waiheke1

to be far, a rider who chokes every time in the semis probably doesn't deserve to be world champion, conversely a rider who wins every semi and final can hardly be said to be "getting lucky" each time... you don't win those races thanks to luck. happy with your second proposal if this was in additon to the GP series good to see some creative thinking, though I don't agree tbh. And in reality, a rider finishing in the top3 of the averages in any of the major leagues is almost certain to be offerred one of the permanent wildcard slots (if not qualified already). I also disagree on the points - I think the current scoring system is the one aspect which they have exactly right at present While I agree, I'm not sure about your examples. Havvy I would say was only second best to Per Jonsson in 92 if you look at their records that season. Jonsson had a relatively poor '90 in the BL, but finished on the podium in all the qualifying rounds, so was hardly an outsider. Hans of course was a strong favourtie (especially after Jan O injured himself go-karting causing him to be ruled out of the final), but behind him I would say Shawn Moran and then Jonsson would have been the next favourites. Less Collins was a bit of a surprise, but did win the inter-contyinental final (arguably a tougher meeting) in the lead up and similarly Handberg was in great form in the qualifiers in 92. Personally I think the likes of Wiltshire (90), Jan O(86 only), Rickardsson (91 only) were bigger surprises. Sam Ermolenko was certainly a big surprise though, each round he was one of those tipped to go out, but made it through and was excellent that afternoon at Odsal (albeit helped by a favourable draw). Dave Jessup I feel would have been world champ in 80 and runner up in 81 had the GPs been in effect - I'm not sure that there were any year's prior to that when I would have expected him to nhave finished on the podium, though he may have come close.

Personally I think 10-12 is about right. That said, you could add an Australian and a US GP to the start of the season without any impacts on domestic leagues (note: I woould expect in future years the NZ GP to be run earlier than this year's.) I'm guessing that this year will see some negotiating between BSI and the POles to see the one GP rider dropped - possibly the outcome of that would determine whether long terms there is an increase or decrease in the number of GPs. Also, I think you are oversstating the rate of increase - in 2002 there were 10 GPs - in 2012 there will be 12. If the series increases by another two events over the next 10 years I don't see a major issue, especially if these are accomodated before the domestic seasons start. Elite league play-offs - for them or against them, please discuss.

interesting that you praise Carter for being patriotic, yet condemn Penhall for putting his compatriots first (surely the very definition of partiotism). Can't imagine Carter EVER giving up a title for the benefit of fellow Englishman. Yes it was blatant, but how often do we criticize our sportspoeple for lack of honesty - he could easliy (and probably should have) just faked an engine failure. I'm not sure he should be criticized for being open about what he was doing (and let's face it, many others have done the same). Have to disagree to be honest, Billy probably performed above himself in world Finals, but can't think of a year I would actually have expected him to finish on the podium in a GP series. Perhaps 83, but as falcace points out, he didn't win any big individual meetings (though he did almost win the world pairs single handedly for the Aussies).

If you disagree with Hammer that speed into the first bend is the area where kiwi riders are perhaps lacking, what do you think is the main area that they need to improve on to be more competitive with international riders?

To agree with the other posters, I found this an excellent preview, insightful and well written (and I also agree with a lot of your predictions!) For what it's worth, my one suggestion would be to reduce (or remove) the usage of phrases such as "in my opinion" or "i think". The reader should be aware that what they are reading is an opinion, and that renders (in my view) these phrases redundant. So for example, rather than saying for example "his inconsistency will cost him a top8 place in my opinion" I'd say "his inconsistency is likely to cost him a top 8 place." Feel free to ignore this if you disagree. Would also be interesting if Philip Rising could give his thoughts, as he obviously has a degree of experience with this sort of thing.

speeway 4 eva- i don't understand why you registered to post, only to attace "the hammer" who has said nothing disparaging about NZ speedway, and in fact has seemed to be one of the most informed people on this thread about the state of speedway in NZ. I would have thought anyone with the most basic speedway knowledge would be aware of a range of reasons why Darcy Ward was unlikley to be given the wildcard for this GP. So, you don't think Jason Bunyan has done anything for NZ speedway simply because he's been paid when he's done training shcools in the South Island? Who would you have given the wild card spot to, and how/why would this have improved the GP and/or been better for NZ speedway?

Speedy guy, where are you? Pehaps to make it easier, you could justify for starters why you think he was one of the top 20 riders of the 70s (and name the others)

AAAARGGGGGGGHHH!!!!!! Its an indisputable FACT thatnthe old one was better because every rider had a chance every year to be world chamion, it was a proper world championship. also, because the standard was so much higher then, you had riders on 9 point averages who were only 23rd in the standings... (do i need to add an emoticon to this?)

the most naturally talented speedway rider ever - Rickardson, Crump, Pedersen wouldn't have won a GP between them if only he'd had the proper backing from sponsors

Sydney, I understand what you're saying, and happy to agree to disagree on Sam over-achieving, but its this line which I really struggle to comprehend. Some of the other Americans from the 80s: Kosta, Ingels, Miller, Faria, Pyeatt, Lucero, Rooney, Pfetzing, Christian, Correy, Preston, Oxley, Gresham. Some decent riders in that list, some pretty mediocre ones as well. Do you still stand by your claim above?

ah, so you're basing your opinion of him on his performances in his first season in the British League...

so you consider both Ermolenko and Autrey an unimpressive riders ?

Davis actually rode both Belle Vue and the Shay pretty well, I recall the Aces getting him to appear as a guest on a few occasions. Of course, he would have struggled to beat a World Class field, as even at his peak I don't think you could have descrived him as a world class rider.

Really!?! Of that era I'd rate him behind Penhall sure. But I'd rate him alongside S Moran and Sigalos as the next best, and ahead of the likes of King. K Moran, Schwartz etc. from that era. For me the most unimpressive Americans were Larry Kosta and Eddie Ingels, and guess which two the Aces signed! (of course, they did subsequenyl get it right with Frria and the Morans).

Sydney: stop avoiding the question: In your opinion, who was the best rider in the world in 2007/8, why didn't they win the GP, and what is your reasoning for why they were better than Pedersen in those years. To be honest, Pedersen must have got away with an awful lot of major incidents in 2007 if that's the only reason you think he won the GP by 70 points and topped the averages!

ok, so can you name one world speedway final when there wasn't a home representative for commerical reasons? I suppose you think Henry Kroeze qualified forthe 87 World Final on merit? And it's not just Speedway - even footbal guarantees spots for home nations in the World Cup/Euro Champs etc. If there was a Welsh GP, you may have a point. However, at the current time there is a British GP and there is a British wildcard given for the event. Most New Zealanders wouldn't be able to name the current World Champ, let alone have a clue how good Jason Bunyan is. I ssupect that who the wild card was given too would have minimal impact on the gate anyway, but at least gives kiwis a "multi national champion" to cheer on the day, and makes a nice little story for the local media to add to the publicity around the event. Of course, he's not going to be particular competitive, but as others have pointed out, the Italian wildcard has rarely set the GP on fire. He'll also be well prepared, while other finalists may be a little rusty. So, I'm going to stick my neck out and say I reckon he will score a couple of points and finish 15th equal.

In principle I'm opposed to the play-offs, but understand the commercial neccesity. And yes, I fully acknowledge that to win the FA cup/old World Championship, it is an achievement in itself reaching the final.

sidney, you didn't answer the question. On what basis do you not believe Pedersen was the best rider in the world in 2007/8? (I'm not saying he's a better rider than Crump, but I do believe he was in those years). (PS. if you're replying directly below a large quote, no need to quote the whole thing)

of course i'm pleased i saw the old format, went to two finals (83 and 85), loved them both though the racing in 83 was dire and on neither occasion did I get the winner I wanted (morton and S Moran). Also, loved going to the qualifying meetings, the tension,, some great races etc. I have great memories of the old system and I remember being disapointed when they were replaced by the GP system - however, indisputably the GP is better at determining who the best rider in the world is, and I can see no rationale whatsoever for going back to the old one-off system as a replacement for the GP system (as mentioned preivously I'd be happy to see a pared-down knock-out World Championship run in parallel if it could be made to work).

no ones disputing that Rembas rode well on the day, and if he'd finished thrid he would have deserved thris, no question. However - if he had finished third, would that mean that he was the third best rider in the world that year? No, that day yes, but the year, no way. And if their had been an equally difficult qualifying route for all riders, would he have even made the final? Re: wimbledon/Sunderland - yes, on the day they were the best, but same point, were they the best teams that year? no chance. Not sure why you think this proves the series is easier to win? Wimbledon were nowhere near the best team in the premiership, but won the fa cup - so doesn't that show that a knock out is easier to win? Goes back to the point thats been made countless times, that a league/series is easier than a knock-out/one-off format if you're best in the competition, for everyone else the knock out style is easier, becuase its about being the best on the day, not a year. Personally, I think the World Chapion should be the best in the world that year. Muller in 83, well he was outstanding that day, and yes he was a quality rider. But -would he have won if the final was outside Germany? Highly unlikely. Would he have won a GP series - no way. Nielsen, Gundersen, Lee, Sigalos, Sanders, Carter, Morton - at leats 7 riders who would have finished ahread of hime that year and had a better claim to being best rider in the world. Loram is probably a valid point, though bthe GP series at that stage was run under the knovck out system, I believe an inferior system to the current one. You could say Hamill issed out on the world final due to 4 bad rides, though conversely you could say he had 2 shocking meetings out of 6 (1 in 3 meetings performin badly) and hence didn't seserve to win? Nicki Pedersen is an interesting one - he's won as many individual world titles as Olsen and Gundersen, but is never considered when "who was the greatest Dane" is debated. In fact, some rate him behing his name sake Jan O. Even more interesting when you consider that under a GP system, most reckon Olsen and gundersen would haave won only a couple of titles each. Anyway - so are you saying he fluked it each of those three seasons? On what basis was he not the best rider, and why did Crump/Gollob not finish ahead of him? 2003: beat Crump by 8 points cam edown to last meeting of the season, so very close. Gollob 6th. So maybe he wasn't best in the world, what is your argument for Crump? 2007: Won by a mile. Crump 3rd, Gollob 6th. He scored as many points in the first 7 meetings as Crump managed all series. Got lucky? Also topped the Elite league averages, won the ELRC., outscored Crump in the World Cup final. Personally, I'd say he was indisputaby best in the world, what is your counter-argument? 2008: won by 22 points, with crump 2nd and Gollob 3rd. Topped the ekstraliga averages. Outscored by Gollob in the Wc final, but outscored Crump. Not as clearcut as the previous year, but I think again he was best in the world. Why don't you think so? anyway, no one claims the GP winner is best in the world every single time as no system could guarantee this - but most of the time they do, which is the point.

to be pedeantic, I don't believe the holders fo the football world cup are seeded anymore (just the hosts). But, plenty of other sports you could add to that list, cricket springs to mind. I'd suggest there are very, very few sports (if any) in which every participant in the world is given equal opprtunity at qualifying - hence no sports have "proper" world championships? Parsloes - I guess the question is does (or should ) BSI have the right to dictate to national federations how they select their qualifiers? Personally, I'd be happy to see a system where the number of "seeded" riders which national federations could be capped at the greater of 1 spot or 50% of their total allocation (rounded down), the remainder to be determined by placings in the national championship. (so for example, if Britain has 5 places, then the BSPA could select two riders to "seed" into qualifying, the remianing three slots would go to the top pace getters in the British Final, excluding those already in the series). Potential issue though is for nations where the national championship is not held prior to the qualifying meetings starting? And does this actually improve the qualifying process any? Also - don't Australia have a national qualifying process,a dn Troy Batchelor is already out?

Simple. PC was better in the 70s. Mort was better in the 80s.

apart from the pemanent wildcard spots, isn't it very much the same system as the GP (i.e. top x riders based on performance stay in the series without the need for additional qualifying). I'd suggest the risk of engine failure or injury playing a significant part in the outcome is significantly less in snooker than in speedway, hence why I feel speedway has the need to retain at least some of the wildcard spots to cover riders who potentially miss out due to these reasons. Additionally, one bad meeting can ruin a riders qualifying hopes in speedway, whereas in snooker due to the number of tournaments, this is not the case. Ideally, in speedway there would be some sort of qualifying series to reduce the impact of luck/one off day, however I can't see that this would be financially viable.

I think he's on a wind up to the same extent that you are when you say that the old system was fairer for all riders To clarify, I think there's two ways that riders can be unfairly excluded from participating. One is if the governing/administering body for the championship (in the old days FIM, now BSI) specifically excludes riders. So, up to the mid 70s US riders were excluded from competing, at various times Australsaian riders not riding in Britain were excluded from competing. To my knowledge, all speedway nations are allowed to enter into the GP qualifiers. Perhaps you can advise me of an excluded country if I am wrong? So, on this basis, qualifying got the GP seems fairer. Now, the other way riders can be excluded from qualifying is by their own natuional body. So, examples from the past of this include PEter Collins in 81, Autrey in 78/79, Larry Ross winning the 85 NZ championship but the sole Nz spot in the overseas final being given to (the vastly inferior) Dave Barge. Sam Nicoljesen getting the last Danish qualifying spot in 86, but Tommy Knudsen (who was struggling with injuty and missed the cut) then being seeded through at his expense. And of course, under the GP it is still up to national bodies to decide how to award their own nations spots. So, under neither system was there a completely fair and transparent qualification system for all. But, this is not the fault of either WC or GP systems (although governing bodies could perhaps dictate how countries conduct qualifying for their places), but of respective nation's governing bodies. Agree or disagree Parsloes?

Note that that list is not neccesarily my view, but a summarry of other's thoughts on this thread. I agree Collins over Mauger, but don&;t think its clear cut. PC only beat him in a run-off in the Ic final, and but for a Mauger ef the Final itself would have gone to a run off. 77 - PC himself said that Olsen was the form rider early in the season, and of course PC would have had to ride on one leg for the last three or so meetings. He was able to produce an amazing performance on one leg in the final, but could he have done the same over three meetings? I remember Kenny Carter winning the B Final in 84 with a broken leg, qualifying comfortably enough from the Overseas final in the next round, but then finding the inter-continental a step too far - perhaps PC may have struggled too, the leg injury would have made it particularly tough to come from the back, and while Pc made every gate in the final, perhaps too much to imagine him gating well three meetings in a row? Despite that, my vote also goes to Collins, but only just over Olsen. You don't think that whether a rider is at their peak (best, top of their game if you prefer those phrases) has a bearing on the outcome of their clashes with other riders? Penhall in 81 was riding as well as any rider in history, he may have been able to maintain that form, I'm not sure he would have improved on it. Nielsen averaged close to 11 in 83 when all those riders (bar Penhall) were around, he improved after that, and consistently beat Gundersen, S Moran and Knudsen when they were at their (here's that word again) peak. I'm confident he would have averaged over 11 even with those riders around. Anyway its all speculation/opinions, no way to prove it one way or the other.