Pawlicki And His Average Manipulation

[hemphizzx]

I generally watch these boards from the distance

 

frankly becuz i find the level of hostility about a wonderful family sport - where teams constantly change - riders actually guest for other clubs during a season - absolutely pathetic

 

I go and watch the Bees with my young lad and thoroughly enjoy a great atmosphere - riders from whatever team always happy to chat and have pics with my boy

 

And i come on here and its like speedway is world war III

 

A mate of mine who never watched speedway before came with me to the 1st leg and watched the 2ng leg on TV and was constantly texting me about it !!

 

He is hooked and wants to come to cardiff next year

 

For gods sake some Poole fans on here !!! you got beat , move on , grow up and enjoy ure speedway

[foreverblue]

When they got proper averages,as you put it,there is every opportunity they could be changed on a one for one basis,Mrozcka was 6.81 at the end of august,could have got Zorro in or Kolodziej or a number of others who would have scored more than 2.

[Borg101]

I've just found a nice little getaway for Steve & Matt to book into over the winter where they can reflect on the 2010 season with no interuptions..

hope they enjoy the stay..its all booked for you both.. no need to take any baggage.. oh one last thing I could only get flights one way..

 

http://assistedsuicide.org/blog/2006/02/06/how-to-contact-dignitas-in-switzerland/

[21st century heathen]

 

 

[Steve0]

yes the same 1-7 bit a novelty for you was it?

2009 you have twenty riders

2008 you had 18 !

 

you couldnt change the riders because they all came on dodgy averages, as soon as they got "proper averages" there was no way on earth they could be changed, if was possible doyle and king arthur would have been ditched in seconds

Im a Swindon fan and we definitely didn't have 20 riders last year! I think you are confusing me with a Poole fan! I also supported that the fact that teams can change their teams rather than stick with the same starting 1-7 where SS is trying to claim a moral victory!

 

I think you should read my post again before replying!

[Lovey]

I believe that it was changed when teams realised that you could afford to lower averages for six matches in order to gain for the remainder of the season.

It is a lot harder to claw back those League points 'lost' over 12 matches (1/3rd of the Season)...but not impossible, as recently shown!

 

ATB

Dave

 

Not just that. It was also changed because after six matches you have hardly got a representative average, ie. it can fluctuate quite widely with just one good or bad score, simply because the number of rides and points is not a very high sample.

 

eg. 6 matches, 24 rides, 48 points = 8.00

7 matches, 28 rides, 48 points = 6.86

 

So, consistent scoring of 8 points per match in the first six matches, then four more rides without a score and it drops by 1.24 points!

 

OK, so an extreme example, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

Perhaps the option would be for 12 matches to get the first set of averages, but any replacement gets a new average after six?

 

On a related note, I don't think any foreign rider on an assessed average should ever be allowed to drop below that, eg. if Pawlicki had come in and averaged 3.60, then he should remain on 4.00 until he can exceed it - no matter how many matches he rides. That might discourage teams from taking on someone like Sitera, and go for a Brit instead ... On the other hand, when have we ever been able to trust the BSPA to do soemthing sensible?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Lovey

[stevebrum]

Stop me if I'm going awry here, but do 15 pages of comment boil down to the following: Team has rider, team rests rider for less important matches, team uses rider for vital ones, no rules are broken?

 

 

Well yes, but lets not the facts get in the way of Poole`s bitterness

 

Steve,do us all a favour and grow up!! your digging yourself deeper and deeper with your childish comments.

Your team got beaten fair and square and you dont like it,who cares??

 

 

PirateNick, you are a credit to your team and fans and its noive to know that poole fans share the same opinion on certain posters.

 

 

 

would keep posting but must get ready to recieve the trophy from the dogheads,

 

Phil, How NAIVE of you to presume we are handing it over

[Lovey]

The only other thing that's worth saying is that Ipswich will be well out of all this rubbish when they go PL in 2011.

[colincooke]

I hear on the grapevine that Mr Ford is now asking to see Pawlicki's sick note.

Well Mr Ford, as Rosco states there was a sick note but the referee at Swindon told him they didn't require it as we we're using our No8 within the rules.

So Mr Ford, where do you & your B.S.P.A freinds wanna stick that.

[Skyjack2]

Can't really be sour grapes if 5 other promoters have a problem with it as well....

 

So Matt tells us. But when have we ever believed a word he says.

 

The SCB gave a diffinitive ruling last year, after the Poole enquiry, that these kind of matters should be dealt with through the appropriate channels and not aired through match programme articles.

 

Matt should be admonished for bringing the sport in to disrepute, again!

 

 

Then why didn't we keep Artur out yesterday " just to make sure"?

 

He was genuinely ill. Pawlicki ws not, proved by his riding in Poland ( and winning the meeting)

 

Game up on geting Pawlicki on a 4 for 2011. He will now come in on 6.18 by the look of it.

 

However, if Pawlicki says he wants to be a Pirate in 2011 he'll definately be on an assessed 4.

 

Matt'll fix it.

 

How's about that then guys N galls, rattle, rattle, jewellery, jewellery, check me tie and me highlights, I'm a Legend.

[SCB]

I have also said that I think Poole were the best team this year by a country mile but they didn't do it when they needed to - same as Swindon last year and in 2007.

We finished about 7 points ahead of you in 2007, then beat you in the play-offs, we won the knock out cup and the Craven Shield. Even Shovlar would not try and spin it that any other team was better than Coventry in 2007

 

 

The only other thing that's worth saying is that Ipswich will be well out of all this rubbish when they go PL in 2011.

Yeah, the PL is perfect. With Rye House getting R/R for a rider they sacked, Berwick having an illegal team at one point, Stoke having an illegal team at one point. Glasgow allegedly average fiddling in their 12th meeting at Edinburgh to get Joe Screen in and all the bitching and claims of underhandedness at Edinburgh all season.

 

The EL and the PL are exactly the same.

[bigcatdiary]

 

The EL and the PL are exactly the same.

 

 

Not quite - I am lead to believe one or two clubs actually make a living from the PL

[stevebrum]

Matt should be admonished for bringing the sport in to disrepute, again!

 

 

YET AGAIN

[Barney Rabbit]

I know Ford's hardly the person to question the legality of the use of a rule but he may not be totally wrong. The question must be asked as to whether the #8 came about to cover the (authorised) absence of double-uppers who could easily be riding PL matches on the same day without the use of guests or whether the #8 was introduced as a squad rider covering unauthorised absences.

Speedway's unwritten rule is that a 1-7 is declared and that 1-7 should be used whenever possible with the #8 as cover for legitimately missing reserves. Leaving a declared rider out because 'we want to' has always been wrong and I can't actually see anywhere in the rules where that is now acceptable. Although I accept that somebody wishing to can read the rules pertaining to #8's that way, is that what was meant by the rule when it was introduced (in the same way as 6/6 meant 7/5 when Wolves wanted JBJ)?

I don't see Pawlicki missing the Swindon match as a problem because the club tell us he was injured but he did miss an awful lot of matches for no apparent reason prior to that. Were Coventry acting within the spirit of the game/law when they left a declared rider out just so as he didn't get to the twelve match point? Coventry obviously think so but Poole may not.

I don't care whether a team that started a point above every other team in the league or a team that finished nearly half-way down the table are declared champions of this year's EL, but I would question a rider deliberately being pulled out of matches so as not to get an average being used at reserve next year.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Barney Rabbit

[Gemini]

Im a Swindon fan and we definitely didn't have 20 riders last year! I think you are confusing me with a Poole fan! I also supported that the fact that teams can change their teams rather than stick with the same starting 1-7 where SS is trying to claim a moral victory!

 

I think you should read my post again before replying!

 

I'm pretty sure Phil. was referring to Steve Shovlar's constant bragging about Poole having the same 1-7 all season not your post. Some people just click on the 'Reply' icon which quotes the last post, which in this case was yours instead of 'Add Reply' at the bottom.

 

....Foreverblue......

If anyone is to blame for losing the title, it is the riders and the management,maybe some riders didn't have the experience to handle it and the management made some mistakes too,putting Ward as a tac in heat 8 when he hadn't beaten an opposing rider,not putting madsen in heat 14 when he had just won heat 12,not putting Bjarne as a tac in heat 14,using him in an earlier more difficult race and most of all not dropping Mrozcka when his form dipped.

 

Now that makes sense so I'm glad some of the more sensible Poole fans know where to put the blame. Madsen even said in the Speedway Star that 'his side couldn't stand the pressure'. Perhaps also the reason for failure could be earlier on when the Pirates decided to take on Wolverhampton instead of Peterborough? In hindsight this may have been the wrong decision as Wolves knocked Coventry out of the K.O. Cup so could have done the same in the Play-Offs, leaving a Poole v Peterborough final. Perhaps having the 2nd leg was wrong as well as it left Coventry with the option of using two tacticals if the aggregate score was being reduced. But hey ho it's all over now and it's just a shame a few Pirates fans and Matt Ford are so bitter and twisted.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Gemini

[Steve Shovlar]

Watch it Barney, the Lynch mob will be after you for daring to go against the Coventry Mafia.

 

I agree with you as well. Teams should always field their strongest lineup at all times, but this has obviously not been the case with Coventry and Pawlicki. He could have ridden something like 24 meetings this season. He rode 11. He was kept out of the Swindon meeting not because he was injured (he wasn't injured enough to stop him riding, proved by his riding either side of that fixture, on the MOnday against Peterborrough and the Sunday on the continent) but simply because of two points.

 

1. He would only have ridden 11 meetings, therefore retaining his 4 point average for 2011.

2. He would remain on his 4 point average instead of going into the team, meaning he would be at resrve for the playoff final.

[Sir Jasper]

 

I don't see Pawlicki missing the Swindon match as a problem because the club tell us he was injured but he did miss an awful lot of matches for no apparent reason prior to that.

 

Another myth, We first spoke to him about coming here when he had no Polish club, then there was a whole host of reasons why he did not make his debut over here, including the days of national mourning for the Polish President. There has been a legitimate reason for him missing every meeting, and the majority were down to the fact he was obliged to ride in Poland, I believe he actually missed out on qualifying for the Polish under 21 final, yet the Polish federation gave him a widlcard which meant he missed further meetings. Coventry have siffered through not being able to use him dont forget that.

[javw]

I know Ford's hardly the person to question the legality of the use of a rule but he may not be totally wrong. The question must be asked as to whether the #8 came about to cover the (authorised) absence of double-uppers who could easily be riding PL matches on the same day without the use of guests or whether the #8 was introduced as a squad rider covering unauthorised absences.

Speedway's unwritten rule is that a 1-7 is declared and that 1-7 should be used whenever possible with the #8 as cover for legitimately missing reserves. Leaving a declared rider out because 'we want to' has always been wrong and I can't actually see anywhere in the rules where that is now acceptable. Although I accept that somebody wishing to can read the rules pertaining to #8's that way, is that what was meant by the rule when it was introduced (in the same way as 6/6 meant 7/5 when Wolves wanted JBJ)?

I don't see Pawlicki missing the Swindon match as a problem because the club tell us he was injured but he did miss an awful lot of matches for no apparent reason prior to that. Were Coventry acting within the spirit of the game/law when they left a declared rider out just so as he didn't get to the twelve match point? Coventry obviously think so but Poole may not.

I don't care whether a team that started a point above every other team in the league or a team that finished nearly half-way down the table are declared champions of this year's EL, but I would question a rider deliberately being pulled out of matches so as not to get an average being used at reserve next year.

 

 

Fair comment Barney Rabbit, but if you have a look on the bees website the absences of Pawlicki are well documented. He was involved in a number of pre or re-arranged meetings in Poland. A lot were championship qualifiers. Remember he signed for Coventry after the commencment of the season. His absence was a source of frustration to Coventry supporters who saw their club still losing matches after strengthening the team.

 

Watch it Barney, the Lynch mob will be after you for daring to go against the Coventry Mafia.

 

I agree with you as well. Teams should always field their strongest lineup at all times, but this has obviously not been the case with Coventry and Pawlicki. He could have ridden something like 24 meetings this season. He rode 11. He was kept out of the Swindon meeting not because he was injured (he wasn't injured enough to stop him riding, proved by his riding either side of that fixture, on the MOnday against Peterborrough and the Sunday on the continent) but simply because of two points.

 

1. He would only have ridden 11 meetings, therefore retaining his 4 point average for 2011.

2. He would remain on his 4 point average instead of going into the team, meaning he would be at resrve for the playoff final.

 

 

Why can't you be honest, just for once!

Edited October 15, 2010 by 21st century heathen

[foreverblue]

I'm pretty sure Phil. was referring to Steve Shovlar's constant bragging about Poole having the same 1-7 all season not your post. Some people just click on the 'Reply' icon which quotes the last post, which in this case was yours instead of 'Add Reply' at the bottom.

 

 

 

Now that makes sense so I'm glad some of the more sensible Poole fans know where to put the blame. Madsen even said in the Speedway Star that 'his side couldn't stand the pressure'. Perhaps also the reason for failure could be earlier on when the Pirates decided to take on Wolverhampton instead of Peterborough? In hindsight this may have been the wrong decision as Wolves knocked Coventry out of the K.O. Cup so could have done the same in the Play-Offs, leaving a Poole v Peterborough final. Perhaps having the 2nd leg was wrong as well as it left Coventry with the option of using two tacticals if the aggregate score was being reduced. But hey ho it's all over now and it's just a shame a few Pirates fans and Matt Ford are so bitter and twisted.

Apologies for being picky but that would have left a Poole v Wolves final.

[Steve Shovlar]

Why can't you be honest, just for once!

 

My post there was completely spot on, honest and a fact!