneaked past Emil on lap 2.. Tai has cleared off chasing the win.. Then on the last bend Emil goes round the outside and takes back third. Had Tai not been in the lead he could have blocked that outside run. The scenario for the final was simple. Come last, you lose. The win was not important.

We didn't have 'little to lose'.. we had 'nothing' to lose

This argument basically boils down to the below: You have two choices: Option A: You have 1% chance of winning (being generous) Option B: You have 20% chance of winning. We chose Option A. It is that simple.

lmao. Do you actually even understand what you are saying? Let me get this straight. Your opinion is quite simply: Woffinden shouldn't have team ridden because we might have lost. Is that it?

Thanks for putting forward the argument for team riding, even though you're trying to argue against it!

This seems to be the pattern now.. remind us of how great the team riding was in races where it didn't actually matter to a great degree... but then tell us it wasn't important when it was of absolute importance!

It's all assumption claims Stevebrum! The rules are quite clearly explained how the final is won, but nope.. it's all assumption! Staggering. It really does get worse and worse.

I'm afraid any argument for the 'doing the right thing' has now well and truly been blown out of the water. Once Starman is on your side, you haven't a leg to stand on

Rossiters job to say what calls were made, not Tai's.

Quite frankly it doesn't matter how many opinions you canvass. If they suggest anything other than helping your partner in the final, they are wrong or simply short of a few brain cells. Let me put it this way.. Why bother with team riding in the heats then? Any argument that has been put forward for Tai not helping in the final is wiped out by him doing it in the heats. Yet in the one race where it was ABSOLUTELY essential (the heats weren't)... it wasn't done? You seem to be taking a stance that suggesting the tactics were wrong is somehow painting Tai to be a villain and wiping out the amazing efforts he put in during the week. That is utterly false. Yes, there are some anti Tai posters doing that, but they'll find fault regardless. As said, I class myself as a massive Tai fan and defended his decisions over the British Final and not riding for GB. I can however see GB got it wrong in the Final. If it was the managers decision, he should go. If you ran the final 100 times with Tai chasing the lead, barring mechanical failure Lambert wasn't going to pass Emil in any of them. If you ran the final 100 times with Tai attempting to help Lambert, I'd say at least ten of the times Lambert would get up for 3rd. Others may end up with Emil getting 2nd but it would be irrelevant. The fact is quite simply, the tactics used gave 0% chance of success barring engine failure.

I'd class myself as one of Tai's dedicated fans and I certainly asked the question. You'd have to be a few brain cells short to not do so. Seen various excuses trotted out as to why they didn't try and not one of them has any semblance of reason. It was the wrong tactic. Simply no argument. However, I won't use it a stick to beat him with nor will I let it detract from the superb performance he put in over the week or the great strides GB have already taken.

Woffinden didn't practice. Major mistake in my opinion, he dropped a pt as a result.