waiheke1

1076 lindback 35k emil 34k hampel 35k hancock

If Harris is ruled out with injury then i'd give it to cook.

i did give my suggestion for that above also, though said hose rather than host. would either have to be timed around a gp in that country if this made it viable, otherwise prob held in UK (poole the obvious "home" track for aussie for example)

i basically agree with this. On point 2 i ould return to the system of having heat 17 as 4th highest scorers etc. trhough to heat 20 being a top scorers race. On point 3: no tac subs, but i ould retain the joker (though rename it). Only usable when 7 points down, or available to use in heat 20 to any team which has not used it prior. i'd envisage a "test championship" being held between the eading six nations (poland, Ozzy, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and GB) on a home and away basis over two years (so 5 matches per team per year which is probably all the calendar woudl allow), with a two legged home and away final at the end of the second year (or a one-off meeting hosted by the top qualifying nation). Use the classic 6 man team (plus two reserves) 18 heat format, though i'd add a heat 19 nominated riders race (happy for this raceto be double points, no other jokers or tac subs, though reserves can be used whenever up to max 6 rides). Oz might need to hose their home meetings at Poole, or timed in a bunch around NZ (or future Australain) GP as otherise travel likely to be prohibitive. I'd also throw in a world pairs, classic 21 heat format, but then add two semis (1vs 4, 2vs 3) which would earn addtional points using conventional scoring, top two teams on points after the semis would race off in a final, the pair wiith most points overall wins the meeting . i feel this avoids the issues of artificially finding a winner from "tied" knock out races (one team winning after a 3-3 in a semi or final doesn't seem right) and would mean one bad ride for the dominant team wouldn't neccesarily ruin their chances, at the same time potentially adding an exicting finish beyond that in the old format. Make the final double points if needed to allow a team to potentially claw back up to a 9 point deficit in the final. No reserves, its a pairs comp, if there is an injury that is bad luck.

i have no issue with posters such as yourself who have taken a rational approach to expressing your dis like for certain aspects and/or suggesting how it should be improved. Its when people start saying things like "all time low for speedway ", "farce" and "officially sanctioned cheating" when the fact is that back in the "good old days" there were rules which were no more equitable, that it seems people are going over the top in their complaints and looking only at the negative. Just my perception

We've just had a world cup final come down t a last heat decider and what do we have - floods of people telling us what a farce it was, rolling out the same arguments, it seems some people just love to complain. now to make clear: i don't agree with seeding hosts to the final, i don't like the joker in its current form and the track in Prague is never going to be conducive to superb racing, though MJJ in heat 20 for example showed that passing was possible (and if it had been Peter Collins doing that in a youtube clip from 1977 no doubt everyone ould be saying that you don't get passing like that any mor)... BUT, the final was no worse then many many preceeeding finals from"the good old days.", nor are the current rules.system any worse than what has been happily accepted at various points in the past. to address the main complaints: "the joker is mickey mouse/unfair etc" : yet it doesn't give as much benefit to the trailing team as the old tac sub did, and most people didn't/don't have an issue with that (to use a TMC like analogy, if the joker rrule is like allowing cricket batsman double runs in the next over, the tac sub rule was like allowing to tail end batsmen to be replaced by your best two). "Czech republic being seeded to the final makes it a farce": Did the same people complain it was a farce in 1980 when Englan won, when the qualifying system denied Denmark (one of the three orld class nations) a place in the final, instead two spots being filled by weak continental sides who had no chance of winiing, making it a two way contest for the title? Did they complain in 1989 when England won after bwing seeded to the final? "The racing as rubbish": It wasn't great, but there have been some pretty poor finals over the years even in the "good old days." it's a fact in all sports that finals can often not be of the utmost quality (the rugby orld cup final in 2011, or many ot eh football world cup finals ) as there is no way to guarantee that conditions/riders/platyers etc. will all come together to produce a great spectacle on any given day. What you hope for is if the quality isn't great that this is made up for by tension/closeness, and a last heat decider certainly gives that. Certainly improvements can be made. But it seems to me like this has been seen as just another opportunity to air the ususal grievances without looking at the positives from the meeting.

by replacing two weak riders with two heat leaders u could change a probable 1-5 into a 5-1 - so instead of a four point deficit a four point gain, an eight point swing. using a tac joker biggest swing u can get is replacing a likely zero pointer with a six pointer.

no, but you could get an 8 point swing in a single race from using a tac sub, as opposed to a max 6 point swing using a tactics joker. so it gave the trailing team a greater advantage, although admittedly you couldn't level the scores in a single heat.

so in 1982 my team - belle vue - won the bl . a number of their away wins came only as a result of using tactical rides after falling behind early. Without these "contrived" results it is quite possible that they may not have been champions. Was everyone similarly outraged, did everyone think this was a farce? when people went home after seeing their team win 40-38 away after using a heat 8 double tac sub to get an 8 pts swing did they go away feeling it was a hollow victory? i don't recall any such outcry (ps. i am actually in the camp that feels in sic there should be a reserve but no other tac subs, and there should b no joker or (my preference) any side which hadn't used it prior should b able to use in heat 20)

is it any different to a cricket match in which the batsmen decline to take a single so that the better batsman remains in strike?

fair enough, i didn't think it could be used in first four heats, however it appears i was wrong. That said im not sure i would have used It then. in some ways its a waste to use only as a joker (max 3 point gain) rather than a tactical joker with a potential 6 point swing. In hindsight yours would have been a better option, but i can certainly understand why middlo didn't do it

so, where would you have used the tactical/joker ride. Per my post above there were three options - which would you have used?

of course the result was worse than we expected. but can you specify what tactics you think were wrong? (i agree selections were)

so when would you have used the joker then? there are three options: 1. heat 15, which would have meant instructing harris in heat 14 to finish behind woodward, which kinda defeats the purpose of not replacing your second best rider dpoesn't it? 2. or heat 16, when he would ahve been up against hancock anyway, and would have meant him not having an extra ride? 3. or would you have harris for the joker in 14, meaning our strongest rider wouldnt have had a joker ride. which of these options did those criticising middlos use of the tac joker in heat 14 think was best? (and obviously with hindsight you can argue for option a, but how many actually though that at the time?) and i am NOT a Poole fan

i've posted similatly on the race off thread but: Middlo probably made some wrong selectoral decisions - most on here wouldn't have picked kennet at KL, and perhaps ould have picked cook/king over bridger/barker - but no guarantee that that would ahve resulted in a better result, as there is not much (in my opinion) between those riders at this point in time. i don't think he is great tactically BUT dobn't think he did anything wrong in his use of tac subs and joker, and for people to say his tactics were aful is off the mark in my view. i think he should be replaced, but don't think he is to blame for the result tonight.

i'm no fan of Middlo, but to criticize his use of the joker seems harsh. if you left harris in and he finished ahead of woodward, then you wouldn't have been able to use tai as a tactical in heat 15 as we wouldn't have been 6 points behind, and then tai was in heat 16 anyway (and hancock in that also). and you cant use the tac ride or joker after heat 16 is my understanding. because it's a ridiculous decistion to use your tactical and joker rides to replace your weakest rider with your to strongest? again, i'm no middlo fan and he has made mistakes, but i think his use of the tac riders in the swc have been pretty much the oviocus and correct ones (i know i disagreed wtih scb around the timing of the harris ride, but not the principle of replacing two kennet rised with tai and bomber) my thoughts: firstly, obviously disapointed as this was our best chance in the near future to get a medal, and finishing below latvia and usa is well below how i thought we would do. like many i would have picked worral over kennet, and retained cook for the gaters paradise of prague. But, at the current time we have tai who is world class, bomber who is still internastional class, and then a bunch with not much between them. no guarantee that if middlo had selected differently we ould ahve done better. if we ere going to make the final we reslly needed tai to perform as hancock did (not a criticiasm of tai), and that bridger and barker needed to outperform woodward. looking ahead, cook and worral will hopefully become international class, but it shard to see them becoming world class. to win the swc i'd say at a minimum you need two world class riders, and to inetrnational class. the hope has got to be that young lambert fulfills his potential, cook and worral likewise, and maybe uin five years time we could challenge for honours. on cook's outburst, while its a little disapointing, at the same time at leats it shows passion so not neccesarily a bad thing (a little like when footballers sulk when subbed, in some ways its better than a player not caring), and hopefully he will be back in the team next year.

I reckon they should bring in a rule that if a team has not used their joker they should be allowed to use it in heat 20 regardless of the score. Would make things a little less unfair on a team in latvias position but still fulfil the aims of current system and actual increase the chances of a ladz head decider

Ivan manger reckons not, says noone practiced gating as much as himself and olsen. Reckons pc who had more natural talent didn't work as hard. Obviously some riders will be naturally better gaters than others but imho gating is more something that can be improved with practice than racing from the back

yes. my mistake.

tough heat so no guarantee Harris would have done better - think it makes sense to use it next Kenneth ride. why was Tai not used as tactical joker though? (following on updates so assuming he was just a tac sub?)

you were saying....

surely heat 2, Tai up against three much weaker riders...

Tai captain ward Doyle cook nki hampel

if the meeting was being held in any other country id agree, as it is i think the el provides some guide to form. GB could well end up third twenty points behind the danes, but if all four riders are on form on the night they might just sneak it by a point...

i actually reckon GB have a chance of winning this - not massively high bbut maybe a 1 in 4 shot. if you look at form in britain this season, there can't be too much in the EL averages beyween Tai, Cook and Kennet vs NKI, Bjerre and MJJ (2012 EL). If those three score reasonably evenly then it comes down to Harris vs Pedersen, and while you'd expect Nicky to comfirtably win that head to head, Bomber does tend to raise his game for Team GB and Nicky is still battling an injury, so you never know. Of course, i do appreciate that all 4 danes ride KL well, but i still reckon GB have a better chance of winning here than they do beating both the Aussies and the Swedes in Prague. and of course with no reserves (if i understand the rules correctly), all it takes is an injury to one rider to ruin a team's chances of winning on the night (obviously hoping it doesn't happen, and frankly i think they should revert to the old system of 4 plus a reserve). agree that Worrall should have been given the fourth slot, BUT I hope Ed proves us all wrong and produces a great display. This after all is one of the best chances GB are going to have in the near future to finish top three or higher in the world, given the injury worries for Russia and Australia, the poor form of the Swedes, the Poles with Gollob passed his peak and the new wave really just emerging.