szkocjasid

That's a fantastic looking team.

Yeah I don't get where all the talk of Zmarzlik struggling came from. It's like every round the question is, will Zmarzlik win or not, rather than "which of the 16 riders will win". He's a great rider, but it shouldn't be regarded as Zmarzlik vs everyone else.

Once Fricke had 3rd choice for the final, I was surprised he left Bartosz grid 2, after Zmarzlik had done well off 2 in the semi final.

They can't be split, so must've been GP ranking, number 17 is better than 18. This situation where 0,0 is better than 0,0 which is better than X is another example of why the current scoring system is the worst ever!

Aside from trying to find a guest for Cook against Poole think Anders Rowe would be a great guest for Zischke or Vissing, former Poole rider as well.

Not just Plymouth, Berwick didn't replace Schlein, Workington didn't replace Zischke. Did a single heat leader join mid-season? Just need to make the points limit low enough to share the top riders around / avoid clubs being cut adrift.

I think Edwards has had a good season, I certainly wouldn't want to drop him.

Ablitt has had a good season & upped his average as the "senior" reserve. Yes he was poor, but one poor match doesn't mean he should automatically be dropped.

For your first point, a team away from home in the second leg, know how many they have to score to hold onto the lead! Second point agree - but how often do you get ties over 30 heats. Third point, agree the favourites will certainly want the second leg at home in the final, no advantage in semi finals. Today, Redcar & Scunthorpe just got knocked out when they had the second leg at home, did they have an advantage?

Could be close for the aggregate win. Redcar look slightly stronger, heats 13 & 15 look vital. If Mulford can clear up at reserve, as he really should do and get double figures, slightly fancy Redcar.

What makes it worse, is that it was absolutely completely unnecessary.

Kvech would certainly be an obvious choice for next year (for any club). If Ipswich drop King, maybe he'll get a spot at Birmingham, who would probably prefer British based riders.

Can't agree with that logic. Just because some "rising stars" will be better than others is no reason not to include them. Look at the British U21 final, there is a big gulf between the top & bottom riders, but they don't make it a 6 rider individual, to only include riders who can win or cancel the meeting until there's 16 quality riders (extreme example I know). There will always be unbalanced teams, look at the NL some 3.00 riders will become 9+ riders, which means some clubs through no fault of their own will be disadvantaged from the get go. I actually think the RS could be more even next year, replacing Dan T & Rowe by bringing back Bailey & Joe T for example.

I agree for the final, definitely want the second leg at home, to lift the trophy in front of your own fans. If I was a team against Poole if want the home leg first, get a good crowd, will be harder to get a big crowd if you're chasing a big deficit.

What "second leg advantage"? Last year the BSN, KOC & play-offs won by the team with the home leg first.

As long as a rider fits the criteria, there is no maximum amount of seasons. I think they have to be U23 or U24 at the start of the season, so Flint could have 2 or more seasons if his average stayed below 4.00.

I'm positive when the RS system started that riders who dropped below 4.00 could become "rising stars" again, such as Jenkins. I think he has to be U24 at the start of the season to qualify. Maybe the rules have changed, but originally that was the case.

While Birmingham fans will be delighted to finish with 2 wins & bring a little respectability to their league table showing. It's the worst time for the promotion's point of view. If they had a home meeting left, would they have seen a rise in attendance after 2 wins in a row?

100% agree

I think there's every chance if 3 of the 4 clubs agreed to it, they would announce it was a majority decision. But I just can't get over the fact that rules are meaningless, if clubs can just agree to not use them? What of Ipswich agreed to Sheffield using Harris if Sheffield agreed to them using Lambert, if they both agreed would that be allowed?

With most team managers I'd be surprised, but with Schroeck, it's kinda expected now. But yeah that's terrible team managing. Of course I got banned from the fb page for making comments like this, as it seems to the guys running Oxford, plus some of their fans, Schroeck can do no wrong.

Why is Woffy's average "falsely high" he's rode very well in GB & deserves to be between 8.5/9.0. Big advantage Sheffield have is having two great heat leaders alongside Woffy.

That's what I cannot understand about the whole thing. Everyone must want to meet Ipswich in the semi final, why would Sheffield agree not to? Unless they are very confident to beat Belle Vue over 2 legs & want the bigger crowd?

While I understand why they've made the decision, I do have questions 1) why extend the cut-off date if you're going to ignore the last two matches, surely you'd just keep the cut-off date as it is? 2) why would Sheffield agree to be "ranked" 2nd when they are currently top, what happens if Sheffield say yes to organising the semi finals, but no to meeting Belle Vue? 3) could they not have announced when the home legs were taking place but leave the opposition tbc? Mon 9th Ipswich v Leicester or Sheffield Thu 12th Leicester v Ipswich or Belle Vue Mon 16th Belle Vue v Sheffield or Leicester Thu 19th Sheffield v Belle Vue or Ipswich Not ideal, but I feel it's better than just making up who races who? Plus stops the two Leicester vs Lynn matches being pointless. You either have to count the cut-off now or the cut-off when the league is completed, you absolutely cannot choose Leicester top because you think they will be.

Plenty of good ideas, but I'd suggest a few edits. Unattached 3 points guests only, would mean a 3.01 rider possibly never getting a team place while a 3.00 rider could ride 20 times a season. I'd be happy to allow guests from a list of unattached riders, but not limit that to 3.00 riders. Injuries during the match, could be tricky to cover if a reserve got injured or reserve was in heat with missing rider so couldn't take that race, but swapping reserve races round could solve that. I would be happy with IRR though. I'd prefer 6 riders per team, with a couple of local juniors on standby at number 7 if needed. In an ideal scenario, you'd want every club to have spare juniors wanting after match rides.