The New Scoring System

[manchesterpaul]

You're points didn't merit addressing, since they consisted largely of balderdash.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again;

 

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

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[Pollyanna]

The new points system is b*ll*cks.  Why they didn't just give the third-placed man in the semis one extra point, I'll never know.

 

It's just as easy for a rider to walk away with the championship now, as the standings after one round show.

 

Not only that, but consider this scenario.

 

Rider A scores 7 + 2 + 6 = 15 in each GP.  Rider B scores 15 + 1 = 16 in each GP.  It's possible for a rider to win every GP, but for the World Champion to be a rider who never reached a single final!

 

Utter tripe.  Get rid of it now.

 

All the best

Rob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My feelings about the new scoring system exactly!

[Subedei]

I actually preferred the original GP format/scoring

I agree but Gollob (and Adams for that matter) will need more than a new points scoring system to have any chance this season I’m afraid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh dear, how the terminally deluded cling to their illusions. Gollob is currently sitting on, from memory, 10 points from a GP circuit where he traditionally struggles.

[Subedei]

Well you could possibly be proved wright

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean like James and Charles?

[Subedei]

There is significantly more chance of you actually being wright rather than right.

 

A Freudian slip of sorts I believe?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, just the nonsense you usually post.

You call Gollob "never quite good enough", but he always seems good enough to qualify, unlike ANY British rider for how long? None qualified by right for 2006, none qualified by right for 2007. Furthermore, "never quite good enough" Gollob has won more than three times as many GPs as British riders have. In fact, only Messrs Rickardsson and Crump have won more GPs than Gollob.

Do you actually know anything about speedway?

[pawnbroker]

No, just the nonsense you usually post.

You call Gollob "never quite good enough", but he always seems good enough to qualify, unlike ANY British rider for how long? None qualified by right for 2006, none qualified by right for 2007. Furthermore, "never quite good enough" Gollob has won more than three times as many GPs as British riders have. In fact, only Messrs Rickardsson and Crump have won more GPs than Gollob.

Do you actually know anything about speedway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And after more go's than anyone he's still not won it what's the point of him being in it ?

 

Take away his two home gp's and would not be in the top 8 .

[Subedei]

And after more go's than anyone he's still not won it what's the point of him being in it ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ill informed, I fear. There is an "ever present" in the GPs and his name's not Gollob.

And this home GP is just nonsense. After all, for nine seasons Eskilstuna was the home track of a certain rider who can only dream of matching the achievements of the great man.

As for the point of him being "in it". He's in it because he qualified to be in it. Now, I know your ilk don't take qualifying seriously, but some of us still do cling to integrity, honour and probity.

Now, what's the point of the British champion being in it? How many goes has he had? And how many GPs has he won?

Edited May 1, 2007 by Subedei

[johnmcenroe]

i like it alot

[Subedei]

Ahem….

 

Hoisted by your own petard.

 

I say Gollob is “never quite good enough” and you say “but he always seems good enough to qualify”.

 

“won more than three times as many GPs...” and in that same period how many British World Champions have there been?

 

Qualifying and winning GPs in your own country is a fine achievement but clearly the fact remains that he will be “never quite good enough” and of course never will be despite any change to the points system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gollob has won three GPs outside Poland. Which is as many GPs as Britain has won in total. It's true Loram won the world title in 2000, but the legitimacy of a world champion who hasn't won a GP during the season he won it has to be questioned.

Last season Gollob finished on the podium in Eskilstuna, Krsko and Bydgoszcz. Now, I realise geography mightn't be your strong point (speedway certainly isn't), but unless a few borders have changed, only one of those is in Poland.

This scoring system has been introduced solely to aid the British champion. Who routinely makes semi finals, but seldom finals?

Anyway, the fact remains that Gollob, together with fellow Poles Jagus and Hampel qualified. Now, remind me when a British rider last actually qualified? It's a simple enough question.

[stuart road]

Gollob has won three GPs outside Poland. Which is as many GPs as Britain has won in total. It's true Loram won the world title in 2000, but the legitimacy of a world champion who hasn't won a GP during the season he won it has to be questioned.

Last season Gollob finished on the podium in Eskilstuna, Krsko and Bydgoszcz. Now, I realise geography mightn't be your strong point (speedway certainly isn't), but unless a few borders have changed, only one of those is in Poland.

This scoring system has been introduced solely to aid the British champion. Who routinely makes semi finals, but seldom finals?

Anyway, the fact remains that Gollob, together with fellow Poles Jagus and Hampel qualified. Now, remind me when a British rider last actually qualified? It's a simple enough question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

personally when i watch the gp's i just want to see the worlds top riders on show,we all have opinions on who are the worlds top 15,but surely most people would have gollob and nicholls in their list.

the system of riders going through on final positions,a qualifying process and through selected wildcards,seems acceptable to me,as long as the system is not abused,i agree with subedei on the basic principle of his argument,that over the last two years it has been. ommiting hans andersen last year,and continually overlooking peter karlsson,are shocking decisions in my opinion,and clearly chris harris this year and lee richardson previously have been selected just because

they are english,which is grossly unfair.

however as hypocrisy comes easily to me , if chris finishes in the top ten this year,i will be happy to overlook my objections and welcome his inclusion in 2008.

 

back to the topic of the thread,and whether the new scoring system is the "way to go" personally i think yes,but time will tell and at the end of the season,i might have a different viewpoint.

 

i wonder how many of the detractors are visionaries,and how many are luddites

[Subedei]

I’m not sure why you have drifted from your original point that the new scoring system will help Gollob win the World title this season, however….

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point was that the new scoring system would help a British rider qualify, not help Gollob to a world crown. But obviously that was too subtle for you to understand. Which I understand, since you advocated Simon Stead for a GP place.

[Kevin Meynell]

in fact including pairs and team events Great Britain has had more riders who have become World Champion than any other Speedway nation.

 

We've also been riding speedway longer than any other nation, bar Australia. I think the question to be asked is how many world titles (team and individual) have we won in the past 20 years, and I count about three.

[AndyM]

In fact 6 world titles in the past 52 years (Craven twice, Collins, Lee, Havelock and Loram.) Not great, is it?

Edited May 2, 2007 by AndyM

[manchesterpaul]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Trees]

Fairer way would be to forget the semis and final, have six rides a piece if need be (so the punters get good value for money) and just total the points scored over each round. But of course that's the old fashioned way and could never be done

[stuart road]

i have not bothered to read all the gp rules,because as i have said before i am LAZY LAZY LAZY,however i did think they were fairly basic and that i had the full grasp of them.

but was completely shocked,when hans got 2nd choice in the final,surely that totally flies in the face,of the"get what you deserve" rules,that appear to be in place.

[manchesterpaul]

Fairer way would be to forget the semis and final, have six rides a piece if need be (so the punters get good value for money) and just total the points scored over each round.  But of course that's the old fashioned way and could never be done 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Grachan]

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.).

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is correct. I was always taught that when 'they' fits use 'who' and when 'them' fits use 'whom'. Shame you forgot about the question mark though!

[barrow boy]

Fairer way would be to forget the semis and final, have six rides a piece if need be (so the punters get good value for money) and just total the points scored over each round.  But of course that's the old fashioned way and could never be done 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am missing the importance of getting to the final already. In fact I'm starting to yearn for the old elimination system with perhaps some method of providing more than 2 rides for those eliminated early on and more points for the losing semi finalists. I feel this year it will just drag on and soon become a non event

[Trees]

I did think about the 6 rides a piece being unfair because of the gate positions, who you meet again etc, just thinking about value for money, can't have it both ways I guess so 4 rides a piece it is