chunky

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue...

It's a great sport when the winner doesn't score most points... "Oh, I won every GP, but I didn't even finish in the first three..." This is why I have a problem with mixed formats. Have round-robin OR knockout; combining the two leads to problems.

Is it fair that a rider could win the GP and drop further behind the guys he just beat? Is it fair that a rider could win every GP and not even finish in the Top 8 at the end of the year?

Collins 1977...

If you're really worried about that, just give everyone the same number of points...

What I said...

Depending on nationality (and seeding), riders competed in different numbers of meetings. Some qualified after one or two meetings. I'm not saying that the riders who qualified for the final didn't deserve to be there, but it was quite possible for riders to scrape through with some mediocre performances. Having said that, one bad night - even one fall or e/f - and it was easy for a rider to get screwed. I'm nor exactly sure how the European qualification works these days, but there are still qualifying rounds. What people forget is that EVERYBODY still has to qualify these days. With the top eight (now six) from the previous year qualifying from the previous year's GP series, that to me is still the fairest way of qualifying. A rider is not going to lose out because of bad luck;; everybody has a full year to qualify. It doesn't matter that it was done the previous year. How many riders currently outside the GP's would you say are better than those in it? The lower placed riders in the last few years have tended to be those who have qualified from the GP challenge - which people probably feel is the fairest way of qualifying. People weren't happy to see Kasprzak in this year - but he qualified on merit. How many British and Australasian riders are there these days? Not even enough to have qualifiers at the few tracks we have left! Like most, I preferred the old system. However, again I will ask: 1) Is it fair that the winner of a GP gets the most points? Previously, you could win the GP, and lose ground on those riders you just beat. It was possible for a rider to win every GP, and not even get enough points to finish in the Top 8 at the end of the year!

Is it fair for the winner of the GP to get the most points? Is if fair for riders in the final to get fewer points than those who didn't reach the final? To be honest, the system IS fair (the same for everyone), and you just have to remember that 20 heats are just a qualifier for the semis, where everyone starts from scratch.

Which part(s)?

Can I also include Yarmouth and Hastings? Speedway had long since ceased, but I have been there...

Sad, when you think of the amount of Austrians racing years ago. The Funks, Pilottos, Schatzer, Eder...

Well, they spent extra time fixing the track...

Will it rain? What is the meaning of life?

I couldn't see - it was covered in wet shale...

Don't lie! It was only 2 3/4 hours...

On the plus side, there was always Berntzon!!!

Obviously, some tracks are better than others, but the last few races have been a LOT better than the earlier ones, and at least they have been able to race in the second half.

I'm not sure if it's down to the modern machinery, but I don't recall it being this bad years ago. Yeah, the opening race used to be the best for track records - it was often TOO good - but the tracks seemed to settle down a lot quicker than they do now.

Frustrating, isn't it?

How's your v***na, Mike? Still full of sand?

Yet again, give some juniors a bunch of laps on the track before the meeting, and you can see how much better it would have been...

Or you can get updates from the SpeedwayGP website...

The one thing I've been noticing recently - particularly with his last race just now - is that he doesn't seem to know where on the track he should be. He really is all over the place, and going backwards most of the time.

At 38, Gafurov must be the oldest track reserve we've seen in the GP's?

Why don't you say how you REALLY feel???