BWitcher

Yes, he's a whinger. Any views on Tai doing it multiple times in the qualifying races? Didn't hear the outcry about it being dangerous?

How many times was it absolutely essential to do so?

You can't explain, that's the whole point. Every explanation attempted only strengthens the argument against.

Still waiting for an explanation of why it makes perfect sense to NOT try to win a gold medal. You advocate it. Phillip Rising advocates it. Seems Team GB advocated it. Champions League Final.. Liverpool trail Milan 3-0.. co managers Phil Rising and Sommelier.. "Shut up shop lads, let's not concede anymore. Silver is great! We can't take risks and chase the game at this level, not in a final, the standard is far too high" Superbowl 51.. New England trail Atlanta by 25pts.. head coach Phil Rising... you get the idea. Now apply it to Speedway of Nations Pairs Final.. Sayfutidnov gets into 3rd on bend 2.. less then 15% into the race and you're advocating throwing in the white towel.

How is it fair? It's nonsensical, or did I miss a new set of riders being shipped in for the final that were of a much higher standard than the others? Actually, in consideration his comments do make perfect sense.. it's the conclusion that is nonsensical. Basically it's being said the final is of a higher standard, riders going for it to a greater degree so therefore it's much more difficult to beat the opposition.... conclusion, we'll leave Lambert on his own, sure he needed a bit of help when the standard was lower, but now it's higher he'll be fine as he is! Sorry.. but the argument Tai puts forward once again leads to one conclusion.. the wrong tactics were used.

You're right, apologies.

Agree with much of that, although I think they may still alternate on a yearly basis, SWC and SON that is. The finals aren't going anywhere, but one simple change should be, the team trailing should need a heat advantage to win. i.e. a 3-3 sees the team who qualified direct for the final winning.

Must take the prize of most nonsensical post of the year, perhaps since the forum began.

I dare to attack anyone who has any criticism of him or dare to suggest he may have made a mistake? I think you've been reading the wrong thread!

Ah well Sidney was right. Auty showed Howarth he is the better rider when it really matters... Oh wait...

Perhaps others can watch a meeting and also post? Plenty of gaps between races....

Well done Robert Lambert, through the card. Dan Bewley's time will come, little doubt about that.

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.