Peter Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 The reason Scott doesn't go to the qualifying rounds is because he knows he will get a permanent wild card. They should have these qualifying rounds at neutral tracks like Debrecen (Hungary) and Elgane (Norway). Ulamek and Walsek only qualified because it was on a Polish track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 The reason Scott doesn't go to the qualifying rounds is because he knows he will get a permanent wild card. They should have these qualifying rounds at neutral tracks like Debrecen (Hungary) and Elgane (Norway). Ulamek and Walsek only qualified because it was on a Polish track. i agree Peter but i also kinda like Peter Nahlin's (swedish tv commentator) suggestion about having atleast the final round at a temporary track to take the neutrality a step further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superguest Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 (edited) i agree Peter but i also kinda like Peter Nahlin's (swedish tv commentator) suggestion about having atleast the final round at a temporary track to take the neutrality a step further. this years meeting had nothing to do with the track, just the field. Ulamek and Walasek were the 2nd and 3rd best riders on show down to injuries and no shows from this years 9th - 15th in the GP seris. Edited October 20, 2008 by superguest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
home straight Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Ulamek and Walsek only qualified because it was on a Polish track. And because they actually bothered with the qualifying rounds instead of relying on their nationality to get a seeded place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pollyanna Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Totally agree with the issue of "making numbers up" rather than getting in on merit. I also agree with three out of the four nominations. But your comment about the also rans? Ulamek made his decision to go into the GP Challenge, and made a good job of it by qualifying. You can go on about the never ending cycle - why not go one further and include Nicholls while your'e at it? I'm pretty sure he's got into the GP a couple of times when he hasn't qualified but has been seeded in. At least Ulamek and Walasek qualified fair and square "on merit" I believe you called it) and will not now have to wait to see if the BSI (or whoever it is that decides these things) throws them a bone. Lindback also qualified on merit originally, when there were only two places given in the Final of the Qualifiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pollyanna Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Schumi I think if you look at the qualifiers...everyyear they are on a flat big track with no dirt...This is why we are not getting the best riders in the world through....Last years qualifiers....Dryml ...Iversen,.....Kazprsazak...nver looked like troubling the top 8.....This years qualifiers....Ulamek...Bjerre....Walasek will go the same way i am afraid......They are out and out gaters.......and most could not get past an EL reserve like Chris Schramm let alone get past Jason Crump........Personally i think qualifiers should be done away with......But then again as i have said before i think the GP's have got boring since they done away with the 24 riders in eech event....Every race had something on it....and there were chances for the lesser lights to shine....Now there is no chance. jb Kasprzak didn't qualify last year! The three qualifiers were Iversen, Dryml and (Bjarne) Pedersen. KK was given a seeded place on the strength of his League form and scoring a maximum in the World Cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybea39 Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Pollyanna I stand corrected jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pollyanna Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Pollyanna I stand corrected jb OK, jb, no problem. It's all a bit of a farce anyway, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatDave Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 ....responding to my post that Scotty should be in GP's 'cos he's British Champ, 'home straight' wrote: Why so? If that's the criteria then Chris Holder, Adam Skornicki and Magnus Zetterstrom should also qualify being that they are the champions of their respective nations. Where do you draw the line? should the hungarian national champion automatically qualify? Norway? Italy? Since GB is one of the five top Nations I reckon the Winner & Runner-up should automatically qualify, subject to the approval of the national body. Might even re-inject a bit of interest in National Championships. Naturally current & former World Champs would be exempt: still leaves a few spots available for the lesser lights. It seems at the mo' we've got half-a-dozen 'A' grade riders, another 4 'B' grade and the rest make up the numbers; maybe an enlarged second tier comp would help determine who gets on the gravy train, similar to NASCAR with its three tier comp. Either that or a return to the 24-man fields of the earlier GPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
home straight Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) .......responding to my post that Scott Nicholls shouldn't be in the GP solely based on the fact he's the National Champion of GB "BigFatDave" wrote: Since GB is one of the five top Nations I reckon the Winner & Runner-up should automatically qualify, subject to the approval of the national body. Might even re-inject a bit of interest in National Championships. Naturally current & former World Champs would be exempt: still leaves a few spots available for the lesser lights. If GB are one of the top 5 nations then surely Poland and Sweden are too, so presumably Skornicki and Zetterstrom should be in next years GP? Of course they shouldn't. As I've said before a decision needs to be made. Either the GP is the world championship and therefore should be open to everyone through open qualifying rounds, or they need to bite the bullet and admit that it's a closed invitational event, and carry on picking and choosing who they want to be in it. Edited October 21, 2008 by home straight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Either that or a return to the 24-man fields of the earlier GPs. That would cost them more money, which they're obviously not going to be in favour of. They went back to 16 riders to fund a pay rise for the prize money that had never increased since the start of the SGP (even before BSI came along). Anyway, even if you had 24 riders, there would still be arguments about how you picked them. Frankly given some of the riders out of their depth in a 16-rider line-up, you're going to really scrape the barrel if you expand the field by 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatface Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Is Scott Nicholls safely among the top 16 riders in the world? Yes. To be honest, I can't see him ever finishing anywhere other than somewhere between 6th and 10th in the series. That's his place in the world. I wish it were higher, but it could be worse. I agree that if he were Danish or Polish, he wouldn't be afforded as much slack. But he is one of the more entertaining riders in the series and is comfortably still amongst the top riders in the world, despite not being a genuine title contender. The Russian boy (I aint even going to attempt to spell his name off the top of my head) is well worth a shot too, so too Freddie Lindgren. Bomber just hasn't shown enough this season at all to merit a place next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbin' Along Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I think Scott adds a lot to the GP series, and I genuinely think he is within the top 15 in the World. Just because he isn't in the top 8, does that mean that he shouldn't be included in the series? Them's the rules - and everybody should abide by them, regardless of how good their supporters feel they are. I can't quote the rules off by heart, but it's something along the lines of the top 8, plus 4 permanent wild cards, 1 wild card for each GP and the 3 qualifiers. Why should he get in just because he's 9th? I know- here's a radical idea - let's no have wild cards or qualifiers, let's just put the top 16 in and run a one-off world final..... Okay, as the thread originator, I'll ask another question: should Scott perhaps have tried to get into the series through the qualifiers? Yes. He obviously felt that he was good enough to get through on merit - which he obviously wasn't (or at the very least 8 other riders were better than him, or wanted it more). I'd much rather have seen him qualify in the GP, but now he hasn't I cannot buy into the idea that we have to seed him in. There's a lot of people on here to seem to think he has earned the right to be seeded - not IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Them's the rules - and everybody should abide by them, regardless of how good their supporters feel they are. I can't quote the rules off by heart, but it's something along the lines of the top 8, plus 4 permanent wild cards, 1 wild card for each GP and the 3 qualifiers. Why should he get in just because he's 9th? As Henry has explained.Why replace him with someone who isn't as good? He has regularly shown he is one of the top riders in the world.Plus he is exciting.Regardless of his nationality i don't see a reason to kick him out to be replaced by someone who isn't as good and probably isn't as exciting Over the GP season he was probably 2 or 3 % worse than Holta.If there was a queue of really good riders trying to get into the GPs you might consider dropping him.Fact is there is a lack of quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robolots Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I think Scott was slightly more consistant than Holta over the season scoring 73 points in the qualifying heats compared to Holta's 70. Scott gained another 4 points from coming second in the semi's, whilst holta gained 10 points from 3 semi's with two 3rd places a second and of course the 6 points for first in the Swedish GP final. The only real difference between the two is that Swedish GP win for Holta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARK246 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I think Scott was slightly more consistant than Holta over the season scoring 73 points in the qualifying heats compared to Holta's 70. Scott gained another 4 points from coming second in the semi's, whilst holta gained 10 points from 3 semi's with two 3rd places a second and of course the 6 points for first in the Swedish GP final. The only real difference between the two is that Swedish GP win for Holta. Strange that, only one GP win separates Holta and Nicholls, the World championship winner only won one GP as well. Gollob won three. The difference between Holta and Nicholls as riders is huge which shows what a sham the GP's really are. Holta has twice the amount of race wins. Nicholls only chance of staying invited is due to nationality,which luckily (for him) is the same as the promotion team. On any other criteria he wouldn't be there.The top 16 riders in the world? in whose eyes. Using the three top leagues averages, Poland, Sweden, Nicholls isn't in the top 16 in those two and the third the BEL is so diluted I can't be bothered to even look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybea39 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Mark The difference between Holta and Nicholls is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......incredible the only averages you dont look at are in the country Holta is too scared to ride in..... jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Mark The difference between Holta and Nicholls is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......incredible the only averages you dont look at are in the country Holta is too scared to ride in..... jb Should read the country "Holta is too sensible to ride in". Never had the right offer at the right time i.e. before Christmas. Holta would have been as good a performer in the UK as he has been for years in the much tougher Swedish and Polish leagues - no reason why he wouldn't have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schumi Posted October 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Mark The difference between Holta and Nicholls is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......incredible the only averages you dont look at are in the country Holta is too scared to ride in..... jb Nicholls' average in the Elite League has gone down this year. In 2007 his final GSA was 9.52, yet in spite of a weakened league in 2008 his GSA is only 8.92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybea39 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Schumi And....your point is dear jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.