Swc Final Line Ups

[nw42]

More like you can't handle a debate without trying to get insulting. Did I say we would judge Mauger or any of the others only on their way down ? Did I say that's how everyone remebers world calss riders? No, that's something you have chosen to make up.

 

The point I was making was that any given rider looks good at the time he is at his peak. When we look at at then with hindsight our opinions crystalise. There are plenty of people on here who don't remember Mauger or even Ermolenko at their peaks so they are making judgments on a narrower sample of riders. They all have their moments and fade into history. Before long Gollob will be past his peak and will be surpassed as hero of the hour by possbly Sayfutinov or Ward, just as Briggs was surpassed by Mauger, and Mauger was surpassed by Penhall, and so on.

 

Philip Risings post asked if there has ever been a more entertaining rider than Gollob. My point is that the day after a brilliant meeting is not the best time to judge whether a rider was the best/ most entertaining rider ever, but rather it is when the dust settles and we can reflect their at his performances more objectively. With the benefit of hindsight no doubt some will still say Gollob was the greatest thing since sliced bread, others won't.

 

In am not sure how your mind has converted that to saying we should only judge Mauger and the rest on the basis of their twilight years, unless it is your basic inability to read a few sentences without without launching into insults, before you have sat and thought about the context of the discussion and the nature of the post being answered.

 

Perhaps it would help if I get my row of beads out and explain it in simple terms. In my opinion the best time to judge a riders qualities is when we look back on his career with hindsight. Some people may agree with me, some won't. Simple as that.. Can you manage that without your inferiority complex getting the better of you and launching into another tirade ?

 

I don't speak for everyone but I'm quite capable of making a judgement whether or not it is within 24hrs of his latest performance, I have memory of many fantastic performances to add to the pot when considering where he stands in terms of greatness.

 

30 years on I can still recall some of Peter Collin's enthralling races and I get that same thrill when I see Gollob race and he is on song. That's what speedway is all about for me, thrills. Obviously I would never suggest Mauger wasn't a great but that is purely based on his haul of trophies, I never considered him exciting to watch, he was immaculate, Olsen & Nielsen fall into the same category for me.

 

I would include Mark Loram in my list of greats but not Gary Havelock(no offence), yet they both won World crowns, it's not just about trophies for me, it's about value for money, it's about riders who appear to be at one with the bike, who ride lines that other riders don't even know exist and most wouldn't attempt if they were aware of them.

 

What Gollob did on Saturday wasn't just about his riding, it was the way he played the captains role, he inspired his team by his attitude, they were all just pulled along by him when it looked like slipping away, I already had him down as a true great but he went up a couple of notches for his captains job, it was the first time I had seen this side of him, I know the manager was also instrumental before anyone feels the need to remind me but it I think it was Gollob who turned it around.

[foreverblue]

He obviously enjoys his life in Poland and they have always been very good to him so why not?? I'd rather support a sportsman/team that shows class on and off the sporting field no matter what nationality they are e.g. I would have Nadal over Murray anyday.

 

Australia's loss in my eyes, I have said in previous posts that they had a great chance to win this year but they let history get in the way. Equal blame should be put on both sides! I don't believe with Ryan's record and current form on the continent that he has anything to prove. I mean even if he is on the decline at least he was competitive in the GP's and reached World Number 3 unlike Schlein and Watt who have never been in the GP's. 2 time world cup winner and almost made it a hat trick. Since 2003 the Aussies have only had two podiums which shows their decline until this year where they couldn't seize their moment!!

 

Moreover Batchelor will never get into the GP qualifying unless he competes in his homeland, at least Ryan went back home in 2004 and became Australian Champion to earn a spot in GP qualifying. Why is Troy expecting a hand out as per the speedway star article where he was moaning when others bother to make the effort, the prime example was Leigh Adams.

Batchelor always moans about anything and everything,did you notice on the rostrum how Crumpie was chatting to all the Poles.

[Sprog1]

I don't speak for everyone but I'm quite capable of making a judgement whether or not it is within 24hrs of his latest performance, I have memory of many fantastic performances to add to the pot when considering where he stands in terms of greatness.

 

30 years on I can still recall some of Peter Collin's enthralling races and I get that same thrill when I see Gollob race and he is on song. That's what speedway is all about for me, thrills. Obviously I would never suggest Mauger wasn't a great but that is purely based on his haul of trophies, I never considered him exciting to watch, he was immaculate, Olsen & Nielsen fall into the same category for me.

 

I would include Mark Loram in my list of greats but not Gary Havelock(no offence), yet they both won World crowns, it's not just about trophies for me, it's about value for money, it's about riders who appear to be at one with the bike, who ride lines that other riders don't even know exist and most wouldn't attempt if they were aware of them.

 

What Gollob did on Saturday wasn't just about his riding, it was the way he played the captains role, he inspired his team by his attitude, they were all just pulled along by him when it looked like slipping away, I already had him down as a true great but he went up a couple of notches for his captains job, it was the first time I had seen this side of him, I know the manager was also instrumental before anyone feels the need to remind me but it I think it was Gollob who turned it around.

 

Fair enough comment. I fully agree with you about Mauger Olsen and Nielson but I suspect we are in the minority on that one. I think, to go back to Philip Risings original post, an entertaining rider is not the same thing as a great rider, and vice versa. In some ways it depends on how you define a great rider and how you define an entertaining rider. Mark Loram was terrific entertainment, far better to watch than Mauger Olsen or Nielson IMO but in World terms he had far less success.

 

I think the hindsight test is a good one though because riders like Collins were so spectacular that, as you say, 30 years on the memory still never fades, yet there are certain other top riders who could be classed as greats yet they were so unspectacular,almost boring, I can hardly remember any of their races. Chris Morten was another one that sticks in the memory for years but in terms of Worlds class success he didn't really go very far.

 

 

 

[nw42]

Fair enough comment. I fully agree with you about Mauger Olsen and Nielson but I suspect we are in the minority on that one. I think, to go back to Philip Risings original post, an entertaining rider is not the same thing as a great rider, and vice versa. In some ways it depends on how you define a great rider and how you define an entertaining rider. Mark Loram was terrific entertainment, far better to watch than Mauger Olsen or Nielson IMO but in World terms he had far less success.

 

I think the hindsight test is a good one though because riders like Collins were so spectacular that, as you say, 30 years on the memory still never fades, yet there are certain other top riders who could be classed as greats yet they were so unspectacular,almost boring, I can hardly remember any of their races. Chris Morten was another one that sticks in the memory for years but in terms of Worlds class success he didn't really go very far.

 

 

 

 

I have just given this some more thought, what defines greatness for me? Not sure how many will relate to this but I whenever I have watched speedway, either live or on the screen there are times when a rider pulls a move that actually has me leaning over in the chair without realising, almost replicating their movements because I am so engrossed in their skill. I can distinctly recall this happening when I was sat in Lstand @ Hyde Rd and PC was in full flight, I still find myself doing this when watching Gollob, obviously not every time he races but many times over the years, maybe that's my greatness barometer.

 

Agreed, Chris Morton is another but as you say he didn't scale the heights in terms of the world stage.

[ImpartialOne]

More like you can't handle a debate without trying to get insulting. Did I say we would judge Mauger or any of the others only on their way down ? Did I say that's how everyone remebers world calss riders? No, that's something you have chosen to make up.

 

The point I was making was that any given rider looks good at the time he is at his peak. When we look at at then with hindsight our opinions crystalise. There are plenty of people on here who don't remember Mauger or even Ermolenko at their peaks so they are making judgments on a narrower sample of riders. They all have their moments and fade into history. Before long Gollob will be past his peak and will be surpassed as hero of the hour by possbly Sayfutinov or Ward, just as Briggs was surpassed by Mauger, and Mauger was surpassed by Penhall, and so on.

 

Philip Risings post asked if there has ever been a more entertaining rider than Gollob. My point is that the day after a brilliant meeting is not the best time to judge whether a rider was the best/ most entertaining rider ever, but rather it is when the dust settles and we can reflect their at his performances more objectively. With the benefit of hindsight no doubt some will still say Gollob was the greatest thing since sliced bread, others won't.

 

In am not sure how your mind has converted that to saying we should only judge Mauger and the rest on the basis of their twilight years, unless it is your basic inability to read a few sentences without without launching into insults, before you have sat and thought about the context of the discussion and the nature of the post being answered.

 

Perhaps it would help if I get my row of beads out and explain it in simple terms. In my opinion the best time to judge a riders qualities is when we look back on his career with hindsight. Some people may agree with me, some won't. Simple as that.. Can you manage that without your inferiority complex getting the better of you and launching into another tirade ?

Hmm. You need to practice what you preach.

 

Ok, let me remind you of what you said:

 

"The time will come when Gollob starts to look well past his sell-by date and starts going downhill, just as all the others did eventually. Perhaps that's the best time to assess him."

 

It's clear for all to see, and people have agreed with me.

 

Now you try to back pedal with "In my opinion the best time to judge a riders qualities is when we look back on his career with hindsight."

 

Maybe you need to write it in more simple terms so you can grasp what you're saying?

[Sprog1]

Hmm. You need to practice what you preach.

 

Ok, let me remind you of what you said:

 

"The time will come when Gollob starts to look well past his sell-by date and starts going downhill, just as all the others did eventually. Perhaps that's the best time to assess him."

 

It's clear for all to see, and people have agreed with me.

 

Now you try to back pedal with "In my opinion the best time to judge a riders qualities is when we look back on his career with hindsight."

 

Maybe you need to write it in more simple terms so you can grasp what you're saying?

 

Not at all. You have taken one part of my post out of context. However. that is not the point. Look at the two posts from nw 42 just before this. He has put forward some good points that have made me reflect on my views and it seems my comments made him think again as well. That's is what debate is about , exchanging views and getting a wider opinion when others express themselves.For most of us, that's what constitutes a good debate. NW42 like most posters on the thread has expressed himself eloquently in reply to my posts without resorting to insults and abuse, hence they are good, intelligent posts..

Your stock-in-trade seems to be to resort to insults towards any post you don't agree with, or think you can twist around for a controversy. rather than a balanced reply as most others do. That comes under the forum definition of trolling. That's why you had a ban.

There would be no point in a forum if everybody held the same opinion but the ability to debate things on a sensible level even when not agreeing with the substance of the post is an important requirement.

 

 

 

[WIE-JA]

Not at all. You have taken one part of my post out of context. However. that is not the point. Look at the two posts from nw 42 just before this. He has put forward some good points that have made me reflect on my views and it seems my comments made him think again as well. That's is what debate is about , exchanging views and getting a wider opinion when others express themselves.For most of us, that's what constitutes a good debate. NW42 like most posters on the thread has expressed himself eloquently in reply to my posts without resorting to insults and abuse, hence they are good, intelligent posts..

Your stock-in-trade seems to be to resort to insults towards any post you don't agree with, or think you can twist around for a controversy. rather than a balanced reply as most others do. That comes under the forum definition of trolling. That's why you had a ban.

There would be no point in a forum if everybody held the same opinion but the ability to debate things on a sensible level even when not agreeing with the substance of the post is an important requirement.

Can you stick to the topic please?

[Sprog1]

Can you stick to the topic please?

 

Yep. Impy took me off course but I won't perpetuate that line any further .

Sorry.

 

 

 

[ImpartialOne]

Not at all. You have taken one part of my post out of context. However. that is not the point. Look at the two posts from nw 42 just before this. He has put forward some good points that have made me reflect on my views and it seems my comments made him think again as well. That's is what debate is about , exchanging views and getting a wider opinion when others express themselves.For most of us, that's what constitutes a good debate. NW42 like most posters on the thread has expressed himself eloquently in reply to my posts without resorting to insults and abuse, hence they are good, intelligent posts..

Your stock-in-trade seems to be to resort to insults towards any post you don't agree with, or think you can twist around for a controversy. rather than a balanced reply as most others do. That comes under the forum definition of trolling. That's why you had a ban.

There would be no point in a forum if everybody held the same opinion but the ability to debate things on a sensible level even when not agreeing with the substance of the post is an important requirement.

Nothing out of context. I quoted your sentence that I replied to, which you then changed in your next post to mean something totally different.

 

I'll hold my hand up and admit my post was harsh and I apologise for that but whilst lecturing me on how to conduct myself without the use of insults you couldn't resist doing the same. Twice.

[BigFatDave]

Batchelor always moans about anything and everything,did you notice on the rostrum how Crumpie was chatting to all the Poles.

I don't think he's in quite the same league as some of the Whingers and Moaners who appear with amazing regularity on the hallowed pages of this forum.

As far as I know Batch will be competing in Oz this coming season as a prerequisite to qualifying for the GP Challenge next year; he feels he's progressed well enough and is also mature enough to compete successfully at the topmost level. Anyone who watched his performances in the SWC Race-off and Final would doubtless agree with that.

Many thanks to all the riders and officials who took part in this past week's contest: once again providing us with racing at the highest level. We're all incredibly proud of the Aussie performance, although I don't think our rendition of 'Advance Australia Fair' on Thursday night measured up against the Polish National Anthem on Saturday, at least we got the chance to sing the song.

The final heats of both the events in Poland were well worth the price of the airfare from Oz. I don't think I've seen a race of the quality of the Crump v Gollob clash since Peterborough SWC 2009, Crump v Zagar.

If you've never been to Poland for SWC you really don't know what you're missing - I'll be back for sure.

[Boris41]

You mean this race - it proves again what a great venue the EOES is! :-)

 

 

Glad Troy is riding in OZ this season so he can earn the opportunity to qualify for the GPs!!

[ImpartialOne]

You mean this race - it proves again what a great venue the EOES is! :-)

 

 

Glad Troy is riding in OZ this season so he can earn the opportunity to qualify for the GPs!!

Notice Bridger isn't waving his leg all over the place there. That was only 2 years ago. Ok he was still at the back but as I remember he looked a much better rider then than he does now. He has to change his ways because unfortunately his ways have changed him.

 

Good race though, remember it well.

[dirt]

You mean this race - it proves again what a great venue the EOES is! :-)

 

 

Glad Troy is riding in OZ this season so he can earn the opportunity to qualify for the GPs!!

It's a pity SKY couldnt of produced a clear 'photo finish' like that one last Saturday when nikki P. put the brakes on versus Darcy Ward in heat 21. The only vision I seen was a blurry sketchy pause frame which gave no clear conclusion.

 

It must be said the ref sure had a blinder, and I can see why he was given the job!!!

 

In my opinion it's no different to the call he made when he excluded Lindback. On the replay he could see the error he made but didnt do squat to rectify it, and the result stood, the reasoning being he was just nervous. Then when the meeting got to the business end a simple who finished in front of who decision was butchered. Did the ref think his eye was that good he didnt need any replays or photos? If thats the case which appears the only likely scenario he is an utter useless ***** and should have let the result stand no matter how wrong he was, as tactics regarding the all important 'joker/sub' 'card' had already happened to the point of Crump being ready to go out.

 

2 wrongs dont make a right.

 

what he did was make the problem worse and a bigger stuff up causing more damage!