steve roberts

Yes I was there Rob...the occasion that all of Carl's 'stars were aligned'!

...dragging things on is a bit rich coming from you as you constantly follow that course as proven on other threads.

Who, if I recall, commited suicide sometime after he retired?

....call it mutual respect from a distance!

...and of course the classic Brian Johnson and Jonathan Agnew interlude!

Yes and all those 'screaming' commentators with their over the top commentary. Kenneth Wolstenholme ("They think it's all over...") was once quoted as saying that one should keep the commentary simple and not feel the need to constantly talk/shout but let the action often speak for itself.

Trouble is I don't have those facilities on my TV...don't subscribe to anything other than the 'bog' standard!

One of the main reasons I don't watch sport on TV anymore...the constant analysing (whether by using statistics and/or diagrams) and constant replays from many different angles just bores me.

Interetsing thread this one. What's developing in to a bore on another thread is the insistance that riders be judged upon how many times he wins a race. Sure winning races is important but it's how those races are won is what many of us remember and judge. Those are the memories I cherish and reflect back on. I particularly recall the classic race between Peter Collins and Gordon Kennett at Hackney...Peter riding the fence and Gordon the white line side by side for four laps which ended up as a dead heat and drawing massive applause from the appreciative fans. Or Gordon splitting the team riding Ole Olsen and Alan Molyneux at Wood Lane and coming thru' fo a tremendous win!

...and didn't we "Rebels' fans appreciate Thommo's efforts!

...I await with interest but don't leave it too long as the years are catching up with me and reading some of these long winded, round the house threads is only adding to the agonising eventuality!

...and I see that you've coveniently side-stepped my question to you which is still outstanding. I await with interest.

Are you being particularly obtuse as regards the 'like' option? I've covered that in detail in all it's permutations and it's very apparent use when some contributors register that option by their sometimes clarification of why they choose to do so or not as the case might be. Hopefully that's the end of that particular line of enquiry. As regards 'judgement of riders' I've covered that in previous posts and my overall assessment of a rider can vary depending on a rider's prowess and overall ability as was the example I gave between John Davis and Gordon Kennett who were both very successful speedsters but whose techniques were different in reaching the same goal. Now can I ask you for a long outstanding answer to a statement that you made 12-18 months regarding that many riders during the seventies achieved team places within only a few weeks sitting on a bike. It was established that those with grasstrack experience were exempt. Examples please?

You're not quoting registered 'likes' again. I've already covered that in a previous post if you had bothered to read it.

...There you go again. Where have I said that?

I think that's generally a fair comment althougn during Gordon's superlative year (1977) he registered maximums at both Exeter and Bristol and nearly achieved a full score at Halifax. He rode King's Lynn exceptionally well but strangely when he moved there in 1983 he tended to struggle. He obviously excelled at the vast White City track but the corners were relativey tight which played right into his hands! Following on from an earlier post comparing Gordon with John Davis John enjoyed a longer career at the top level due I feel to his superior gating skills compared to Gordon obviously proving an advantage then as it does presumably now. Turned into a bit of a Gordon Kennett thread but that doesn't concern me in the slightest and I make no apologies...anything that gives me the opportunity to reminisce about one of my 'all-time' favourites as others have done is fine by me!!

I remember his 21 point maximum at Swindon (Kai Niemi got 19) and 'The Eagles' still lost! Personally I felt that Gordon should have moved to Swindon when White City closed rather than returning to Eastbourne...if nothing more it would given me more opportunities watching him ride!

Remember it well as I was there. In my opinion the meeting should never have taken place due to the heavy rain prior and during the meeting. Gordon rode heroically in the race with Kelly Moran getting totally 'filled-in' as he attempted to find a a way past. Of course as the record books prove New Zealand qualifiied together with the Yanks and went on to win the Final at White City (another meeting I attended) beating the Danes in the process. Rather bizarrely England failed three times (76, 79 & 82) in qualifying for the final at Wood Lane!

I'm the first to admit that mathematics is not my strongest subject (having failed my 'O' Level three times!!) but I found your example case scenario interesting (albeit "extreme" in your own words) and certainly providing plenty of food for thought and, at the same time, proving statisically challenging and fun deciphering!

Dear me! You do get on your high horse. For your information the fact that I required time to 'digest' (as your comment is obviously in reference to my earlier posts) the mathematical conundrum was that I had other immediate issues to contend with and wasn't able to read it fully at the time thus giving it my full attention. Now that I've had the opportunity to do same it makes for a fascinating statistical study and certainly thought provoking.

...no I'm not that fast! It'll take a while for me to read thru' it and digest,. Great study however from first impressions!

Blimey mate...that's an impressive statistal journey. I'll have to digest all of that before adding any comment!!

...as I said I was being pedantic and having a bit of fun! The scenario you describe in your post was obviously correct when I first attended speedway and was for many years and you could place riders in any particular order within the main body of the team. However, I can't remember when the ruling was introduced, but I recall in subsequent years that the riders with the three highest averages had to be placed at one, three and five (the accepted heat leader roles) therefore making averages relevant as regards team makeup and, dare I suggest, limited the role of the Team Manager regarding applying tactical measures. I can't recall how long this ruling was in place for however or whether it still exists?

...unless one wishes to be pedantic and recall that during 1977 White City operated the Rider Replacement facility all season in place of a missing' heat leader thereby only declaring two heat leaders instead of the usual three. Both Hull and Hackney had similar facilities granted that season replacing 'missing' riders. The facilty could only be used for any one of the three highest averaged riders (the ruling varied in subsequent seasons) so technically those teams rode a heat leader short although some riders raised their game to meet the challenges that it presented.

Managed to get to Crayford during their last season to watch one of my favourites making a rare appearance...Hasse Holmqvist!