chunky

So now, I am interested in cases where most of the team DIDN'T pull their weight. I am not talking about a solo performance, but where two or three riders did the bulk of the scoring. The one that always stood out for me was Swindon vs Eastbourne in 1980, where Gordon Kennett (21) and Kai Niemi (19) scored 40 points out of 46. I just heard of a similar case where Gote Nordin and Jon Erskine scored 15 each for Newport, who only scored 33 at Wolves in 1965. Are there any other REALLY top-heavy displays? On a similar subject, I have two associated questions: 1) Have THREE members of a team ever scored a full 12-point maximum in the same match? Obviously, because of the format, I know it couldn't be the three regular heat-leader positions. And no, I am not including the standard 18-heat formula either. 2) Does anyone know the FEWEST number of individual heat winners in a match? Obviously, if there were three full maximums, then that would be four. Have there perhaps been two 18-point maximums in a 13-heat match? Or even an 18 and a 15? In 1980, when Jiri Stancl and Ole Olsen recorded 15-point maximums on opposing sides (Reading vs Coventry), there were only four individual heat winners then. Bobby Schwartz (2) and Bernie Leigh were the others.

Ah! Okay, I will start another thread today, then.

As I said, that is one for later, but I still think Eastbourne at Swindon (1980) get that award with Kennett and Niemi scoring 40 of 46 points.

That is a another thing completely - and I have that on the list for later!

I got to the point; I said you'd mentioned it before! How much more blunt do I need to be? It was a friendly dig, John, and I managed to say it without being offensive, or wanting to meet you early next week...

I'm not THAT big a clown (despite my profile picture)...

Not only are they not told that, we've had people on here stating that flu and pneumonia aren't listed on certificates as a "cause of death"...

You mean my bell jokes are losing their ap-peal? And I was going like the clappers!

Obviously, there are a few cases like that, but only two points between everyone seems exceptional! Like I said, there are a few other weird ones that I want to ask about.

Should BWitcher get infected by COVID-19, then no, I would not expect him to need any treatment (certainly nothing out of the ordinary), and certainly not need a hospital bed. Sadly, with your medical history, James, you may be more at risk. Before you say anything, I do not consider that I am "at risk", but my wife (who has several underlying health conditions, including a compromised immune system), would be. The trouble is that you seem to believe the blanket panic that has continued to spread. As Mark said, increased testing has increased the number of confirmed infections, but for the vast majority - who are relatively healthy, and not over 80 - it is not a serious issue. I have lost a couple of friends to it, and know several others who have been infected, but again, for most victims, it is nothing more than .a minor complaint. Here in the US, which as you know, has been affected badly, it is still not the civilisation-threatening affliction that many make it out to be. So far, we've had 194,000 deaths from the virus. That sounds a lot, I agree, but (and I know this will sound harsh) a good number of those would have succumbed to other ailments, particularly underlying ones, this year. The fact is that over 600,000 Americans a year die from heart disease, and a further 600,000 die from cancer. Even though people may die "from" COVID-19, many will actually be dying from their underlying conditions. Unfortunately, we've been brainwashed into believing that, if you die while suffering from COVID-19, that means you died FROM it, which is totally untrue. For most of us, it is nothing to worry unduly about - and certainly not worth bringing the world to a standstill for...

I think that has happened more than once, hasn't it?

It was just a hunch...

You WOULD say that, wouldn't you? Well, speedway was supposedly "rotten to the core", wasn't it?

I freely admit that I'm a bit of an anorak, and I love weird stats - particularly when it comes to speedway! I like doing a lot of my own research, but I don't always have the records available that others may have, so I will be asking for some assistance with some stuff in the coming months. Firstly, I like points-scoring records and anomalies, so I will start with this: On July 27, 1976, Oxford lost an NNL match at Weymouth by a score of 41-36. Top scorers for the Cheetahs were Carl Askew, Brian Leonard, and Mick Handley - all with 6 points. Roy Sizmore and Kevin Young both scored 5, and Phil Bass and Jim Wells were the low men - with 4 apiece. So, only two points between the highest and lowest scorers, which is pretty amazing. Are there any other instances of this happening (certainly with a full team of seven)? More to the point, has there even been only ONE point difference between high and low scorers? Or maybe everyone scored the same number of points - although that does seem very far-fetched... Anyone?

You know, that rings a bell...

Some people need to remember that for this year...

That's fine comparing things, and I love stats. However, you just seem to be posting things to show how riders are benefiting or being screwed by the new system. Do it in reverse, and you can tell everybody who was benefiting or being screwed by the old system!

Who cares? The "old system" is no longer used! We need to stop comparing things to the way they were, whether it was last year, 1976, or pre-war. The system is now identical to qualifiers in other sports, and nobody bitches about them. The important thing is that it is the same for everyone...

There is no normality when it comes to speedway!

I agree 100%, and I was referring specifically to the incident with Loram when I mentioned "luck". It seems that a lot of people have forgotten about it - maybe because it was Mark - but that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen at that level. It has really stuck with me, probably because of the impact it had on me. People tend to think of the last-minute incidents that can cost titles, but that was every bit as crucial. The other incident that bugs me is when Ermolenko wasn't excluded from the rerun in 1993, as he clearly wasn't under power at the time of the stoppage.

I don't think anyone has been an "undeserving" champion. Sure, several riders who weren't actually the "best" rider in the world won, and there have been some who had a large slice of luck, but that doesn't mean they didn't deserve it. In the old days, it was all about getting it right on World Final night, which mean that it was more unpredictable. There are those who claim that Loram didn't deserve it because he didn't win a single GP, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to score more points over the series than anybody else. He did that, therefore he deserved it.

The reason I don't take a knee is that I wouldn't be able to get up again. Anyway, my name is Brown, not Black...

That's why I am so much happier being able to stream my phone on my telly now! Old age isn't all it's cracked up to be, and strangely enough, I picked up my first ever pair of bifocals today...

That's it! Bring bloody minorities into it!

So sorry to hear that. I've been going through that with my wife for the last few months too, so I totally understand. I wish you both well.