norbold

Not that close, BOBBATH! Still a long way to go yet.

So Ove Fundin moves into the top 16. R.I.P. George White.

Very sorry to hear that. He was in England's first WTC team in 1960.

I'm not sure it works like that, Grachan. You could say that Rickardsson took Mauger's high standards of professionalism to an even higher level. Would that mean that only riders since Rickardsson's day can be called the greatest ever? You have to look at the conditions in the era of each of the riders and what marks them out during that era. I think the idea that putting a great rider from any era into another era, with all that goes with that era, and they would still rise to the top is almost a truism. Frank Arthur and Vic Huxley were probably the first of the "greats", but they were leg trailers, so if they came back today riding exactly as they did then (and on the machinery they had then) and rode against the likes of Jason Doyle and Greg Hancock, they'd stand no chance. But that's not how you have to make comparisons between eras.

Ove Fundin once told me he thought that Ivan Mauger was responsible for taking all the fun out of speedway!

Having seen them both over many years, I can't agree with the idea that Briggo was a better racer than Fundin. They were equally determined to win at all costs and ruthless, so I don't think there is any difference on that score, but I do think Fundin actually had more control of his bike and had a more astute racing brain than Briggo and that was why, during the time they were both at the top of their game, Fundin had a superior record to Briggo's, both in terms of titles won and in head to head clashes.

Having lived through all their eras and seen them all I would say, 1. Fundin 2. Mauger 3. Briggs 4. Rickardsson 5. Olsen. Though any one of them could beat all of the others and, of course, all of them trail in behind Tom Farndon!

Also Kazimierz Bentke, Coventry 1961.

Also Marian Kaiser for Leicester in 1959 and Stefan Kwoczala for Leicester in 1960.

Incidentally, sales at the end of June had reached 22,011 (and still rising).

Well, if he was the only one, I'd certainly go along with him being the best. Mind you, he was also the worst.

Yes, I was there that night as well (I don't remember seeing you though ). Timo Laine did indeed score two points. He managed to beat Dick Fisher and Neil Mortimer, who finished with zero points.

Actually, falcace, I have to say I am of an age where Antti Pajari and Timo Laine are not obscure to me. They were both good riders and I would probably count them in Finland's top five, though I agree Kai Niemi would be my choice as no.1.

I've got it. Each pair will be on the same bike. Tandem speedway bikes. Sounds good to me!

Apart from Arne Pander and just possibly Charlie Monk, I don't think any of the others you mention would ever have qualified for a Grand Prix series.

Sverre Harrfeldt has by far the best record of any Norwegian rider.

Whatever happened to Bobbi Hunter?

Eastbourne finished 12th out of 15 that year, Averages: Kennett, 9.72; Moran 9.62; Preston 9.19; Woods 6.62; David Kennett 3.55; Lillebror Johansson 3.55; Lars Hammarberg 3.37; Borje Ring 3.36; Keith Pritchard 3.27. Part of the reason for their poor finish was due to Moran's rather wayward beahviour during the season. He was fined £1000 for failing to arrive at the match against Ipswich. He was then ruled unfit to ride by the track doctor in the match against Belle Vue. He was fined £10 and reported to the Control Board. Moran and the Eastbourne management put the fact he was unfit to ride down to the fact that he had been celebrating after qualifying for the World Final the previous night in Sweden and had then had to get to Eastbourne and that he was just tired. Though Moran did admit to being a "llittle hungover". In total he only rode in 35 out of a possible 48 matches that season and, with the tail being so weak, it didn't help that he was absent so much.

Still trying to defend your utter nonsense then, Philip? Either get a bigger spade to keep digging or, alternatively, get a life.

The problem is Philip, that you can't just lump the Czech Republic and Slovakia together and say oh, well, they used to be one country. There is a reason why they are two countries now and that is because Slovakia voted to be independent. I really don't think they would take too kindly to some outside body coming along and telling them that as far as they are concerned this vote never happened. It would be like telling the Irish that they are British really.

JUST for the record....Zagar was born in Yugoslavia.

In spite of its size, the Roman Empire wouldn't be able to track much of a team. On the other hand Britain and Its colonies could be quite good: Doyle, Woffinden, Hancock......

The UK and Ireland?

So all the former Soviet Republics and the Yugoslav Republics could get together then?

Why? The Czech Republic and Slovakia are two completely different countries in exactly the same way as Argentina and the USA.