szkocjasid

Berwick look better placed to challenge for a play-off spot than in recent years. Have strengthened their top end, while having a decent rider at reserve, especially against teams with 2 x 2.00 riders. Big key for me is Etheridge to find his best home form, big home wins = bonus points / aggregate wins.

That makes sense, sounded a bit harsh on Perry to say he's developed & shouldn't be in the NL lol!

I'm curious, how do you rate Berwick's top 2 of Kerr & Schlein?

Is the league weaker because they dropped the points limit or did they drop the points limit because there isn't enough quality for it to remain at 40 (or above)? How many top riders are missing out due to the points limit being lowered (not including riders who chose to miss out)? For example the only missing riders with 4+ averages are: Claus Vissing (possibly at Workington) Erik Riss (does he want to ride Champ?) Anders Rowe Hans Andersen Dan Gilkes Jack Thomas (still injured?) James Wright (still injured?) Ben Morley Max Clegg So a higher points limit would just lead to a large difference between the top & bottom and possibly 2.00 Brits being dropped for new 4.00 riders! With the riders available, I'd suggest they've not gone far wrong with a 38 limit.

Agree with your 8th / 9th predictions. I certainly wouldn't say Oxford look solid, have the best top 2, but a long tail end. Agree about Redcar, they look decent enough to me, but I don't see them as high up as others suggest.

Sedgmen does have the 4th highest average of any second heat leader.

5 clubs will finish outside of the play-offs (top 4 qualify this year)

Good idea. I made a similar suggestion in a NL post. Sadly the BSPL were too lazy / uninterested in thinking outside the box & stick with the norm (averages).

A rider who has never had a Champ spot is certainly not in the "developed" category. Stopping riders who have averaged above 4.00 in the Champ would stop the riders you listed racing in the NL. But does the limit need to be so low that it stops Perry getting a ride?

Because the rules make it easier to sign a 29 year old Aussie, than a 16 year old Brit (Max Perry).

Doesn't fit with Dayle Wood in the side. I couldn't think of obvious "second strings" so thought Perry and another "reserve" could be the way to go.

If you sign 4 reserves can't have them all starting at reserve lol! However for Glasgow to be successful think they need Pearson to put 1+ points on his average, which based on his Aussie form is very possible, so I don't really expect him to be near the reserve berths this year.

Max, really should have a NL place for his development, I can't remember the last time a promising NL rider stepped up to the Prem without doubling up for at least one season (by choice, not talking about the Lambert's or Bridger's who chose to leave NL after one season). I hope the individual series isn't restricted to NL riders only, as that would mean Joe T could ride in all 3 leagues & get extra individual meetings, but Max P who is eligible for the NL would be blocked from riding in the Individuals as he's not got a NL team. Which is what I kind of expect to happen, as it's usually the BSPL policy to have a half baked idea & not think it through / consider the downsides?

The problem with using solely averages, is it means dropping riders who are developing & signing riders who will never make it to Champ level. Neither supports the future of British Speedway

It's not a question of Max being "good enough" he did "too well" last year so has been dropped. Not exactly a great advertisement for a "development league" - develop & you get left without a team, stay where you are & you'll get signed again!

Joe Alcock would be the best option, but I've read he's not riding this year. Or how about? Scunfield Nathan Ablitt 8.49 Luke Harrison 6.86 Ace Pijper 5.81 Mickie Simpson 4.23 Mason Watson 3.93 Josh Embleton 3.47 Stene Pijper 3.00 Total 35.79

I'm sure I read rolling averages last year counted the last 20 matches from 21&23. So Clegg has a 4 plus average, which lasts till he rides again. I believe if he rides one match in 24, then all his 21 fixtures are dropped (so would his average).

I don't think this will be the team, more playing around with the numbers to see what fits. But swapping King for Mark Parker (3.00), could be more realistic. Also someone may refresh my memory, but did Josh Embleton leave Edinburgh due to work commitments? Edinburgh Connor Coles 7.79 Max Perry 7.75 Sam McGurk 6.08 Dayle Wood 4.50 Josh Embleton 3.47 Connor King 3.39 Kyren Lyden 3.00 Total 35.98

Oxford have something for every fan: If you want to watch some of the top riders in the world pay extra for Premiership racing If you like Speedway & don't care about the level, just watch NL racing If you want to watch racing every week, Oxford have that covered too

To me every club has both positive & negative sides to it, find it hard to pick a winner, which is ideal really.

Think you are being very brave suggesting someone is "deluded" for thinking Poole will win the league. I certainly wouldn't say Plymouth's reserves are "miles better" than Poole's. But you are allowed your opinion and I certainly wouldn't call you deluded even if I disagreed with it!

Riders averages should go up, so it will be hard for teams to strengthen up mid-season.

Saw these averages posted on the Workington thread: Tobias Thomsen (8.64) Sam Jensen (8.42) Kasper Andersen (8.33) Given Jensen & Andersen have averaged above 4 in tougher Championship seasons, I can see why Poole went for Thomsen.

James has potential, but I think Smith is better now. I don't see the advantage of giving James a full season & hope to reap the benefit in 2025, look at Trigger - did a full season for Plymouth, but Redcar could be the beneficiaries!

Could not agree any more, Clegg's rolling average has been above 4 all year & finished above 4. The fact he averaged 2.5 for Edinburgh is irrelevant, it's his rolling average that counts. I don't see any point of removing scores when a club fails to complete a season (just makes averages less accurate - the complete opposite of the point of averages) but that's the rules.