waiheke1

Actually, I think most people are happy with a system in which the World Champion is the best rider in the World that season. Which the SGP does achieve, pretty much every time.

I'm pretty sure Bradford '85 wasn't, they also held the Overseas final and Wiorld Pairs semi there that year, and it became the home of the Bradford Dukes the following season.

there's only Sky in NZ, and as a monopoly they pretty much can show what they want...will be intresting to see how much of a time delay there is between NZ GP and it being broadcast that would be the perfect scenario!!!

um, not sure how Italian Matej Zagar is? Anyway, I really hope there is a kiwi wildcard, but not convinced that that will be the case

Would love to be proved wrong, but there isn't any coverage of the Elite league on TV in NZ. GPs and World Cup are shown (highlights), but often months after the event. Otherwise us kiwis are reliant on t'internet. That's why I was so surprised that the GP did come to fruition, I would have thought there would have been better coverage of the GP on Sky last year to help drum up interest. I'd assumed that this would be given to an Aussie (Troy Batchelor?) or a Brit wintering down under. Is there any word on who this is likely to be? this article seems to suggest that while NZ are entitled to a wildcard, this may not be given to a kiwi if there is none good enough (likely to be the case?) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motorsport/news/article.cfm?c_id=66&objectid=10770641

So, you start a topic with a melo-dramatic title. You make an alarmist claim about up to 5 permanent wildcards being needed, though when asked produce nothing to substantiate this – and lo and behold, we have a full field of 15 confirmed. Discussion on your opening points evolved pretty quickly into a discussion of the relative merits of GPS vs. World Championships. This discussion, which is highly relevant to your original post (given that you implied the GP was not a “proper” world championship event) continues for around 30 pages, to which you stopped contributing at around page 6. Admittedly from then, it moves slightly off topic into a discussion of great riders (of both GP and old WC eras), and finally devolves into a series of botanical puns (which I will confess, is a relatively significant divergence from the topic). I do find it a little bizarre that, havingat this point you decide to complain to the mods about it moving off topic? So, back to your original post: GP is not really in tatters it? In fact, while the standard may be slightly down on the last couple of seasons, there are arguably 7 riders in the field capable of winning the title (Crump, Gollob, Emil, Hampel, Jonsson, Holder, Pedersen) other \s likely to scrap for the 8th spot but well capable of winning an individual GP (Harris, Lindgren, Lindback, Bjerre) and then three who are unlikely to be in contention but ,may surprise . In 2013, I’d expect BSI to have sorted out the issue with the Poles, and potentially we could see the likes of Ward, Jankowski, G Laguta and Tai added to the field, which, even allowing for one of the “old brigade” potentially retiring, would be a very appetizing line up World Finals have ALWAYS paid poorly. The only reason it is now an issue is the rule the Poles brought in - this is surely an issue with the Poles, not the GPs? And let’s face it, the field isn’t missing any of the riders in with a genuine shot at winning it is it? An “old-style WC” as well as a GP? I thought this topic worth discussing, so actually opened a separate topic on this, which neither you (nor anyone else really) commented on – perhaps because it’s just not likely to happen. Anyway, a summary of how I saw it working, which would involve only an extra two weekends of meetings over a season were – how would you see it working Midland Red? Your other point was regarding how GP benefits British speedway, specifically the clubs. Surely, the purpose of the GP is not to benefit English clubs (or any clubs for that matter) – it’s to identify who the best Speedway rider is in a given year, and benefit speedway as a whole. Ps: Like the avatar.

Yes, nailed it, that's EXACTLY what he was saying

Sorry, Sydney I meant of course Phil crump (who we had been discussion), not Jason (who I agree is better than Pedersen). So confirming, you believe PHIL was better than N Pedersen? You keep saying this is because its easier to stay in GP than to qualify for the old final (which I’d dispute anyway), but are you actually saying you believe it was harder to qualify for the old WF than it is to WIN the GP? Note, someone like Billy Sanders in the same era had exactly the same qualifying route as Phil, but managed 5 world finals, and two rostrum appearances.Who do you think was better out of Phil and Billy? Of course, being good enough to win, and deserving to win, are two entirely different things. Do you think Jessup was good enough to win, and can you name a rider who was better in the world in 1980? The point being that it is a rarity for one incident to have determined the overall GP winner in a particvular year, wheras roughly every second year under the old one-offs such an incident had a significant bearing on who took out the title. I’d say Lee would certainly have either qualified or been wildcarded to the 78 GP series. Peter Collins similarly for the 74 series.So, a year later than they actually made a final under the old system, hardly a significant delay. And in the case of Lee, who’s to say that he wouldn’t have actually benefitted from success coming slightly later. I don’t buy the argument that its harder for young riders now – Emil and Tai for example were hardly waiting for ever to join the series. If a British talent like Lee emerged in 2012, I think you could practically guarantee he’d be offered a spot in the 2013 GP series. I don't blame you for not having read every page of this topic, but this has actually been covered off in a fair amount of detail Of course, Sydney, you've alreayd expressed your opinion on Nielsen on another thread. yeah forget the medals, forget that season he went undefeated away from home in the BL, forget the number of consecutive seasons he topped the BL averages (including the two best ever season averages), forget the 3 BLRC titles , forget the many test series he topped the averages, forget the 6 Danish Championships, forget the numerous other World Final qualifying titles. Because, lets face it, apart from those, he didn't really do much did he? Ok, so that’s a 12 year period you’ve listed, and quite a few of those riders (e.g. N Boocock, Jonsson, Rickardson) were nowhere near World class in that period. You’ve then asked us to look at a 9 year period of GPs as a comparison? Anyway, I’m not sure looking at a list of riders over a 12 year period of time is the best way to compare relevant strength in depths, rather pick a particular year and look at the quality.So, I’ve picked 1982 (just because its one of the seasons I feel most familiar with), and compared to the current situation. I've then split riders into three groups.1) those who would have been good enough to challenge for a spot on the rosturm, 2) those who would have been good enough to challenge for the top8, 3) those who would have performed respectably, probably around 4/5 points a GP, but capable of making semis, or even the final, on a good day and a track which suited them. Note, this is obviously highly subjective, I realize different people may have very different bvies on which category different riders should fit into: Champion/rostrum: 1982 Penhall Carter Sigalos L Collins Gundersen Jessup 2012: Gollob Hancock Crump Emil AJ Hampel Holder Top 8: 1982: M Lee S Moran K Moran C Morton J Andersson H Nielsen O Olsen B Shwartz B Sanders 2012: N Pedersen Lindgren Harris Bjerre Ward Holta G Laguta Respectable 1982: Knudsen Muller Nieme Ross Mauge Petersen Andy Grahame Alan Grahame Kennett Cook Erixen Preston Peter Collins Crump Autrey Davis 2012: PP Batchelor Andersen Lindback Nicholls Woffinden Zetterstrom Schlein Pavlic Walasek Sullivan THJ Janowski Zagar Miedzinski Kolodziej KK IMHO I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the strength of those two lists, though I do think the 82 list is slightly stronger. Would appreciate other’s thoughts.

I think Penhall would have won more titles. Not in 83, I don’t think any rider would have beaten Egon that day (though if anyone could , it would have been Bruce- and perhaps there would have been a difference to egon’s psychology if Bruce had been in the field, as it was there was no strong favourite, and egon must have thought “this is mine for the taking.”). I reckon he’d have won two more in the 80s, with Erik and Hans perhaps winning two apiece. Lee certainly could have won more if his career had stayed on track, Sanders I don’t think would have done, Carter and Sigalos perhaps. That said, I think you have to bear in mind that Nielsen in particular was nowhere near his peak when Penhall and Lee were at their peak - so its not surprising that Penhall had a great head to head record against Nielsen. Penhall (81 version) , Lee (late 70s version), Nielsen (86-89 version) - all great riders, very, very little between them, in my view - but I think you'd have to say Penhall and Nielsen would have a slight edge over Lee, simply for their consistency. At their peaks, I'd take Penhall to beat Hans in a one-off final, Hans to beat Penhall in a GP series.

one otherpoint on the subject of old World Finals. Certainly, I think an element of luck was needed to become world champion. To back this up here are incidents off the top of my head, without which, the winner (or other medal winners) may well have been different. Please note again that I am not saying WF were a lottery, or that winners were not deserving, just that luck, as well as skill, played a part. And yes, in GP series luck also plays a part, but over a series of 11 meetings, less significant than in a one off final. 73: Controversial incident involving Plech and Chlynovski robs both of a place in run off for title. Mauger falls in run-off gifting Szcazkiel the title. 75: Peter Collins has two wins from first two riders, however just prior to third ride the dusty track is watered by over enthusiastic fans. Collins finishes last and his title hopes are gone. 76: Mauger engine failure while leading hands Collins title. 77: Collins injury week before meeting. Mauger twice trailing in clashes against key rivals (Collins and Olsen/Lee), but races stopped due to other rider’s falling (muller and Boulger). Mauger triumphs in both re-runs. 78: Jessup ef costs him title. Mauger falls/knocked off in his first heat while leading, but race not stopped. 80: Lee randomly checks timing of his bike at a service station, notices broken bearing which would have ruined world final hopes. Gets favourable gate 1 twice, while rival Jessup gets orst gate three twice. 81: Penhalls main rivals on the night, Carter/Gundersen/Jessup all suffer engine troubles 82: L Collins drops two poins in his easiest ride. THAT incident, when at best Penhall would have picked up second (and hence a run off) 83: Nielsen puncture costs him place on rostrum 85: Nielsen crashes in fourth ride, and has to race re-run on second bike. Inside gate a huge advantage in first half of meeting (benefits Sam Ermolenko who finished third) 86: Knudsen controversially excluded in clash with Neilsen 89: Gundersen e/f costs him runners up spot 93/94: Nielsen controversially excluded costing him the title on both occasions I'm sure there are many more examples that exist. These moments are also perhaps why specific old WF stick in our minds more, as they are defining moments in the destiny of the title, while the many (for example ) Nicki Pedersen incidents are less vivid as they have ultimately not decided the overall GP winner in a given year.

1. So, you agree Jessup was good enough to wint the World title? 2. So you believe that reaching World Finals was harder than winning GPs due to strenth in depth? You think it was that much stronger then? Or is there some other basis on which you think J Crump was better than Pedersen. On the "gate position " issue. Here's some footage that confirms that riders do see gate postion as asignificant advantage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnoxEvYa4as Also, I have to say that I do recall Speedway Star etc. commeting on impact of gate postions, so don't think it is anew thing at all. Finally, on the 1980 final, I had my stats wrong. Gate three totalled 18 points over the night (average 0.9 pts per rider), wheras gate 1 scored 47 points (average 2.35 points per ride). So, you have to say that Lee (who had gate 1 twice) definitely had an advabntage over Jessup (who has gate 3 twice) - you could argue a 1.45 pt advantage due to luck of the draw. With finals as tight as they were, I think you have to acknowledge that that's reasonably significant.

tbh, I can't see why people are so anti-Penhall. Ok, i could understand if: a) you were a Cradley fan bitter about him costing you the '82 BL title you were a Carter fan who, despite video evidence to the contrary, believe Carter was robbered in '82 c) You had a few quid on Penhall to win the 82 Overseas final Otherwise, I think the sentiments are pretty irrational. To me, he is one of the all time great riders. I'd have much rather he'd stayed in speedway, where I think he would have continued to win world titles,but understand why he made the choice he did, and think he has to be admired for then becoming a World Champion in another sport. For those who doubt him as a person, hopefully something like this shows that he is at least not all bad

Not wanting to be pedantic, but the uk qualifying meeting for the WTC in 1980 was held at Kings Lynn, and the weather (from footage and photos I've seen) was fine? The following meeting (at Vojens) however was torrential. Wrong meeting/year? England v USA 1985 is the wettest meeting I recall seeing at Hyde Rd.

To be clear, I'm not saying gate postions were a major factor, or that the Champion would have been different. But gate postions clearly were a factor (one of many) and may have altered the destiny of the title (its obviously impossible to prove this either way) in some cases. Going back to 85 - five riders would have had zero rides of gate 1 prior to the interval - if for example gunderssen was one of them, would he have still been able to be world champion? Nielsen had the advantage of being off gate 1 for his toughest heat, whereas Moran's gate 1 was some what "wasted" in being in his easiest ride. The result may have been the same if the draw was different, or it may have been (Also, I think I got my stats wrong, and it was 8 out of 12 heat wins (and 4 second places) off gate 1 - but still, clearly a significant, though not insurmountable, advantage.) Anyway, my point is that in some finals the titles' destiny may have been altered by small factors such as gate advantage. That is not to take away anything from those that did win, nor to say that there were not many instances where one rider was so good on the night that they would have overcome any disadvantage. DJ was clearly not as naturally talented as Mike, nor was his equipment as good. But...in 1980 DJ won the British final, Commonwealth final, was unbeaten in the World Pairs final, top of the averages for England in the tests vs USA, top English scorer in the successful WTC campaid, SWAPA rider of the year... can you name a rider who was better than him in 1980? Who do you think would have won an SGP that year? DJ arguably missed out on the World title in 78 due to engine troubles, on a runners up slot in 81 due to engine troubles, and finished second in the World in 80 - what makes you say he was not good enough to win the title? I agree, he wasn't great around Hyde Rd (though I belive he scored 16 in a test match v USA in 81), and I didn't rate him that highly myself at the time - but when you look back he was a damn good rider. And, you say Phil Crump was better than Leigh Adams, and Adams better than N Pedersen - so effectively you're saying a rider who qualified for 3 World Finals is better than a rider who won the SGP three times !?! On what basis? I agree Crumpy underchieved in World Finals, but don't think he would have done better (in term of rostrum places) than one second place under a GP system (though he would have had performed solidly over a number of years in the 70s). I also don't think there's anyway he would have finished top 8 in any of the years in the 1980s, and thereofr edon't think he would have compared to Leigh Adams for either rostrum finishes or longevity at the highest level.

From the 80salone, world finals in which the draw may have influenced who won the title. 1980 World Final: only 12points scored off gate 3 all meeting. Dave Jessup, who was a red hot favourite, was drawn off this gate twice. He finished second. 1982: Penhall went looking for Carter (gate 4) from the first bend. Had Carter not been outside him its highly unlikely that he would have been able to do this, and that critical race could have panned out totally differently. 1985: 9 of the first 12 heats were won off gate 1 (the other three races gate 1 finished 2nd). After the interval, the gates were a lot more even. Sam Ermolenko, who was a rank outsider, had gate 1 twice before the interval (won both rides) and ended up in a run-off for the title. . Compatriot Shaun Moran was a hot favourtite for the meeting, won his first ride (off gate 1), but followed this up with two thirds off less fancied gates. Had the draw been reversed, who’s to say that Shaun wouldn’t have at least made the run-off? Of course there were other finals where the draw would have made no difference – for example, IMHO, Penhall in 81 and Muller in 83 would have won regardless of which gates they were drawn on. But, you can’t say it wasn’t a factor in at least some of the World Finals. Also in the 80s, World finals where rostrum places (or even World Champion)were affected by an engine failure or controversial refereeing decision (not saying decision was wrong, just that it could have gone either way) : 81 (Carter/Jessup/Gundersen), 82 (Carter), 83 (Nielsen), 86 (Knudsen), 89 (Gundersen). You could possibly add Jonsson in 88 to the list, or Nielsens’s unfortunate first bend crash in 85 where he dropped his only points when forced to use his second bike in the re-run. That’s not to say that the World Champions didn’t deserve that victory – they did - just that along with skill, determination, preparation, etc. to be World Champion you also needed a little luck on the day. To make it clear – I do not agree with Orion. However, plenty of people have come on here and said “bring back a real world championship” without presenting any argument as to why GP is not a “real” WC. At least Orion has presented an argument in defence of his view, and one which has an element of validity.

I'd suggest if you are the best rider in the world in a parti cular year, it is easier for you to win the GP than the one-off, as one bad rider/decision/engine failure wouldn't cost you the title. However, for anyone else it is likely to be easier to win in the one-off format. Why don't you think Jessup was good enough? Can you name a rider who was better in the world in 1980? I know he's commonly regarded as a bit of a "gating tart", but look at footage from the 1980 World Final, or the 1981 Overseas final, and you'll see he could pass - he just didn't need to at his peak as he was generally first away. I don't think anyone has claimed that the one-offs were "a lottery." Also, I'd suggest those riders are considered all time greats precisely because they won multiple world titles.

Agree 100%. The fact that the qualifying system for the GPs is not perfect is not a flaw with the GP concept per se, just as the qualifying system used for the old WC is not an argument against the one-off finals as a concept. (The fact is that there is probably no such thing as a "perfect" qualifying system for either).

from 74-90 though its a pretty valid observation (even though half full is an exageration, a third full is probably more accurate)

Parsloes, I do agree that any individual GP is not quite the equivalent of the old World Final (though the standard of riders is higher, and all riders have something to ride for right down to the final heat.) And I did used to love the old qualifying meetings – sometimes the racing was great, sometimes poor (just like any speedway competition), but always having that sense of anticipation about who would/wouldn’t qualify. And yes, the chance to cheer on riders from your club, other favourite riders or the occasional surprise packet (Paul Thorp's run in 86 springs to mind). I disagree strongly however that each GP is only the equivalent of a qualifying meeting – as every single point earned counts to becoming World Champion. IMHO, getting 12 meetings, all with a top quality line up and which all contribute towards who becomes world champion, is certainly an improvement in terms of a) exposure for the sport and giving speedway fans a quality viewing (if only they’d start televising it in NZ, instead of having to rely on t’interweb.) Yes, I did. Obviously in the 60s and early 70s they were competitive (on home soil at least). But in the 80s, riders qualifying via continental final averaged 4 in the World Final (compared to inter-continental qualifiers who averages over 9.) The true Eastern Europeans (i.e Russians, Czechs, Poles etc.) actually averaged even lower than that, as Egon Muller boosted that continental qualifier average quite a chunk. And also bear in mind, that the lowest possible average that they could have had was 2 (as they had to at least beat each other!). Has there ever been a less competitive rider in a World Final than Starostin in 82 (perhaps Kroeze in 87)?It was reminiscent of Mark Crang or Bill Barrett at their “best.” They did tweak the system for the world finals 91-94, where there were two semi finals. Continental riders constituted 8 of the qualifiers for the World Finals over that period, so an average of 2 per year, although only half of those were true “Eastern Europeans” (others being German/Italian). I would expect that had this been in place in the 80s the result would have been similar (most years would have seen Muller plus one other I would guess). And even with this system , they were given more spaces in the semi-finals (14 out of 32 spots) than they deserved on merit - had that not been the case I think you’d have seen at most 1 a year on average.

Actually that was the overseas final. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RlFmm7zTA9Q The 82 inter-continental final saw Olsen and Gundersen allowing Petersen to finish ahead of them to earn him a run-off for the last spot. Off the top of my head, I also recall Ermolenko allowing Hanock to pass him in an Overseas final in the early 90s (though he was far less open than Penhall about it). Parsloes what you actually said was: Though to be fair, you did retract afterwards. But, as Iris states, no-one is saying that the old system was endemically corrupt, or the current system 100% pure. For my part, I raised this subject only because the current GP was accused of lacking credibility - whereas, IMHO, it has more credibility than the old system.

I guess the opposite of the thread "great rivalries", interested in the great partnerships that people remember. A few to start: Chris Morton and Peter Collins: Best team rideing pairing ever? Kelly and Shaun Moran: Spectacular pairing for club and country Phil Collins and Alan Graham: Backbone of the great Cradley sides of the 80s, as well as a handy pairing for England. Hans Nielsen and Erik Gundersen: enough said Pater Ravn and Jan O Pedersen: strongest reserve pairing ever (Cradley 83) Sigalos and Schwartz: Last pair to record a perfect score in the World Pairs Final, and a very strong pairing for the USA in tests Hans Nielsen and anyboy (1986): Went the whole BL without conceding worse than a 3-3 away from home. Andy Smith and Chris Morton/Peter Collins: Even more spectacular round hyde road than the Mort/PC pairing , as Andy (in the early years at least) was an even worse gater and certainly more wild in his efforts from the back.

Happy to acknowledge that – and hopefully you’re also willing to acknowledge that many believe ts a change for the better, Credibility problem – or visibility problem? Personally, I would have thought that the old WC, where you had riders throwing races to allow compatriots to qualify, to get a more favourable draw in the next round, or because they were being paid a bung to so do so, not to mention World Finals missing the sports’ biggest names, would cause more of a credibility issue . But, if you think certain people being selected to take part (common practice in many other sports), causes more of an issue, you are entitled to that opinion. I think there is one strong argument in favour of the old WC. And that is that the one-off final had a certain atmosphere, magic, whatever you want to call it, that the current GO does not have. I can understand that, and that’s a valid enough reason (even if finals were often tarnished by missing leading riders, porrly prepared tracks etc.) to be in favour of a return. However, I’ve yet to see any other persuasive arguments for it. Typically the arguments presented are: 1. It’s easier to stay in than to qualify. Except its not, is it. Do you think any of the three who came in through the qualifiers this season were capable of finishing in the top 8 of the GP? Really? 2. There are riders selected to take part. I agree, maybe there are two many spots. However, this has proved a more effective method of getting the best riders into the field than qualifying. Look at the record each year of the “permanent wildcards” vs the “qualifiers” and consistently the “wildcards” (with the possible exception of the “token Brits/s) have performed better. And lets face it, the awarding of one spot to the best British rider (determined on subjective, but nonetheless probably correct criteria) is hardly worse than the handing of 5 spots to continental finalists in the old system (Question: If Henry Kroezewas not Dutch, would he have ever qualified for a World Final? 3. The riders aren’t paid enough. True, I think we all agree with that. BUT, if you think riders were better paid in the old system, you are sorely mistaken. And its hardly just a Speedway issue that riders earn better money playing for their clubs than they do in the sport’s showcase event (think Football, cricket, rugby etc.) Its also not the fault of the GP that the Polish league has brought in their resttiction. If the BL back in the 70s/80s had brought in a “one World can be Finalist per team rule” you can be sure that any rider other than those with stong final prospects would have chosen their club contract. 4. Riders qualify the prior year. (I guess we’ll ignore the fact that the Australian Final used to be held in the yearof the World Final that qualification was for). I can see that this could be viewed as an issue to some extent. However, there have been only a couple of instances where riders who may have come close to the title have not been participating in that year’s GP event. Compare that to the old WC where at least every second year you’d be missing one of the leading candidates due to injury, one bad meeting etc. There are also plenty of examples from other sport where qualification occurs the prior year- footballs Premiership, Champions League, world Cup etc spring to mind – note Parsloes that the latter are both Knock out competitions. 5. GP is to blame for the demise of British speedway. I think the lack of foresight of the BSPA when times were good (and land was cheap) is the number one cause. Secondly, the fall of the iron curtain, which saw Poland establish a league which could afford to pay the world’s best riders more than the British clubs can, is the other key reason for the decline. There are many arguments in favour of the GP, but I think the three strongest are: 1. The best rider in the World wins the GP that year. I can’t think of any exceptions to this. 2. The riders competing in the GP are generally representative of the top 15 in the world (I’d say normally at least 12/15). This compared to the old WC where would suggest you’d only ever get say 8/16 of the World’s best in the final (I will give you 1981 as a possible exception to this rule). 3. Speedway has 12 World Final meetings televised each season – giving far more visibility to the Speedway and general viewing public. Personally, I think points 1 and 2 cannot be rationally argued against, and I think these two capture the essence of what a World Championship should achieve.

actually, its more like the top 17 in the premiership competing in the premiership the following season... imagine that, how ridiculous would that be

As opposed to the "good old days" when prize money was great. In 1980, I guess the last year of England's "golden era", the England team got 90 quid a piece as prize money! Dave Jessup would have been England's top earning rider over the World Team Cup, including points/start money he would have earned a total of around 200 quid for three meetings. Kenny Carter who was non riding reseve in the semi got paid nowt. I ndo agree though about reducing the teams to 4 riders, and using the format used in the late 1980s. Otherwsise, I think the current format works well, though I'd get rid of the bl**dy Joker. If you need something like that, you could make heat 20 (top socres race) worth double points? I disagree - although Poland/Australia would be favourites, on a good day all of Sweden/Denmark/England/Russia and USA (Hancock doing a version of 1983 Sanders) could all at least compete for a podium spot. Would be great see a return of the pairs (in addition to, not replacing the SWC). Hold it in one venue, semis Friday and Saturday (or even a day meeting and a night meeting on the same Saturday)and the final on Sunday.

I agree with Bavarian 100% - I think the current scoring system is spot on. Best rider on the night will get the most points, best rider in the final gets the title of champion for that round - best of both worlds IMHO. Irs123 - agree with you to some extent, but how often does a riders race number detemine qualification for the semis - once a season (this is a genuine question)? Simple way around that is to introduce addtional "tie break" measures - such as fastest winning time, head to head record against other semi final qualifiers etc.