Grachan

Yeah. Seriously. And I don't consider myself someone who gets "up in arms" about things that are legitimate either. In fact I seem to have a higher "legitimacy" tolerance than a lot of people on here. Poole had the play-offs coming up and Hans got injured. For me, being able to bring in a new rider is a MUCH better option that using a guest. Even if Andersen isn't out for the season, he was legitimately injured and Poole acted quickly to plug the gap. Surely this is more credible than people wondering who is going to be able to use Chris Harris at Wolverhampton. That's a real nonsense. I do have issues with Lindback's average though. I think the "GP riders assessed at 8" was perfectly reasonable and made sense. But bringing in a rider for the play-offs I have no problem with. And, let's be honest, that' what Wolves did too with Woffinden to all intents and purposes. There are, of course, major issues with riders' averages that makes the whole average thing a farce at the moment anyway.

You defeated yourself with your own argument there Steve. Using that theory Lindback should be lower than 7.

Surely if Poole were just looking to strengthen they would have brought Lindback in for Andersen earlier, like Wolves did with Woffinden. They could have done that. No issue other than the iffy average. People are making fuss about nothing. This is better than using a guest.

This is how crap speedway is as a serious sport. Who wins the league title could come down to who gets the best guest.

I'll take your 40.8 and lower it to 40.6. If you go into heat 15 with 43 points, you need a 3-3 to get 46 - the winning score. If both riders are of 3,3,3,3 and get a 3-3 then one averages 12.00 and the other 9.60. The 43 average drops by 2.40. So 40.60. It's very common to see people thinking the points limit should be 46 because that is the winning score - but that doesn't take the extra race into account.

Well, if the averages were changed retrospectively from 12 matches to 8 matches, then surely Lindnack's Belle Vue average should now be valid making him lower than 7.

You know what I reckon. They made him a 7 because Woffinden is around 7. Totally missing the point that Woffinden has a real average and other riders are higher.

'Herbie' Hancock. It's just someone else's name.

Same riders. Lower league.

I don't. Just the same old vocal minority. They were probably calling for Rosco to be sacked when he was mascot! Rosco is good for Swindon, even if his 'Aussie' experiment didn't work out this year. I agree with the major changes being needed though. Can see Nick Morris having a year at somewhere like Leicester and hopefully returning the better for it.

Tungate has had consistently good scores at Belle Vue this year. Not sure I'd choose him as a guest at number one though. He's due a bad one there.

You keep on about that but there is absolutely no reason for Woffinden to be reassessed as he hasn't been away long enough. I think, in reality, everyone knows that both clybs have landed on their feet this year with Woffinden's average and the one that Lindback has been reassessed at. But of the two it's only Lindback's average that is in any way dubious.

What if Zagar got injured? Would you still be furious and believe your morals to be shot if Emil was signed?

If we'd had an injury we could have, and I believe his average is only about 5 something.

I remember an uproar on here a few years back when Swindon brought in Damien Balinski on 5.00 during the few seasons when Swindon got all the stick that Poole now get. His average at the end of the year was exactly 5.00. It'll be interesting to see what Lindback does score from his matches.

A "select" side using rider replacement!

And what if they get injured? No replacement?

Baffling as it is that Lindback has been reassessed at 7, people need to keep some perspective here. Poole are bringing someone in to replace an injured rider. Full stop. No issue. I reckon Matt Ford might have used a bit of persuasion to get Lindback at 7, but so he should. He's trying to get someone into his side. He was probably as surprised as anyone else when whoever decides the averages actually agreed!

Would that not be the same if they had used a guest?

So according to Matt Ford he must be on as assessed 8.00 average. Hans is 7.71. How does that work? I guess he must be coming in on his old average, whateverthat was.

I don't understand the fixture list really. Here is a key play off meetng being staged right on cut off under risk from the weather. Swindon finished their home fixtures ages ago and have been putting on fillers and seemed to have barely any home matches over the summer holidays. Very odd

It used to be that the top 2 had home advantage in the semi finals, which I thought was better as it gave more credence to being first or second. I guess they changed it so 3 and 4 could get a good home crowd.

Those years when Cradley/Coventry/Oxford were winning it was clear from about 1 month into the season which side was going to win the league. I don't think play-offs would have made much difference either. Everyone would still have been clear who was going to win as all 3 teams had no realistic competition. That was, probably, down to the points limit being too high more than anything. If we had a points limit of about 45 nowadays I don't think anyone would get close to Poole in any season. When Swindon won the league in 67 they won it on the final match of the season with an away win at King's Lynn. I also remember being at an amazing night at Reading when Ipswich clinched the league title. Plays offs are good. I like them. Both methods of winning are eqully valid in my opinion, as long as the rules are clear from the start and stuck with all year so everyone knows them.

Oxford won the league by 10 points in 1985. That, in itself, is 5 matches. Cradley won by 7 points in 1983.

I remember in the 80s in particular, when we had a high points limit, one club would often run away with the title. Cradley, Oxford and Coventry all come to mind as winning pretty much unopposed in various years.