sparkafag

I would imagine so, the total of the calculation will be completely different depending on Allen being on a 5.00 average or a 7.00 average though…

They haven’t, neither have Berwick, but some clubs don’t get the favourable decisions as often as others do. It is pretty logical actually, Berwick probably haven’t been given confirmation yet that the side is going to be over the limit.

Not really, if the team doesn’t fit changes will be made…. Berwick won’t be able to sign a side over the limit, or a rider on a 1.66 average.... they aren't Somerset/Edinburgh/Poole...

Go on, have another try….

That’s it? That is the team? 122 pages about who should and shouldn’t have been signed and that’s 6 of the 7 that they have come up with? What a waste of time and air this thread is, if someone like Perry is signed on a 3.00 average that side looks more than capable of holding its own in the PL.

The gulf between the guys scoring and the guys who aren’t is massive. The big scoring riders in the meetings have all raced in excess of 70+ competitive meetings in the UK and are standout riders in the PL. Previously, when the chasm in meetings raced wasn’t as wide, his scores were on par (last years Under 21). He appears to have “something”. If you are going with an asset, you should go all in with them, warts and all. They don’t become any more or less of a gamble on the back of a couple of meetings IMO. I would imagine the person who has recommended him to Berwick is Dick Barrie, while not popular on here, Dick has seen enough meetings to know a rider and unlike many on here will have actually watched Allen race. I would like to see Allen signed to break the general trend, the alternatives are riders like Pijper, Harrison, while reliable, they have reached their limit, or unknown, and untested 7.00 riders from the continent. If it works, great, if not, bring in Pijper or Harrison etc.

Not really, if he signs he is a assessed 7.00 rider (probably) making his debut in the UK. He was that before the Oz Championships, he will still be that when they are finished, it is a big ask for any newcomer to the UK irespective of their scores in their National Final. He is also competing in a competitive field. The majority of the riders in the Oz Championship are established in the UK. He wont race in meetings where the field has riders like Sedgmen, North, Masters, Fricke, Doyle, Tungate, Grajczonek as his opposition very often Not every Oz rider is going to be the next Chris Holder, some might just take their time and become established PL riders like a Tungate or Graczjonek.

So in three seasons changes had to made (multiple) due to riders suffering injury. It is only in the context of that situation that 3 doesn’t sound that bad, but even that that is nearly half a side lost through injury. It isn’t any wonder that seasons have been impacted by that? You make a point re 2012, and the side being wrong at the start, that was because of injury problems before the season had started, Berwick didn’t start the first meeting with their intended 1-7. A decent point re Lawson and Gjedde being kept to long, but the underperforming Sike and Sitera were booted after a handful of meetings, which by your own admission should happen. You are actually contradicting your own point there

In 2013 Berwick made wholesale changes midseason and reshuffled the side In 2012 Berwick used/contracted 17 riders (the highest number in the league that season) In 2011 Berwick used 12 riders In 2010 it was 10 In 2009 it was 11 Multiple team changes, riders signed/resigned, changes made, how many riders can you sign in a season 15/20/25?

7.00 is a hard average to hit, it sounds a lot easier saying a rider will average 7.00 than them actually doing it. That being said it usually pretty obvious early on how good the young Oz riders are going to be, either good or bad, Fricke, Josh, Morris, Smith, Masters, Tungate, Holder (James and Chris), Ward, Penfold etc. An exception might be someone like North who did struggle early on in his career at Newcastle but by the middle of the season you could tell he had something. If Allen went to 5.00 but showed signs it would be worth keeping him for another year and giving him the chance to hit 7.00. If the performance of a club under a promotion isn’t acceptable, what do you propose the alternative is?

Certainly reads that way.

I am assuming you know little about his ability? Probably haven’t seen him race? So without knowledge of his ability, how can it be known if he is a safe bet on either 5.00 or 7.00? He is only going to be as good as his performance on track (if he signs) he could be Davey, he could be Masters (although he seems closer to the Masters group than the Davey, Penfold group). If in 2 years time he is carrying an average like Tungate or Morris, is he worth 7.00 now? Were Rymel, Franc and Makovsky worth 9.00 to be safe bets 2 or 3 years down the line? Riders who could be kept for 5/6/7 years? Is that not the point of signing assets and why you were one who was pushing that idea earlier in the winter? You stated earlier in this thread that you wanted the side filled with 5.00 and 7.00 assessed riders, so what has changed now that has come to fruition?

What is the alternative?

It has been posted on here all winter that Berwick should add to their asset base, sign new riders, young talents on a 7.00 (something that I think most agree on). That has happened (although obviously this will depend on the assessed average Allen is given) and now that it has the 7.00 rider should be dropped and a rider from Europe is actually the rider who should have been signed on a 7.00 average, and if the rider doesn’t hit his 7.00 average after the first couple of months he is seemingly underperforming, would the same rules have applied had it been Kracamcer? The general trend re assessed 7.00, even some 5.00 riders is that they bed in, take time, many don’t hit their assessed averages…. ever! Look at the Czechs, in close to 25 seasons racing over here combined (could be more) I believe Rymel was the only one to hit his assessed 9.00 average and he only done that a couple of times. Despite only hitting their assessed averages 2 times, I wouldn’t say that they underperformed while in the UK. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction re what was posted pre Allen signing and what has been said since he was signed. If he is a talent, an asset, what does it matter where he is from, or even what average he is on, he ticks the boxes that have been asked, young, tick, asset, ticket, 7.00 assessed average, tick. If his name had never been mentioned and Pijper or Harrison (as an example) signed, would we have read comments like “look at that kid in Oz and how he scores, why didn’t we sign him”?

Sure, it happens.....apparently Peter Waite was a genius for doing that...

Agree! Go with Allen 5.00 or 7.00! He is winning open meetings against guys like Tungate! He looks a talent! If he is 7.00 it's a good average for a replacement if it doesn't work, or offers decent scope for a replacement if he is given time and drops Everyone knows Harrison can average 6.5

Hence the or between Vissing and Doolan….

You can always improve on it though? A side with strength and a rider who can win big races wouldn’t be a bad thing?

And this is entirely possible with a rider like Barker in the side, his signing doesn’t mean a change of tact from last season, it depends on who the other riders signed are. An example being (and I am not saying he will be) Allen is a Darcy Ward and sticks a point on his average, Edberg sticks a point on his average, and Vissing or Doolan return and add .5. All of a sudden (if Barker also improves) you have put 4 points on your team total. You can construct a side however you like, it ultimately is about how they perform on the track.

The Edinburgh side of 2013 was different to last year though, they didn’t have overly strong reserves and they started the season with Helfer and ended it with Mitchell Davey! Cook going from 8.50 to over 10.00 was the difference maker then. They added 3.5 to their team total, 2 of which came from Cook and not the reserves. The strategy changed from one season to the next, it depends on rider availability. If a rider like Barker is available on an average below 9.00 it is crazy to turn him down IMO, his average means that the chance is still there to sign strength in depth/improvers.

I think most fans in the country would snap your hand of for 4th and being the best of a bad bunch just now if they removed the club specs for a minute! There were massive gains last season but last season was a bit of an exception when you look into it. The Edinburgh model last year is great, one to be admired, and one that every side would like to follow. It is a side that in terms of structure and improvement hasn’t been matched for close to 20 years though! They only lost about 4 competitive meetings all season! of course everyone wants to build a team like that! I think that a few of the improvers were predicted, Fricke being one, he is an excellent talent. Worral going from a 3 to 7.5. I don’t think anyone saw that coming, possibly 5.5 would have been a fair prediction. His progress was always going to come, but that was unexpectedly rapid. Alex Harkess himself admitted that the side was built with the idea of reaching the Play Offs and seeing where things went (and I think that most fans probably predicted the same from that side), if hadn’t been for that absurdly excessive gain from Worral, Edinburgh, while still an excellent side, would have been a lot closer to the rest of the pack. Somerset signed a rider on 5.00 average who could/should have been on a 7.00 average such was his experience. If you sign a rider on an average that is 2 points below his assessed ability, I would expect a gain in team total come the end of the season!

Maybe Barker was signed as one of the riders who can improve his average? Do you actually need an excessive gain in average to win the league now, or have a good season? Berwick ended last season 4th, with a team average of 43.16, over the course of the season they didn’t even add a point to their team total.

Barkers average isn’t even that excessive for a Number 1. It will take a hell of an argument to convince me that signing him is a bad idea, it is an argument that I haven’t read on here yet.

What is Alden doing next season? The signing of Jensen last year was a great bit of imagination, completely out of nowhere, might be worth looking around the EL for riders who would come in on a reasonable conversation. A rider like Lahti? I don’t think Worral would be the worst signing in the world, he rode very well last season, he is young and his race pace at EL level is very decent. He could win races in the EL that were as fast as any other rider in the meeting.

I thought it looked quite weak but Hall is a great addition. I agree with the earlier post by SCB, he isn’t a 4.00 rider. He has a minimum of +1.5 on that average finding riders who will do that is difficult. I wish Berwick had signed him.