BWitcher

Advantage Belle Vue now, eliminated the weak cog from their side. The chess game continues

You might need to work out he's been riding at No 4, much easier position than Masters at 5 for example. Thorssell not riding makes Wolves MUCH stronger for this meeting primarily due to us not having to track reserves in three races for Howarth.

Doyle touched the tapes is one significant difference.

Doyle touched the tapes, how the hell can the referee, with the benefit of replays, get that wrong. Ridiculous.

He is saying he 'fixed' the quote he was replying too..

I think that would be a recipe for disaster. Reserve teams aren't well supported which is how the 2nd tier team would be viewed.

Of course it isn't. Not anywhere close. Your argument is desperate when you have to continually make things up. Simple fact is, Woffinden asked he could give input. Perfectly reasonable suggestion from a rider of his stature. The BSPA decided they didn't want him in the pairing, that's that.

That's what should have been done many years ago. Instead, they weakened it year after year after year..

No he didn't say that, he said he would like 'input' into the choice.

I may have misread this, but if you are suggesting starts should be viewed from the 1st bend that is absolutely awful. Starts should always be viewed side on.

I have and I agree, no harm in them. They're not going to make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things though. The sport simply has to get to grips with the doubling up issue, it's insane that top flight heat leaders are also racing in the second division. Although the teams are still stronger in the top flight, a large percentage of the riders also race in the 2nd division. That is problematic in more than just the obvious issues in terms of fixture clashes with riders missing and the lack of identity with teams but also from a general 'interest' point of view. In the past I would be tempted to along to a National League (as was) fixture as it was a different set of riders, some of whom I may not have seen ride before. Now, it's just the same old riders spread across both leagues.

So, you don't attend the sport and you don't watch it on TV yet feel you are qualified to say what is wrong with it. Brilliant. Of course it is relevant if you were to reduce the number of races in the main meeting as Moxey suggests and add extra races in a 2nd half. You'd be angering 90-95% of your fan base. By all means have 2nd halves, I would never say no to that, but not at the expense of races in the main meeting. It's beyond me how anyone could see that as a bad thing.

Far from beats my point. In fact it confirms it. Spending time on a forum about a sport you don't go to and don't even watch on tv.. hmmm.

You don't need to know everything to understand 15 is better value than 13. Although of course value is irrelevant to someone who hasn't been to speedway in decades because they can't get in for free anymore.

Yes it is all about value for money. Only a raving lunatic would suggest that meetings over 15 heats rather than 13 are a reason for the decline in attendances and an even bigger one suggesting reducing the value on offer would help get more folk through the door!

You are wrong, it's not even worth debating. Wolves have junior races quite often after the main meeting. 95% of the crowd has gone.

I didn't say that. I said add second half races, but not at the expense of the main meeting. Since you asked though, I'd prefer two heats of a main meeting than four heats of practice which is all . In fact I'd prefer two heats of a main meeting than 20 heats of practice.

There is absolutely NOTHING positive about reverting to 13 heats. In terms of ridiculous ideas, it's right up there. Junior races, 2nd halves, sure they are a bonus but not at the expense of the bread and butter product.

Yeah, that would be great wouldn't it. Even less value for money.

Remember when Poole did it, nothing happened. Such is the problem with the sport, lack of consistency in rulings.

No, 0.19 too high.

There were a number of meetings we blew earlier in the year, especially away from home. Meetings we should have either won, or taken more match points from. Folk were ecstatic we won at Somerset with the poor guest bookings we made, stronger guests would have secured all 4pts. They don't seem important at the time, but if you pick up some injuries as we have done and hit a sticky spell, those extra pts here and there can be absolutely vital. We've gone from a team battling to be top with Belle Vue to one likely to finish 4th at best. I wouldn't rule out Kings Lynn. Batchelor is riding well, Holder is banned but he wasn't pulling up any trees regardless.

Yes, as long as it is an injury replacement. The objective now is to scrape into the playoffs. We are going to be very vulnerable.

You may have been closer, but the view the referee has is very good, it is much higher and gives a much better angle to see what took place. There have been many times I've seen incidents on turn 1 at Monmore and thought a referee was wrong only to view it back later and it's very different. Of course there have been times when a referee has made a poor decision too. I just find it unusual the Poole report specifically mentions the mechanical failure. It would be interesting to see a replay of the incident for sure!

The Poole website specifically mentions mechanical failure. That's not a politically correct, neutral point of view. They could have simply reported a 'racing incident' or a 'collision', but they have been very specific which suggests they obtained information. As such, the decision would have been entirely correct.