barrow boy

The riders that qualified for the PLRC were each of the 13 team's top average rider plus the next 3 highest averages so on that basis not all of the actual best riders can be selected. Richie Worrall was ranked number 5 on September 5th and on ability ought to have finished much higher than he did but in his last 10 matches he obviously did not do as well as he had been doing previously hence him slipping down.

Here is my final list of the best BPL riders based on their most recent 10 matches. 01-Craig Cook-Edinburgh 02-Jason Doyle-Somerset 03-Magnus Karlsson-Leicester 04-Ricky Wells-Sheffield 05-Mikkel Bech Jensen-Plymouth 06-Richard Lawson-Workington 07-Ludvig Lindgren-Newcastle 08-Anton Rosen-Newcastle 09-Nick Morris-Somerset 10-Anders Mellgren-Rye House 11-Rene Bach-Workington 12-Kevin Doolan-Leicester 13-Aaron Summers-Redcar 14-Richie Worrall-Newcastle 15-Josh Grajczonek-Somerset 16-Ben Barker-Ipswich 17-Lasse Bjerre-Leicester 18-Cory Gathercole-Plymouth 19-Nicolai Klindt-Scunthorpe 20-Olly Allen-Rye House

Yes I know that officially it is only the top 8 who stay in but most times the 9 & 10 usually get back in. Whether they should doesn't matter, what I said is a fact. I agree that they might just as well keep the top 10 and be done with it.

If Gollob, Holder, Sayfutdinov & Ward had all competed in all 11 GPs and had maintained their averages the overall result may have been something like this:- 01- Tai Woffinden 151 02- Darcy Ward 146 03- Jarek Hampel 142 04- Emile Sayfutdinov 139 05- Neils Kristian Iversen 132 06- Chris Holder 129 06- Greg Hancock 129 08- Niki Pedersen 121 09- Matej Zagar 110 10- Tomasz Gollob 98 My conclusion is therefore that as it is usually the real top 10 who are retained the above riders would seem to be justifiably selected. I would however have liked to have seen all those who had won at least one GP given a ticket to ride which would have seen Adrian Miedzinski also chosen. I can understand that at least one Swede needed to be included which on last season's performances would be Freddie Lindgren. This then leaves the 3 places available from the Challenge. My wild cards are therefore Gollob, Holder, Lindgren & Miedzinski. If Gollob, Holder, Sayfutdinov & Ward had all competed in all 11 GPs and had maintained their averages the overall result may have been something like this:- 01- Tai Woffinden 151 02- Darcy Ward 146 03- Jarek Hampel 142 04- Emile Sayfutdinov 139 05- Neils Kristian Iversen 132 06- Chris Holder 129 06- Greg Hancock 129 08- Niki Pedersen 121 09- Matej Zagar 110 10- Tomasz Gollob 98 My conclusion is therefore that as it is usually the real top 10 who are retained the above riders would seem to be justifiably selected. I would however have liked to have seen all those who had won at least one GP given a ticket to ride which would have seen Adrian Miedzinski also chosen. I can understand that at least one Swede needed to be included which on last season's performances would be Freddie Lindgren. This then leaves the 3 places available from the Challenge. My wild cards are therefore Gollob, Holder, Lindgren & Miedzinski.

I was just telling you how it was. I agree that Leicester's track needs making more racing friendly but having said that Speedflash is correct in that many times have I seen very little in the way of genuine racing passes at many meetings, not just at Leicester but it can still be a good race with no passes. What I hate to see mostly is the continuous amount of races that are too much strung out and are not interesting let alone entertaining. Incidentally there were 5 genuine racing passes in the Poole v Birmingham match on Monday. About the same as at Leicester on Sunday but with the track bends being more racing friendly it was a bit more entertaining.

And still on starting gate matters I would like to see any rider who is deemed to have caused a false start for whatever reason, including going too soon, made to go from 15 metres. No reserve replacements.

League winners do you mean?.

5 single one off passes. All in the later races. None at all in the first 9. Many were very strung out follow the leader affairs as well. It is a shame that we do not see better fare but who knows perhaps things will be improved in time for next season. You are wrong about the poor attendance though. I thought that in the circumstances there was quite a decent crowd. Certainly one which a lot of other tracks wouldn't mind having.

On a similar theme i.e. messing around at the starts. Yesterday at Leicester a rider was disqualified for not being ready to race by the time the 2 minute warning had expired. After this happened I timed the last minute after the announcer said that all riders now had less than 60 seconds to be ready to race and guess what every race got away on time. Simple isn't it. Why oh why cannot all referees apply this same logic? It would certainly cut out a lot of gardening delays and stop certain irritating starting marshalls from constantly finding it necessary to keep approaching riders to line up when he wants and not when they are ready to.

If it was thin enough it might be worth trying.

Can't they do it live from track A and then keep filtering in one recorded race from track B.

Is it time then to create a competition which culminates in a one off final that attracts an attendance which generates some more distributable revenue?

As at 30.09.13. 01-Neils Kristian Iversen-King's Lynn 02-Kenneth Bjerre-Peterborough 03-Darcy Ward-Poole 04-Greg Hancock-Poole 05-Jason Doyle-Birmingham 06-Peter Kildemand-Swindon 07-Matej Zagar-Belle Vue 08-Bjarne Pedersen-Eastbourne 09-Troy Batchelor-Swindon 10-Freddie Lindgren-Wolverhampton Both Tai Woffinden & Chris Holder are not included due to currently not competing due to injury.

Do the proceeds of the so called Super 7 events go into a pot for sharing out or does the staging club keep them?

Isn't owning a speedway club more of a passion than a business. It is true that most such passions are not making money but the promoters are usually quite happy to continue because speedway has always been in their blood and will no doubt always be so therefore to make a profit is not the reason for their stewardship. Any major changes will therefore have some real effects on their motivation and may prove to some to be too much of an imposition and could result in them walking away because after all it is their money that they are prepared to provide to keep their tracks open. Don't think that I don't agree with a lot that has been said on here. It is just that I do not want any tracks to disappear like Leicester's did for 28 years.

I agree I heard or read somewhere that Belle Vue were reluctant to get involved in the decision to call a halt after heat 10 because they were worried that their suspended sentence for the original over watering of their track might be held against them. When I saw the gathering discussing it at the time I wondered why Jason Attwood took no part in the discussion.

As at 26.09.13 01-Craig Cook-Edinburgh 02-Magnus Karlsson-Leicester 03-Jason Doyle-Somerset 04-Ricky Wells-Sheffield 05-Nick Morris-Somerset 06-Richard Lawson-Workington 07-Mikkel Bech Jensen-Plymouth 08-Ben Barker-Ipswich 09-Josh Grajczonek-Somerset 10-Rene Bach-Workington

Auty and or Birks?

As at 24.09.13 01-Charles Wright-Buxton 02-Lewis Blackbird-Dudley 03-Paul Starke-Dudley 04-Steve Boxall-Kent 05-Joe Jacobs-Coventry 06-Robert Lambert-King's Lynn 07-Adam Ellis-Isle Of Wight 08-Ashley Morris-Dudley 09-Lewis Kerr-King's Lynn 10-Ben Morley-Kent

Because now you can get double points.

For what it is worth I also feel that both rules are unfair but the current one is more so. When I challenged a certain someone about this he was of the opinion that double points were introduced to keep the racing interesting. Racing can still be interesting if the match score is one-sided but at least it is genuine and not false. The old rule was not fair on the lesser riders who were constantly replaced. It might work better now if heats 2,8 & 14 were exempt.

It's the guests that I would like to see be done away with and it's the RR facility that should be modified for the better to replace them. It is all about making things more credible. I take the point in that if a top man is missing some may decide not to attend but if the evening should prove to be entertaining interest may increase in the long term which will only be better for the sport in general.

But might not speedway one day attract more customers if it was run sensibly. At present it only caters for existing customers some of whom are obviously becoming more and more dissatisfied with what they are being served up. It has already been said that all of the non speedway media disregard it as even a minority sport which continues to get sillier with each passing day. In a recent King's Lynn article Mads Korneliusen is quoted as being totally fed up with the rules and no longer looks forward to racing in England but will continue to do so in the hope that things will improve.

If your best rider is missing for whatever reason then the team concerned should expect to be weakened and accept that until he returns or is replaced they will just have to soldier on by using the rider replacement facility. I would however suggest that when a team's top average rider is missing then 2 of his rides may be taken by any other rider if desired with one each being taken by any other 2 riders. If a team's second highest average rider is missing then 2 of his rides should be taken by the number 3 and one each by any 2 others and if number 3 is missing then 2 rides may be taken by number 4 and one each by any 2 others other than the number 1 and so on.

It gets a bit boring though when we keep on seeing the same riders every time, even if they are the best around. It would be nice to see some different riders now and again during the series. How about leaving out any rider who comes last and bring in a replacement rider from a list of those who did not re-qualify from the previous year and or those who just failed to qualify from the challenge. The rider who was replaced does however return for the following GP replacing whoever comes last and so on.