manchesterpaul

Trying to return to the topic of 'Future Grand Prix Locations', would a good venue not be Belfast (or Dublin)?. I appreciate it's still in Europe and the expansion plans are intended to create a wider global reach. However, a couple of the present rounds could be jettisoned without too much trauma.

Good to hear you got full coverage. Unfortunately, it's not directly accessible over here. Did you watch it on a television channel or streamed over the internet?. If it was on the internet i think there are possible 'workarounds' to enable one to access a feed blocked on a geographical basis. Also, i used to go out with a girl from Germany (in the Bremen area), i might catch up with her again and get her to 'remotely' link computers, to see if it's possible to transfer the feeds on a peer-to-peer basis. I'm not that much into computers, but i do tend to pick up and work out things on a need to use basis. I've often written programmes to achieve things that were not openly available. It's good to hear that they are advertising the German GP early in the year.

6 rides??? That would only make it unfairer. As who would race against whom. (that has to be very bad grammar. It is late though and i tried various permutations of who and whom.). The standard 20 heat individual format that precedes the semis and final, ensure that each rider meets every other opponent once.

I'm not a poet, And i know it, But 3-2-1-0, The way to go. If the final was not worth double points, instead of a 13 point gap, it would be only 7. That amount is far easier to make up and can be done in a single meeting. Lots of riders would be closer grouped over the series as well. You don't need the double points in the final. It increases the chance of a rider gaining more GP points whilst not winning the final race. Also, as in tonights GP, more than one rider could have gained more than the race winner. The opprtunity to gain extra points in the semis and final is reward enough.

From the dk4 site; When you’re a member of the dk4 club, you’re able to watch the dk4’s programmes whenever it suites you, where ever you are. Yet it’s unfortunately not possible for dk4 to stream all programmes. Sometimes dk4 cooperates with third parties – and sometimes dk4 don’t get the rights to broadcast the programmes on the internet from these third parties. This can be becuase some programmes are broadcasted in other countries by other TV stations. dk4 don’t have the rights to broadcast professional boxing, Danish movies and international speedway on the internet. We’re still thrilled to have more than 7000 programmes in our archive –which you can watch anytime you want, on your computer.

Was it true?. If so did you enjoy it?.

Again; There is no point in going round in circles. Both our reasons and reasoning are there to see.

Thanks

It definitely becomes fairer the further along the length of the series it is. A possible angle to look into is a 'winner takes all' final race. In that only the winner of the race receives points. Whether that should be three or two would have to be worked out. As one wouldn't wish to create big gaps again. Although it would be a solid reward for the winner and winner alone on the night. It would also go some way to solving the problem of the 'chokers' by rewarding those who can pull it off on the night.

Dear, oh, dear! Yet another who has to resort to personal attacks having been brought to task on points and failing to address them.

It was meant in a jocular manner. Thanks for clarifying that.

I've just pointed out that billions of things are theoretically possible. However, nobody in their right mind would go posting to forums to debate things that are never going to happen. Where on earth does pseudo-justification come into it. Calm down please. It's what's known as an analogy. If i hadn't pointed out that every other sport in the world has similar aspects, all the moaners and whingers, who only ever speak when there is something negative to say would of had a field day decrying speedway. I didn't say it wasn't theoretically possible. Just so highly outside the bounds of reality for it to occur, that there is no point debating it or getting rid of a system that is as fair as possible in determining an overall winner. There is no point in going round in circles. I've already explained why this isn't such a great crime. Both our reasons and reasoning are there to see.

The 'statement of fact' wasn't just plonked into a thread titled 'New Scoring System' for the sake of it. There was an intention behind doing so. Which would be either expressing a point of view or, as in this case putting forward an argument against the new system. Please note the difference between the word arguing and argument. One generally implies hostility, whilst the other (especially, as we are in a forum here) means putting forward a contrary view or an angle to be debated.

If you agree it's not going to happen why put it forward as an argument to dispense with the new system?. I repeat; 'The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible' Your local store or chemist makes provisions to allow for x number of bottles of cough medicine to be sold. Every year we all get what we need when we need it. If we, as theoretically could happen, all got a cough in the same week, the vast majority of us would not get any medicine. However, it's only theoretically possible and is not going to happen in the real world. Therefore, unlike yourself, i will not be posting to medical forums asking for the health service or stores ordering systems to be dismantled. I've already said that could happen, but it is not a problem in any way. As i pointed out previously; 'As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above'

A valid point. Additionally a benefit of this new system is as follows. If Pedersen is truly twice as good as Crump, it will be proven by him scoring twice as many points in each meeting. If not, he will not and the system will allow this to be reflected in the final standings. If two riders go into the final having scored the same amount of points, then one wins the race and the other comes third, and say by a bike length. There is only a two point gap. In the old system it would be seven. Multiplied over the season that equates to 77. Yet they might have raced each other closely. But looking at the old standings you would presume the riders are a class apart. I'm not even saying this extreme example needs to happen to show the benefit of the new system. Clearly, it does show a truer picture. The margin of a riders superior quality is shown more accurately now. If in one season alternately rider X always scores '15' pts and rider 'Y' 14 pts, both go through to the final, in which rider X wins 7 of the finals and rider Y 6 of them. This is brilliantly reflected in rider A winning the title by one point. (before you get too pedantic, allow one meeting where they both score 14 in the initial part of the meeting). Better still, again the above is an extreme example and in reality the effect of the new system really will reflect more accurately riders standings.

The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible. Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph. If you do, i challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. I promise you that the first time your scenario occurs i will give to you ONE MILLION POUNDS. Until that happens, as forfeit you can give me just £100 at the end of each series. I'll forward you my details for the cheque at the end of this season. The outcome you refer to is so statistically remote it will not come to pass. It's like during the football season, Manchester United and Chelsea drawing one match with Chelsea winning the other 1-0. In addition, in their other 40 matches United winning every game 20-0, whilst Chelsea only win their games 1-0. Chelsea would be crowned the champions and best in the sport. When clearly, as is the case now, Manchester United would be the best team in reality. I reiterate a couple of points i made earlier; With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be none of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall. As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above

As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above

As pointed out in the thread New Format On Last Years Result - Spot the differences ???, there was no difference to the final standings. It's all merely a case of fiddling with the perspective of the gap between riders. If as an example you say £1 is worth 10 units of another currency, then the difference between £10 and 100 units of the other is 90. However, have £1 equal units 100 and the gap grows to 900. For many of the reasons people have stated above, on the whole, it is a fairer and better system this year. Unfortunately, there is one almighty blunder in the formula. That being the awarding of double points in the final. When the organizers boast (and wish) that the new system means every race counts they, above all, are implying it is the fairest and most equal way to run things. However, as with lots of things, some are more equal than others. In this case the finalists, or at least three of them. In order to make every race valuable towards the race to the title whilst, at the same time, ensuring there are no artificial aids to creating wide gaps in the scoring, and furthermore rightly rewarding success, one needs to allot only normal points in the final. The chance to earn extra points is a balanced reward in it's self. In last night's final Nikki Pedersen could have trailed in fourth and still finished joint top of the Grand Prix points. Okay, awarding 3-2-1-0 would of allowed him to finish solely alone at the top of the standings. However, the gap between himself and the fourth rider would be 4 points instead of the current 12 (or 9 under the old system). Over 11 meetings that sort of gap is going to be far, far better in avoiding losing people's interest in a series. Under my revised version, as in the new, you will get the occasional glitch where the winner of the final 'leg' of the meeting does not gain the most from the 'tie'. That is hardly unique and happens on a massive and frequent scale in every sport in the world. How so?, any sport that has a 'tie' over two 'legs' will have, as an example, a team losing the first match away 2-0 but then winning the 'final' leg at home 1-0. Who gets the overall victory?, rightly so, the one who has performed the best over the whole 'series'. With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be none of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall.

Not looking too good SEE HERE

There are many portals on the web that give you free access to thousands of TV channels. The picture quality is usually superb. Unfortunately, your chances of catching a 'major' sporting event are virtually nil. As in this country with Sky, most big sporting occasions are owned by subscription channels. As such they are heavily secured and encoded. If all one had to do was go on to the internet and access it for free, they'd have far fewer subscribers. I've linked in the past to foreign tv channels that have archived material (including speedway meetings) on their websites. Picture quality, as mentioned, is excellent. Even in this country when live sport is on a local radio station (including speedway), it is often not broadcast on their internet feed and is only available within the radio stations locality. Usually, the reason for this is indeed contractual. I've listened to several speedway meeting from around the country on internet radio. However, often one can't access them on the web. However, this is down to the station deciding to broadcast other programmes on their web feed.

I take it then that it has been shuffled out of sight. Has there been a series of trailers etc. letting viewers know it is coming up?.

Yep. I used to have all the Sky sports channels when ITV Digital was running. Mind you, possible hope for the future is that i think i read that Sky are about to withdraw their current channels from Freeview. It is rumoured they wish to replace them with PPV/Subscription channels. The only stumbling block is the terms of a Freeview broadcasting licence which at present obviously doesn't allow for subscription channels to replace free ones.

I notice that the first SGP of the season has been scheduled for Sky Sports Extra. I'm not too up-to-date on the vagaries of Sky subscription packages. Is SSX a part of the general basic sports package, or is it an extra channel one has to pay more for?. I was just wondering as to whether the move represents a promotion - as in, they expect people will pay extra to watch it - or, whether it has been pushed to the back of beyond in order to fit it in to their schedules, rather similar to the importance allotted to the SGP highlights on terrestial television, which was shown in the early hours.

'Video Recorder'!!! What be one of them, surely they don't still exist? i've a vague memory of such things rumored to have been in circulation in the olden days. I always thought it a myth on a par with 'Nessie'. I think DVD recorders and media centre PC's do most of the recording nowadays. I take the point you are making. I'll still definitely buy the DVD set as it was of fantastic quality and content. Eurosport is as unavailable as Sky. I presume you must have cable to receive it?.

There's very few pubs would ever be likely to put the speedway on. To be honest, i will usually be able to access Sky in other homes. But, it is far from convinient most of the time. I made the post in a general sense, on behalf of others, pointing out that more people don't have Sky than do. Also, the absence from terrestial coverage (at a watchable hour) is very damaging to the sport.