szkocjasid

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.

Poole certainly can "get away with that type of performance in the play offs" as they don't need to win away to become Champions. Having a difficult night & keeping it close works fine in two legged affairs.

Don't forget Anders Rowe, he's been one of the best "rising stars"

Very few fans thought it was a good idea when the double change was made, only the promotion could claim "it seemed like a good idea at the time"

If you were prime minister, you would've raced a heat with one rider only rather than giving Ivacic a 3rd ride? 😑

I don't know if Plymouth can race at home on a Sunday, but Redcar on Friday, Workington on Saturday then Plymouth on the Sunday would have been much more sensible.

I'd totally have Rowe back next year, riding to a 4.9 average, but available on 3.7, complete no brainer for me.

Then I can't understand why he didn't take his 3rd ride? If he was injured they could use a reserve. So must've been fit. So risking losing the league title because you're not willing to borrow a bike! Obviously I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I wouldn't want someone at my club with that attitude.

Birmingham are lucky Pawlicki isn't there, but with decent guests expect Ipswich to win this one.

Actually I've come to the conclusion that Schroeck's tactics were even worse than first thought, I get grief from Oxford fans on FB, but he keeps showing me how clueless he is. The updates made it look like the tac sub was in heat 11, so I had thought why not wait one race & replace a reserve in heat 12? Now I've seen the official scorecard, the tac sub was actually in heat 5, as Harris has taken the r/r outing in heat 1, that means after ONE ride each, both getting second places, Schroeck had decided not to give Wright or Riss an extra ride & instead give the reserves 8 rides between them. He's totally clueless, it's not even like Riss & Wright had poor first rides. Plus at that stage the reserves had taken 3 rides between them & not beaten an opponent. I understand that for Janowski to replace a reserve they'd have to wait to heat 12, but I still think that is the best tactic. If you're only 4 points down after 11 heats, then you're still in with a chance even if you miss the tac sub opportunity. Either that or give Wright the tac sub outing earlier on? But certainly use the tac sub instead of a reserve imo

I can understand the Prem clubs not wanting a lose a team, but there's no reason the Champ clubs wouldn't want an extra side.

I think it's a shame, no one lent him a bike. Years ago I wouldn't see riders not completing their rides because they didn't have a bike working.

I don't understand that logic, I don't decide wether or not to "give funds" based on weather the sport is dying or not, I base it on wether I think it's value for money or wether I'll be entertained. I would never avoid going to a match I thought would be good just because I think the sport is struggling in the UK.

A couple of odd team manager tactics, Rowe has 4 rides in the first 8 heats, but doesn't race again, despite having secured a 5-1 in his last outing. Can't understand why Kerr didn't replace Lambert in heat 12 rather than Rowe. For Oxford using the tac sub in the r/r spot meant Wright didn't get an extra ride, despite a decent 8+1 score. Normally the tac sub would be used to replace a reserve race. For the fans who attended, did you agree with Riss in heat 13 or should it have been Wright, or nothing between them & either could have been chosen?

There was a group of Sheffield fans shouting "you're getting sacked in the morning" at Mickie Simpson after his engine failure in heat 6, don't know if it was just banter etc but felt out of place in a development league match to me!

On my way South for this match tonight, should be a good one.

They didn't win last Wednesday.

Personally I think there are enough riders for 7 teams, as long as the top riders are shared out. The likes of Sheffield won't like it, but then having 3 top riders, when Birmingham & Lynn were struggling to find one, doesn't do any good for the league.

There's no doubt Flint has been a very disappointing RS for Birmingham this year. But he's still the third best in the league & when Dan T & Rowe are no longer "riding stars" next year, he'll be the highest averaged (in both leagues) RS available. Why wouldn't you want him back? Just because he's been disappointing / not got to grips with his home track, doesn't mean there's anyone better out there. Look at Leicester dropping Joe T for Hagon looked a sensible move, but now look to have ended up with possibly the weakest RS in the league.