szkocjasid

An 8.00 rider & Zach Cook to replace Doyle & Jenkins, does seem a good option. Especially as it means Dan T dropping back down to reserve (with Rew). Leaves them with a potent reserve pairing.

Well Perry beat Scott in heat 2, then never met a reserve again.

Actually it does mean something, if you are top of the league then you are further clear of 5th, so more likely to make the top 4.

So what if they do, doesn't mean they'll get it. Anyway I don't see how having the second leg at home is seen as an advantage (unless it's an aggregate draw). Last year the BSN series, KOC & play-offs were all won by the team that had the home leg first.

Kvech deserves to be in the GP series as the 3rd highest qualifier outside of the GPs top 6. As far as I'm concerned he is more deserving of his place than Lebedevs, Bewley, Woffinden, Huckenbeck & Kubera, who all required wild cards after not qualifying. I don't expect much from Kvech for Lynn, think his 6.00 assessed average is realistic. But putting Wojdylo at reserve should be a trump card.

Could they not race Workington in the BSN semis next Wednesday?

Maybe the rule should be, missing RS in the top 5 = guest RS (who can be in a Premiership team). Missing RS at 7 = guest RS (from unattached list)? That way all teams would still be using a RS?

I get your point, but here's another view. Dan T has a 4.78 average, so Ipswich can use r/r or an RS in a Premiership teams 1-7. But if Anders Rowe was ill, who has an average only 0.03 lower (4.75) King's Lynn could end up having to use a rider like Hodder, who likely would score 0,0,0. Why should Kings Lynn be punished for building strength in depth instead of top heavy like Ipswich? Seems totally unfair to me!

The only other club Dan would be in the top 5 for would be Birmingham. So if Dan rides for Ipswich or Birmingham they're allowed to use r/r? But if he rode for Belle Vue, King's Lynn, Leicester, Oxford or Sheffield they'd have to use an unattached RS. Doesn't seem right!

What about a rider with a positive attitude then?

Perhaps clubs should have to name a RS at number 8 if using r/r for a RS. At least that way they've fulfilled the "must have a rising star in the team" rule?

I cannot see Oxford dropping Kerr. If they were unsure of his form / fitness, the obvious thing would be to have kept Cook. I can't believe after one match, they'd suddenly change their plans with Kerr.

Surely if Birmingham explained they were dropping Worrall (temporarily) to avoid using guests, that should be welcomed? You could even argue there should be a rule where they can't drop a fit rider (Cook) and be allowed a guest for an unfit rider (Worrall). I thought it was wrong Oxford could drop Klindt, just so they could use Nicholls as a guest for Kerr, instead of being told "no Riss has to replace Kerr, or no guests allowed".

Are you sure? Why wouldn't it be allowed?

What was the admission cost? The field was weaker than a Championship meeting, while that doesn't bother me, can effect attendance.

Not an issue when it's the number 2 out injured, every top 5 rider can get an extra ride, so the reserves have 6 spare heats if needed to cover a second injury, which might not even be needed when using IRR.

Edinburgh will be pleased with their 2 point rider. Only other club looking would be Berwick I'd guess? *Apart from teams looking to make a double change.

That sounds familiar. Think I read that too.

Surprised they haven't put Ben & Zach together at 3&4 tbh

Why on earth would he be at Plymouth. They have strong reserves & are hardly likely to replace their missing number one with a (sub) 2.00 rider. Unless you mean in future seasons?

Zach Cook to guest for Adam Ellis (or King)?

I'd agree with that.

I had no issue with the low points limit, if we can fill teams full of Brits, save on flying in riders etc all the better. Plus helps riders step up from the NDL. Poole & Glasgow could always step up, or go with the majority vote, which they did.

1) while Glasgow did have to lose more points, they also had the same 38 points as every other club to build to this season. Gotta blame the riders / poor selection rather than the points limit. 2) I agree the average conversion rule is stupid. Basically saying because Rowe or Gilkes etc has missed a couple of months of Championship racing their old rolling ave is no longer valid. But as soon as they sign for a Champ side on their converted Prem average, will then go back to using their old Champ rolling average. 3) Why would Championship promoters vite for a low limit if they didn't want it. Even if every club voted, there are more Championship teams, so they'd get what they want. Also how many riders have missed out on a team place due to the points limit. Most missing riders from the Champ appeared to want to drop the league.

That's what lots of people overlook. Many have slammed the low points limit, but if there's not a lot of stronger riders out there wanting a team spot, how could clubs have built to 40 instead of 38? Singing new 4.00 foreigners - having no 2.00 Brits? I also would've preferred Vissing to Flint.