waiheke1

and don't you think the 85 world final would have been better with carter in it, 86 with moran in it, 89/90 with pedersen in them etc? the other difference is that now an injury can ruin your chances for two seasons, not just one.

I'm sure there's some pun that should be made here about SCB not liking pussy...

you can actually see the impac on averages t in 1985, when the BL shrunk from 16/17 teams to about 11, and a number of "heat leaders" significantly dropped their average - Andy Campbell, Mark Courtney, Andy Grahame, Peter Ravn off the top of my head. The top riders averages were largely unaffected (noting also that a number of those had lower than normal averages in 84 due to the tape touching rule), but the weaker HL certainly dropped, as in a condensed league they were now only second string standard. Then more notably in 1988, when the heat 15 rule came in, almost instantly 8 pts became the new threshold for being a top rider (rather than 9), and i think only Hans averaged over 10.

was actually what he said. He didn't say they would be mediocre. He's saying the perception of them would be that they were medicocre. Nore also that he said in an EL format not today's EL. Apply the EL format to the old BL, and they would be 7 point riders. Of course Mauger you wouldn't think of as mediocre because of his world titles, but the likes of say the Grahame brothers who were perennial 8-9 point men at their peak would be regarded as medicore.

because he has been an excellent and loyal performer over a number of years?

If I'm assessing all time greats, I'd have Penhall in my top ten but not Hancock. If I'm naming greatest ever American, I'd consider choosing Hanock over Penhall. Certainly valid arguments either way, similar to if you were arguing between PC, PC or Woffy as greatest ever Brit.

TBh, I'm not sure even that is the point Rob is you are assessing who was better Penhall or Hancock. I think there is not much difference in standard of achievement. The argument for Penhall is that he retired in his prime, and would almost certainly have added to his world titles had he cotinued. Whereas Hancock has redfined longevity at the top level. Which you rank higher is probably dependent on whether you place a higher value on peak ability and "potential" or on sustained excellence.

agree with your point SCB, but your opening statement isn't correct. For a start, there weren't any truly decent you ng Aussies in the 80s. Baker, Regeling,Davies were probably the pick of the bunch, and they averaged around 4-5 in their first seasons (would have to look at what Wiltshire averaged in his first season at the tail end of the decase he may have met your criteria). Ermolenko, King, SMoran all averaged around 6.5 in their first seasons, though Siggy and Penhall did average more (that was late 70s). Cook avergaed around 4.5 I think, the likes of Pfetzing and Lucero aroudn that also.

Agreed, saying which list is stronger is highly subjective, but i think most would agree there is not a lot in it. The same would apply if you look at riders from 16-30, or 31-50. Maybe there were slightly more world class riders in 80, maybe there are slightly more now, but reality is that there is very little difference (IMHO). I think it would also be fair to say that al ist from early 80s would be stronger than from latter 80s due to the relatively high number of genuine world title contenders riders who left the sport prematurely at a time they should have been at their peak (Penhall, Sigalos, Sanders, Carter, Lee).

From your list. What big individual meeting did Larry Ross ever win?Bobby Schwartz, John Davis, Finn Thomsen? Can't see any of them winning a GP, in 1980 or any other season. Wheras outside the 22 names I've given you could throw in MJJ, Fast freddie, Batch and others who have shoown the ability to win a GP ona good day.

top 15 riders in 1980 (according to my rankings) Jessup, Penhall, Lee, Peter Collins, Morton,Autrey, Andersson, Nielsen, Petersen,Sanders,Olsen,Sigalos,Davis, L Collins, Carter. At that time 4 world titles between them (5 including the 80 title) Though of course the likes of Morton, L Collins, Petersen, Davis, Sigalos and Carter would in all probablility not been in the series, would have likely been Mauger (16th), K Moran (19th), Plech (32nd) and then perhaps Ross and Louis/Simmons/Kennett Top 15 riders in 2015: Woffinden, Emil, Hancock, Pedersen, Hampel, Zmarzlik, Ward, Janowski, Iversen, Lindback, Pawlicki, Kolodiej, Kildermand, Vaculik, Doyle. 7 world titles between them (8 including 2015) With the likes of Zagar, Holder, Laguta (x2), Pawlicki, AJ, Pepe outside that top 15. Once again, not all the top 15 riders in the GP series. . I think those two lists are pretty comparable in terms of quality.

I quite like that systrem Humph, though would add that the top "x" riders from the current season GP should also be guaranteed a pot. The issue though is that whereas now you have an intense battle for a top 8 spot, by the halfway mark you'd have half the field left with nothing to race for in the GPs. For that reason alone I can't see BSI going with your plan, though maybe it would work if you had say top 6 in the GPs, 2 from a "GP chalennge" giving maybe 5 spots from the inidvidual rankings (llaowing a couple fo spots to see due to injudries or make sure all major nations represented). the other potential issue is that by half way mark in the series you ptopose a number of riders would have no chance of making the top "x" places, and may therefore just let their team mates win, or be susceptible to being "bought off."

no, it would be weaker, as the old system meant one bad meeting, a poorly timed injury and you were out. the current system generally ensures the majority of the field are in the top 20 or so riders in the world, though of course you get the odd abberation like KK who slipped from being world number 2 to not even in the best 100 riders in 2015. It would end up stronger than the old fields though, because there is a pretty even spread of talent between riders who would come through the old "overseas final" the :"nordic final" and the continental final routes, wheras in the 80s you had 5 riders guaranteed a spot of whom generall at least 4 were sub-standard.

I'd back Batch over Ondrasik on any track! Would add also that my rankings put Batch outside the top 40 in the workd. Riders in the 80s had different skills, I would say more meetings were run on wet tracks than today. anyway, back to the point: On what grounds do you believe there were more world class riders in 1980 than today? Do you really think those riders I listed as 40-50th in the world were world class? Or the riders 40-50th in the BL averages were?

If it's the fact that Olsen and Mauger didn't make the world final, look at some who did: Davis, Thomsen, Ondrasik, Dryml, Stancl, Nieme, Plech. Decent riders sure, but hardly better than most current GP riders.

This is what you said Rob, in case you've forgotten. what grounds do you use to base this claim on?

Rob - you've aslo said in 1980 there were 50 world class riders in the BL. Let's have a look at a list of riders ranked 41-50 in the world in 1980 according to my ranking system): Rob Maxfeild, Bob kilby, Egon Muller, Joe Owen, Andy Grahame, Vaclav Verner, Steve Gresham, Doug Wyer, Ales Dryml, Reg Wilson. You'd be stretching to call any of those world class at that point in time (possible exception egon). In 2015 my list is: Anders Thomsen, Peter Ljung, Chris Harris, Damian Balinski, Troy Batchelor, Scott Nicholls, Maksim Bogdanov, Robert Lamber, Peter Karlsson, Edward Kennet. Again, not world class, but certainly comparable to the list from 1980, I would argue stronger. You can do the same with riders ranked 30-40 and get similar results, though of course there is a natural bias towards the 80s list as you could look at someone like erig Gundersen (27th) and say Look a future 3 times world chanmp at 27! But at thst stage he was just a very promising youngster. Or Malcom Simmons at 24th, but not take into account that this was a rider who was no longer an england regular and wouldn't get close to making a world final appearance that decade.

Rob - you've conveniently ignored all the analysis I did in the quoted post which shows the calibre of a rider an EL rider meets? and look at what some very good riders average in poland, where you have most of the worlds top riders in an 8 team league

He's not saying theEL is tougher now. He is saying it is tougher for a heat leader. In 1980 the "average" BL side would have a wolrd top 20 rider as a number one, 2 heat leaders ranked in the top 50 in the world, two second strings ranked in the top 100, and two reserves ranked outside the top 100. A numnber one would meet in a typical meeting: 1 number one, 3 heat leaders, 7 second strings, one reserve. (including his team mates): Using the above criteria and my statistical ranking system: The EL in 2015 contained 6 riders of "number one" calibre (I'm counting Ward/Kildermand as one rider, as they never rode for Swindon at the same time), 14 riders of heat leader quality and 14 of second string quality. So an average a side would have 0.75 numbe rone, 1.75 hear leader, 1.75 second string, 2.75 riders of reserve standard. Slightly weaker than in 1980, but not a lot (i would say the top sides are now a lot weaker, the average sides about the same, the weakest sides slightly stronger). But a number one would now come up against a number one quality rider 3 times, heatleaders 8 times, second strings 4 times. Taking into account the slight diminishment in quality of the EL, he'ss till coming up against a rider of number one standard 2.25 times, a heatleader quality rider 7 times, a second string 3.5 times, and a reserve quality rider 2.25 times. So well over half the other riders in his races are heat leaders or better quality, compared to only a third in 1980. So it's fair to say that Mauger and Olsen (the 1980 versions remember, where Mauger was only just a 9 point man and arguably neither was a top 10 in the world rider), would have averaged around 7 in the current EL (exclduing bonus points).

look at tge 1980 world finsl line up and tell me tgat ut was stronger than a modern day gp. no way. 81 was an excellent field, but at the time only olsen (3) and lee(1) had won a world title. thats identical to what greg faced last year. i 80 and 82 only pc of penhalls rivals had been world chsmp. for the record i rate penhall higher thsn greg

If you took that approach Kildermand would have got in anyway. Hampel you are saying you would give a pot due to injury. So you would you rather see Lindgren and Milik in the series than Lindback and AJ? I think the latter two have soem chance of being top 8 next season, the former two almost none. The fact is that seeedings result in a much stronger field, where merit is assessed over a full season not just a handful of qualifiers. The only seed you can really query for next year is AJ, who was our performed over the season by the likes of Vaculik, but AJ is still a top 20 rider. The ter three seeds were all in the best 15 riders in the world last year when you take into account form across all competitions, and hence are worthy on merit of their slots. Fristly, I think it is important to have a local wildcard for each event. For smaller nations gives their riders an opportunity against the big boys (even the likes of Cook/Masters getting the oppoortunity is posisitve), in Poland we have got to to see talent like Zmarzlik showing what they can do. Secondly, I do have some issue withbasing qualification for world champ strictly on some statistical measure based on other events - you could end up with the situation where a rider chose to skip his final club meetings to avoid risk of his ranking being lowered and missing a spot. Thirdly, I think it is fair enough that the major speedway nations (Denmark,Sweden, GB and Poland) are guaranteed at least one rider in the series. Fourth - the current system still allows the chance for a rider to qualify by a series of good meetings, even if that rider would never make it on a season long basis - the "romance" of the long shot qualifier, though I realise that is not always good for the series. An official ranking system would be a good idea. However, I think it should be used only as a guide to wildcards. Or, say top 6 in GPS g through, 2 wildcards (to cover injury, young talent, nation coverage), and 7 spots to those highest in the rankings. (Or use the rankings to assemble the GP challenge field)

Final rankings for 2015 seasons. Have made some tweaks to formulas, so some variance in riders "averages." 1 TAI WOFFINDEN 11.22 2 Emil Sajfutdinow 10.37 3 GREG HANCOCK 10.25 4 NICKI PEDERSEN 9.78 5 Jarosław Hampel 9.44 6 BARTOSZ ZMARZLIK 9.10 7 Darcy Ward 8.76 8 MACIEJ JANOWSKI 8.76 9 NIELS KRISTIAN IVERSEN 8.71 10 ANTONIO LINDBACK 8.55 11 PIOTR PAWLICKI 8.55 12 Janusz Kołodziej 8.43 13 PETER KILDEMAND 8.39 14 Martin Vaculik 8.37 15 JASON DOYLE 8.24 16 MATEJ ZAGAR 7.91 17 Przemyslaw Pawlicki 7.85 18 ANDREAS JONSSON 7.62 19 Piotr Protasiewicz 7.61 20 Grigoriy Laguta 7.48 Craig Cook next best Brit in 24th, ahead of Harris (42nd). Nicholls Lambert and Kennet (!) also in the top 50. Dudek would slot in at 15th, but omitted from the list due to limited number of meetings raced in. KK the worst GP rider at 105th. If you exclude Ward, only 3 riders out of the World's top 15 missing from next year's series, Emil, Vaculik and Kolodziej, all of whom rank ahead of Jonsson (18th), Holder (20th) and Harris 42nd).

no, i blame matt ford

was just an example of a rider still racing at an advanced age, and tbh an indictment of where nz speedway is at.

I statistically compare rankings across all major competitions, with each competition weighted based on the calibre of riders in it (weighting statistically determined based on the average across competitons of the riders competing in it). Of course, there are different ways of doing this, and my rankings differ to say the Dolgin rankings, which are focused on performances over the lat two years (mine focus on current year only), and mine attach additional significance to events such as SGP, SWC and Euros, whereas Dolgin''s attach equal significance to all meetings Dolgin's rankings can be found here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18wvOs1SUYAz9O50h3xcKFBNzceM7HtRnAhwaLMKHFD0/edit?hl=ru#gid=0, mine can be found here http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=79976