Sprog1

Let's hope Kasprzak's "back injury" doesn't trouble him next year.

Sorry you are right and I stand corrected. They were buying him but his injury seems to have halted the process. I think its now watch this as he seems to have signed for next year so presumably the full purchase will start when his leg is know to have fully healed.

I agree. In fact they don't need to travel around. They only need to look at the score sheets to know where the talent is. if certain promoters can dig out the emerging talent from Sweden, Poland and Denmark, they should have no trouble at all in finding who are the talented juniors in out own country. Not only are most promoters not interested in that level of speedway, as you say. but they find it easier to pay a lot more money for the ready made article from abroad rather than do a bit of work in developing home-grown riders. The trouble is, having spent a fortune on young foreign mercenaries they then moan about the amount of money they are losing each year. Why ? Isle of Wight could have signed him if they wanted to but they have limited finances. Under this arrangement the Islanders still keep their rider for at least another year for very little initial outlay. Far better that Adam goes to a club where he will get the benefit of being with experienced riders, and learning a lot more about things like set-ups far more quickly. Its more than just a perk. The promotion also have to have a policy of signing young British riders. Its more than just a coincidence that Rob Mear, Marc Owen, Shane Hazelden, Ritchie Worrall, Jack Kingston and now Adam Ellis have all finished up on Lakeside's books.

Doesn't prove anything. People go to court all the time over personal bickering that is none of anyone else's business.. Just because Hans fell out with you it doesn't make him a bad person. Putting a few basic facts on here without full details, and without Hansi's side of the story and then trying to tell us that says something about the sort of person he is actually says more about you.

I don't think that's necessarily correct. The first post-war World Champion. Tommy Price was 37 when he won the title and runner-up Jack Parker was 42. The title was then won for the next 4 years by Freddie Williams and Jack young who were in their mid-twenties. It was then dominated by Moore, Fundin Briggs and Craven who were all around 21 or 22 when they first won but such was their talent that for 14 years, there was nobody to touch them except Bjorn Knutsson, although in 1957-1959 Aub Lawson had a remarkable run of 4th, 3rd and 5th between the ages of 43 and 45. It is not that there was a lack of talent coming through in this period because one of the younger riders unable to break the Moore/Fundin/Briggs/Craven grip on the title was Ivan Mauger who didn't take his first title until he was nearly 29 (ie older than Bjerre or Lindgren are now) and Fundin and Briggs were well into there thirties (around Crump Pedersens age now). From the mid -1950's to the about the mid-to late 1970's the average age of world champions increased as Fundin, Mauger etc grew older. It then dropped again through most of the 1980's and has tended to increase again during the GP era. I think the only lesson one can really draw is that world titles are more to do with talent than age although other factors come into it, The big change that has come about since the 1970's is that modern speedway is very much about tuners and set-ups whereas Ivan Mauger for example has said the in his day the six fastest bikes in a WF were all as fast as each other so there was more emphasis on rider skill then set-ups.I don't think this necessarily demeans the modern stars because it takes a lot of skill to be able to jump off a bike and tell a mechanic exactly what changes need to be made for the next race. That is an aspect at which Gollob for example seems to excel at but the more erratic Bjerre and Lindgren seem to struggle with at present. So in summary I would suggest that age as opposed to talent is not a particularly important factor (subject to injury) but mechanical skill ie set-ups ets do give a slight advantage to the more experienced and therefore older riders. I think Bjerre and Lindgren are still learning their trade at world level but they deserve to be were they are. I can't see either of them becoming World Champion, especially with the likes of Emil and Noddy breathing down their necks but it is too early to say with any certainty. They both still have potential and I would keep them in. Bomber has had enough chances though and Tai, at the moment should only go in if he qualifies on merit.

He broke his jaw when he collided with Hans Nielsons back wheel and was pitched head first into the safety fence. He always claimed Nielson deliberately shut off in front of him and absolutely detested Nielson afterwards, although Nielson says he would never deliberately shut off in front of any rider. Ivan Mauger once said that if a rider keeps getting injured he is either very unlucky or else he is doing something wrong. In Carters case it really adds up to the same thing because very few riders can maintain a top standard if they keep getting the sort of knocks that Carter was picking up. When you look at everything in Carters life I see no reason to feel that things would change. We will never know of course, but I doubt it. You mentioned Joe Screen earlier. He had a few knocks of course but nothing to stop him having a very long career, but when you have a rider like a Screen who as you say was immensely talented as a younger man that ability to read a race control the bike in a mill-second, when an incident occurs is often the difference between staying on the bike and a bad crash. My feeling about Carter is that his heart ruled his head too much.

Apart from the fact that I am no in position to comment on Peter Craven, I think you have made some accurate comments there. We can never prove these things one way or the other but Carter had taken some big knocks in a relatively short career I my gut feeling is that his aggressive riding style had a lot to do with it I think and the likelihood is that he would have continued have some serious injuries. A rider can take bad injuries when he has one or two in his early twenties but if the bad injuries continue when one gets older then, in most cases there will be a psychological effect that in most cases eventually causes the rider to back off a fraction. I agree about Mauger. He was quite a relatively late developer by World standards and in a sense he was the opposite of Carter, but really applied himself to learning whatever it took to organise himself into a World class rider. Mauger, like Greg Hancock managed to keep himself reasonably free from serious injury and that has a lot to do with their success.

No shortage of enthusiasm from Stuart Douglas. Lakeside, in association with George and Linda Barclay now have probably the best training school in the country, and one that apparently gets much more support than the RH school. In addition Stuart has announced his intention to link up with a PL and an NL club so that together with the training school there will hopefully be a clear career path for young Brits from training school to NL to PL to EL. As far as the Hackney experiment was concerned it appears not to have attracted widespread support from the paying public and you cannot ignore the financial implications. I would not for a moment knock Lens efforts for young riders but let's not forget he does not have an EL team to worry about, and lets be grateful that there is a promoter with the enthusiasm of Stuart Douglas because quite frankly most of the other EL promoters couldn't care less as long as they can buy ready trained poles and Swedes off the shelf. I have to say though that I wonder about the attitude of some fans who say they are not going to support a team because they don't like they name.

Yep. Impy took me off course but I won't perpetuate that line any further . Sorry.

Not at all. You have taken one part of my post out of context. However. that is not the point. Look at the two posts from nw 42 just before this. He has put forward some good points that have made me reflect on my views and it seems my comments made him think again as well. That's is what debate is about , exchanging views and getting a wider opinion when others express themselves.For most of us, that's what constitutes a good debate. NW42 like most posters on the thread has expressed himself eloquently in reply to my posts without resorting to insults and abuse, hence they are good, intelligent posts.. Your stock-in-trade seems to be to resort to insults towards any post you don't agree with, or think you can twist around for a controversy. rather than a balanced reply as most others do. That comes under the forum definition of trolling. That's why you had a ban. There would be no point in a forum if everybody held the same opinion but the ability to debate things on a sensible level even when not agreeing with the substance of the post is an important requirement.

Fair enough comment. I fully agree with you about Mauger Olsen and Nielson but I suspect we are in the minority on that one. I think, to go back to Philip Risings original post, an entertaining rider is not the same thing as a great rider, and vice versa. In some ways it depends on how you define a great rider and how you define an entertaining rider. Mark Loram was terrific entertainment, far better to watch than Mauger Olsen or Nielson IMO but in World terms he had far less success. I think the hindsight test is a good one though because riders like Collins were so spectacular that, as you say, 30 years on the memory still never fades, yet there are certain other top riders who could be classed as greats yet they were so unspectacular,almost boring, I can hardly remember any of their races. Chris Morten was another one that sticks in the memory for years but in terms of Worlds class success he didn't really go very far.

From memory I think Mauger was in his 40th year when he won his last world title, Tommy Price was , I think about 38 when he won his first and I I read somewhere that Aub Lawson was about 45 when he finished 3rd in 1959. we have to remember though that sportsmen generally tend to go on longer in their careers than they did years ago. Fundiin Briggs and Ronnie Moore were all about 21 or 22 when they won their first World Titles but were more or less on the slide in terms of world class by their mid thirties. On the other hand, ivan Mauger didn't take his first World Crown until his late 20's but stayed at the top until a later age. Maybe it is something to do with hunger. Perhaps those who wait longer for success seem to carry on longer and those whom get success at a young age perhaps go off the boil a bit earlier. Not sure where Greg Hancock fits into that theory though !

More like you can't handle a debate without trying to get insulting. Did I say we would judge Mauger or any of the others only on their way down ? Did I say that's how everyone remebers world calss riders? No, that's something you have chosen to make up. The point I was making was that any given rider looks good at the time he is at his peak. When we look at at then with hindsight our opinions crystalise. There are plenty of people on here who don't remember Mauger or even Ermolenko at their peaks so they are making judgments on a narrower sample of riders. They all have their moments and fade into history. Before long Gollob will be past his peak and will be surpassed as hero of the hour by possbly Sayfutinov or Ward, just as Briggs was surpassed by Mauger, and Mauger was surpassed by Penhall, and so on. Philip Risings post asked if there has ever been a more entertaining rider than Gollob. My point is that the day after a brilliant meeting is not the best time to judge whether a rider was the best/ most entertaining rider ever, but rather it is when the dust settles and we can reflect their at his performances more objectively. With the benefit of hindsight no doubt some will still say Gollob was the greatest thing since sliced bread, others won't. In am not sure how your mind has converted that to saying we should only judge Mauger and the rest on the basis of their twilight years, unless it is your basic inability to read a few sentences without without launching into insults, before you have sat and thought about the context of the discussion and the nature of the post being answered. Perhaps it would help if I get my row of beads out and explain it in simple terms. In my opinion the best time to judge a riders qualities is when we look back on his career with hindsight. Some people may agree with me, some won't. Simple as that.. Can you manage that without your inferiority complex getting the better of you and launching into another tirade ?

Gollob is a good rider. No denying that. But they all seem good/entertaining when they are at their peak. Anyone who only started watching speedway recently would find it difficult to believe that Nicki P. was a 3-times world champion and almost invincible at one point in his career.. He looked quite an ordinary rider on last nights performance. Tony Rickardsson's era now seems a long time ago and his brilliance is gradually being forgotten as times move on. There was a time when Peter Collins was thought to be one of the most spectacular and entertaining riders ever but he is now nothing more than a name to many fans. So the list goes on. Neilson, Gunderson, Michanek, Mauger Fundin and the rest. All been and gone. History will judge Gollob just as it has judges all the others. The time will come when Gollob starts to look well past his sell-by date and starts going downhill, just as all the others did eventually. Perhaps that's the best time to assess him.

Ah, now you are doing a stevebrum and moving away from your original point and talking specifically about Gollob. Your comment was that ANY rider who wins a world title will go down as a true great. I have pointed out two occasions where world titles have been won unexpectedly and in controversial circumstances by riders who were not generally regarded as world class material. I accept that Gollob is a superb rider and one of Polands most popular sportsmen but that does not mean ALL riders that win a world title are great riders. Some world titles have been won in less than satisfactory circumstances by riders who disappeared from the Worlds class radar very soon afterwards. Even more the case with some of the minor placings.