Biddows

Team selection should depend on what Jim Lynch actually hopes to get out of the exercise. I think even he would agree that we do not have the greatest chance of winning this tournament (though anything can happen, of course). However, his squad selection has shown a reasonable amount of faith in the younger riders, so ignoring them when it comes to picking the team would make this whole exercise pointless. I agree that we do not want to disgrace ourselves on the world stage, but not giving vital experience to our younger riders would be ridiculous. Scott, Rico, Bomber, Stead - these guys have all been there before: There's not a lot for them to learn from this. By all means keep some of them in - you can't remove the backbone of the team, after all. But preparing for the future is vital. If he wants us to progress to the final and then battle for third place, then he should pick the ringers. If however, he wants to throw a couple of the young guys in at the deep end so they can see what's what, then he should make (IMHO) the sensible decision and pick a team that looks a little like this: Scott Bomber Lee Eddie Tai What would we stand to gain from putting Stead (inconsistent at best) and Allen (injured, bit of a risk) in the team when the top three should provide enough fire power to get us through to the next round and Tai and Eddie can get a sniff of riding in the world cup. I would even consider putting Danny King in, in place of one of the top three, but that might be a risk too far. I've been reasonably impressed with him so far this season, and it might give him the drive to take that next step.

Somewhat surprisingly, too. Well, surprising for me, at any rate. I'm not sure you'd look upon it in quite the same light, eh Sub? I thought the rough track and difficult conditions early on would have played into Scott's favour, but he never really recovered from his first heat fall. Largely irrelevant anyway - I don't think anyone was really going to challenge Nicki.

...Muppet. That's top work, SCB. You gotta love it.

You know, you're right. Scott isn't worthy of calling himself a speedway rider. In fact, he should be shot out of a cannon into the sun. That'll learn him. AJ is good around Brandon, we all know that. And, I'm not too beaten up about him getting 16 to be honest. Stopped the Hammers getting more of a thrashing. Besides, it was a good race in heat 15 between the two, by all accounts.

And I don't get it why some on this forum seem to indulge simply in criticism and petty name-calling. But hey, you can't win 'em all, eh? Oh, and for the record, I was being strictly tongue-in-cheek - I wasn't genuinely suggesting that it was a libel case, but of course, you knew that already

Doesn't that constitute libel? I presume no-one here is seriously suggesting that Scott actively begs for his place in the series. At best he is included as one of the top 15 riders in the world, and at worst, he benefits from the political realities of the sport. Either way, to brand him a beggar is gross defamation, unless anybody has any evidence to the contrary.

At the end of the day, he is a regular guy just trying to make a living, much like the rest of us. The nature of his employment might mean that he is thrust into the public eye from time to time, and leaves him ripe for assessment (and unfortunately, criticism), but he rides a speedway bike to the best of his ability, and I don't think any more should be made of it than that. How would anyone else like to be criticised for not being as able as some others around them? Scott is a good speedway rider - a well above average one, in fact - but that is completely irrelevant. He could be the worst rider in the world, he could be the best. That makes no difference - why does he deserve to be criticised for what he does? It's not like he's done anything wrong or deceitful on track. He's just not been as successful as some people would seem to like. I'm not suggesting that he should receive nothing but praise and positivity, but rather be left to get on with his job. The only people who ought to really proffer any kind of opinion on his capability and worth are his employer, and Scott himself. I reiterate, there are hardly grounds for the constant barrage of criticism he seems to receive, and some quarters would do well to bear that in mind. I apologise that this comes across as something of an accusatory diatribe, but it's not aimed anyone in particular. I just don't think that a lot of what is said about him is entirely fair. Debate about his suitability for inclusion in the GP series notwithstanding (which I consider to be a worthwhile debate), suggestions about his character, and derisive, petty name-calling such as "beggar" add little to proceedings. This is supposed to be a place for intelligent, insightful discussion, not a school playground.

Ah, so you proclaim to have mastered the art of divination? Fantastic. Could you tell me what's going to happen to me next Thursday? It's been bugging me all day. Scott could one day be world champion, though I'll concede that it's unlikely. If he was going to achieve such a thing, he would have given a clear indication by now. I'm not knocking him here, just suggesting that he is not good enough (or rather, consistent and level-headed enough) to be world champion. But anything can happen, and that's the beauty of the sport. As for his inclusion in the series, I have given my opinion before, and it's not changed since. In an ideal world, it would be a pure system, where everyone (save perhaps the top X riders from the previous year) would have to qualify. This, admittedly, would mean that Scott would most likely not still be in the GP series. This is a pity, not necessarily because he is good enough to compete, but rather because I confess a bias. He has the misfortune of being my favourite British rider, and so I enjoy watching him ride. Subedei et al., you are right. He is not good enough to be in the GP series if history is to be believed. But with politics in play, he will continue to be until some more suitable British candidates appear. And I am going to support him while he is - and also at the inevitable point when he loses his place.

I get the feeling I might have heard most of this before. Whilst there is some truth to what you say, and indeed, we don't inject sufficient resources into sport, it is hardly fair to suggest that we perform poorly in everything else. We have a very rich, diverse culture, from which blooms a wealth of arts of all media. This country is a lot more productive, innovating and world-leading than you seem to give it credit. Naturally, many of the things for which we can hold national pride cannot be measured on a competitive scale, but that does not mean that they are not there. What once made Britain great - sport, industry, economy, imperialism (not our finest moment, I would suggest) - needn't be what makes Britain great today. Horrendously off-topic, I know, but I feel it was a point worth making. It does not, however, excuse the performance in the final, though I contest whether excuses actually need to be made. On the day, we were not competitive, and that is the end of the matter. As for ways to remedy this in the future, I'm sure it is just a matter of confidence, equipment and time, for our up-and-coming riders are just as talented as anybody elses.

You mean he's said these kind of things before? You know what, Sub? You're right. It is time for Scott to live up to his own hype. He's had several cracks at this GP malarkey and it's about time he qualified by right. But as much as he probably doesn't deserve to be in the series, he is in the series, and I intend to support him just as I would any other British rider. Besides, his inclusion will take the pressure off Bomber a bit, as most of the British focus will be on Nicholls. I think that's what they call a silver lining Oh and don't you think this 'Beggar' thing is getting a bit old? Surely you can come up with a better pet-name than that. It might inject a bit of life into your arguments - even you must be getting tired of them by now

I think this would be a good time for the first "Predict the Subedei Response" competition. My guess is it'll probably somewhere along the lines of: "The Beggar will continue to disappoint, once again failing to justify his inclusion. By the end of the series, he will have not won a race, or indeed scored any points at all, most likely finishing 16th out of 15." Am I close, Sub? Personally, I feel that we can expect more of the same from Scott, promising much but delivering slightly less. He has the capability to challenge for a top eight spot, but if recent history is anything to go by, could fall just short. But, it's a new season, everyone starts on 0pts, so it's all to race for. I would love more than anything for Scott to finally live up to his own hype. Let us not forget Bomber, though, who I feel is in for a good debut season. I just hope he learns how to gate...

You know, I pretty much agree with that, though I don't feel Andersen with finish as low as 9th. I don't think he'll be anywhere near as sensational as last year, but I think he will definitely finish in the 5th-8th bracket. And as much as I'd like to say Scott will definitely finish higher than that, he needs to finally live up to his own hype. Having not seen much of Jagus, I can't really comment, but I trust your judgement when you say he is capable. I don't want to see Harris finish last, but this year is going to be a tough learning curve for him. He may well surprise some people, but don't expect too much from him this year. But at the end where it really matters, I see no-one touching Crump. It'll be close between the next 2-3 riders, and 5th-9th will be quite tight too. So my prediction would be: 01. J Crump 02. N Pedersen 03. A Jonsson 04. L Adams 05. M Zagar 06. G Hancock 07. H Andersen 08. J Hampel 09. T Gollob 10. W Jagus 11. S Nicholls 12. B Pedersen 13. A Lindback 14. R Holta 15. C Harris

You jest, but one day, if all goes to plan and I have the resources to back it up, I would love to be involved in speedway in just such a way. The first - and most troublesome - step is finding a way to get the megabucks to set me on my way. But I have a cunning plan... Well it's nice to know that a Mongolian warlord can still keep busy in his retirement. I completely agree that building the foundations is important, but so too is maintaining and increasing the popularity of the sport. Both of these are achievable within the next decade, so far as I'm concerned, and I think Nicholls' inclusion is an integral part of that (until, of course, a suitable replacement emerges). But that is a point on which we must agree to differ.

My main priority is seeing speedway develop in this country to a point where it regains its former popularity. Once upon a time, it was the second most followed sport in the nation. Sadly, this is no longer the case. However, it is threatening a revival, and certain steps have to be taken to ensure this. At the forefront of this is encouraging a new generation to take an interest. Bear in mind that speedway has to compete with any number of other sports and distractions, such as computer games, television, going out, etc. so this is no easy task. With the regular and dedicated exposure that the sport receives on Sky Sports, there is the potential for a real upsurge in interest, but I contest that it will be really helped by a British representative in the SGP, as this will give new fans an immediate personality to follow. With this potential growth there could be money and resources invested that allow future world champions to emerge through a proper youth system. I don't want to take the risk of alienating future fans by removing the interest they may have in the showpiece event - the SGP. Do you? The coverage by Sky is primarily focused on Nicholls (and previously Richardson) for a reason. If you wish to campaign for a 'pure' series, that may (but not necessarily) discourage new fans, then that is your prerogative, but I guarantee you that every single speedway fan in the country would like to see the sport prosper and return to the heady heights of yesteryear. Oh and for the record, I think he will finish 8th next year - an opinion to which I am entitled.

I know, I know.... Sub could sustain an argument with a brick wall. Ever since the Mongolian Empire went down the crapper he's needed something to occupy his time. It must be a very frustrating existence for someone who is 800 years old and supposedly dead. Actually, I was offering post-revisionist nonsense, but believe whatever you want to believe. Feel free to plough on with your traditionalist argument; we'll be proved right in the end.