The Old Brigade To Still Dominate The 2012 Gp. Series?

[stratton]

I dont have a case to answer, I am not on trial, I have an opinion, an opinion borne out of over 45 years of speedway involvement. It is my opinion that the World Speedway Champion, or any sports World Champion for that matter, should be the one who has proved he is the best over an entire season having competed against, and scored more points than any of his rivals.

 

Yes Rembas lost a run off for third but even had he won that run off would you consider him the third best rider in the world that year. Like I said Rembas and the others I mentioned were in reality no hopers, most of them only having got there by virtue of a much easier qualifying route due to there nationality

Oldace proves the one off is a different quality ,pressure was immense more so than now.Rembas rode well wasnt a fluke ok the Jessup ef helped but i am convinced the series is easier.Were Wimbledon better than Liverpool? were Sunderland better than Leeds?was Douglas better than Tyson yes they were on the day. Out of the old format 1973 was the only shock for me we all new Muller could win it he was a brilliant all round motor cyclist.The rest generally won by the best riders yet since 1995 only in my opinion Pedersen (3 times won it and fair play) Loram 1) were not the best riders in the world.Not one year have i rated Pedersen in front of Crump,Gollob, not as a allround speedway rider so is the GPseries bullet proof the best win every year a NO for me.

[waiheke1]

no ones disputing that Rembas rode well on the day, and if he'd finished thrid he would have deserved thris, no question.

However - if he had finished third, would that mean that he was the third best rider in the world that year? No, that day yes, but the year, no way. And if their had been an equally difficult qualifying route for all riders, would he have even made the final?

 

Re: wimbledon/Sunderland - yes, on the day they were the best, but same point, were they the best teams that year? no chance.

Not sure why you think this proves the series is easier to win? Wimbledon were nowhere near the best team in the premiership, but won the fa cup - so doesn't that show that a knock out is easier to win? Goes back to the point thats been made countless times, that a league/series is easier than a knock-out/one-off format if you're best in the competition, for everyone else the knock out style is easier, becuase its about being the best on the day, not a year. Personally, I think the World Chapion should be the best in the world that year.

 

Muller in 83, well he was outstanding that day, and yes he was a quality rider. But -would he have won if the final was outside Germany? Highly unlikely. Would he have won a GP series - no way. Nielsen, Gundersen, Lee, Sigalos, Sanders, Carter, Morton - at leats 7 riders who would have finished ahread of hime that year and had a better claim to being best rider in the world.

 

Loram is probably a valid point, though bthe GP series at that stage was run under the knovck out system, I believe an inferior system to the current one. You could say Hamill issed out on the world final due to 4 bad rides, though conversely you could say he had 2 shocking meetings out of 6 (1 in 3 meetings performin badly) and hence didn't seserve to win?

 

Nicki Pedersen is an interesting one - he's won as many individual world titles as Olsen and Gundersen, but is never considered when "who was the greatest Dane" is debated. In fact, some rate him behing his name sake Jan O. Even more interesting when you consider that under a GP system, most reckon Olsen and gundersen would haave won only a couple of titles each.

 

Anyway - so are you saying he fluked it each of those three seasons? On what basis was he not the best rider, and why did Crump/Gollob not finish ahead of him?

2003: beat Crump by 8 points cam edown to last meeting of the season, so very close. Gollob 6th. So maybe he wasn't best in the world, what is your argument for Crump?

2007: Won by a mile. Crump 3rd, Gollob 6th. He scored as many points in the first 7 meetings as Crump managed all series. Got lucky? Also topped the Elite league averages, won the ELRC., outscored Crump in the World Cup final. Personally, I'd say he was indisputaby best in the world, what is your counter-argument?

2008: won by 22 points, with crump 2nd and Gollob 3rd. Topped the ekstraliga averages. Outscored by Gollob in the Wc final, but outscored Crump. Not as clearcut as the previous year, but I think again he was best in the world. Why don't you think so?

 

anyway, no one claims the GP winner is best in the world every single time as no system could guarantee this - but most of the time they do, which is the point.

[stratton]

no ones disputing that Rembas rode well on the day, and if he'd finished thrid he would have deserved thris, no question.

However - if he had finished third, would that mean that he was the third best rider in the world that year? No, that day yes, but the year, no way. And if their had been an equally difficult qualifying route for all riders, would he have even made the final?

 

Re: wimbledon/Sunderland - yes, on the day they were the best, but same point, were they the best teams that year? no chance.

Not sure why you think this proves the series is easier to win? Wimbledon were nowhere near the best team in the premiership, but won the fa cup - so doesn't that show that a knock out is easier to win? Goes back to the point thats been made countless times, that a league/series is easier than a knock-out/one-off format if you're best in the competition, for everyone else the knock out style is easier, becuase its about being the best on the day, not a year. Personally, I think the World Chapion should be the best in the world that year.

 

Muller in 83, well he was outstanding that day, and yes he was a quality rider. But -would he have won if the final was outside Germany? Highly unlikely. Would he have won a GP series - no way. Nielsen, Gundersen, Lee, Sigalos, Sanders, Carter, Morton - at leats 7 riders who would have finished ahread of hime that year and had a better claim to being best rider in the world.

 

Loram is probably a valid point, though bthe GP series at that stage was run under the knovck out system, I believe an inferior system to the current one. You could say Hamill issed out on the world final due to 4 bad rides, though conversely you could say he had 2 shocking meetings out of 6 (1 in 3 meetings performin badly) and hence didn't seserve to win?

 

Nicki Pedersen is an interesting one - he's won as many individual world titles as Olsen and Gundersen, but is never considered when "who was the greatest Dane" is debated. In fact, some rate him behing his name sake Jan O. Even more interesting when you consider that under a GP system, most reckon Olsen and gundersen would haave won only a couple of titles each.

 

Anyway - so are you saying he fluked it each of those three seasons? On what basis was he not the best rider, and why did Crump/Gollob not finish ahead of him?

2003: beat Crump by 8 points cam edown to last meeting of the season, so very close. Gollob 6th. So maybe he wasn't best in the world, what is your argument for Crump?

2007: Won by a mile. Crump 3rd, Gollob 6th. He scored as many points in the first 7 meetings as Crump managed all series. Got lucky? Also topped the Elite league averages, won the ELRC., outscored Crump in the World Cup final. Personally, I'd say he was indisputaby best in the world, what is your counter-argument?

2008: won by 22 points, with crump 2nd and Gollob 3rd. Topped the ekstraliga averages. Outscored by Gollob in the Wc final, but outscored Crump. Not as clearcut as the previous year, but I think again he was best in the world. Why don't you think so?

 

anyway, no one claims the GP winner is best in the world every single time as no system could guarantee this - but most of the time they do, which is the point.

Pedersen you are right ,i dont think he is in Olsen,s league i dont sometimes think he is control and lets be honest he is a DIRTY rider at times push the limits alot.In the modern day Rickardsson Crump Gollob Hancock Adams for me personally are better riders my opinion only.Your take i think on the series is that the best rider should win over 11 rounds dont get me wrong Pedersen can be proud of his career.

[waiheke1]

sidney, you didn't answer the question. On what basis do you not believe Pedersen was the best rider in the world in 2007/8? (I'm not saying he's a better rider than Crump, but I do believe he was in those years).

 

(PS. if you're replying directly below a large quote, no need to quote the whole thing)

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Oldace proves the one off is a different quality ,pressure was immense more so than now.Rembas rode well wasnt a fluke ok the Jessup ef helped but i am convinced the series is easier.Were Wimbledon better than Liverpool? were Sunderland better than Leeds?was Douglas better than Tyson yes they were on the day.

 

Whilst agreeing completely with the sentiments about the potential for giant-killing, do have to point out that Wimbledon's victory in the 1988 FA Cup Final being flagged up as the media do all the time, as one of the biggest shocks in FA Cup Final history is something of a myth... Sure, Liverpool had a superb side then and they'd walked the League but Wimbledon were NOT the minnows they are now depicted as. The Crazy Gang finished in SEVENTH position in the top division (one place lower than they had the year before). A team 7th. in the top division beating the champions in the FA Cup Final was hardly astonishing - why in 1977, another year when Liverpool were denied the Double (actually denied the Treble!) in an FA Cup Final defeat, their conquerors Man United had finished sixth!! Never hear that one being described as one of the biggest shocks ever! And around that whole ten or so years period, Southampton and West Ham (like Sunderland before them) both won the Cup as Second Division teams...!

 

Talking of the Happy Hammers, they could've lent their famous song to the Liverpool of that era , "I'm Forever Blowing Doubles"!!

[stratton]

sidney, you didn't answer the question. On what basis do you not believe Pedersen was the best rider in the world in 2007/8? (I'm not saying he's a better rider than Crump, but I do believe he was in those years).

 

(PS. if you're replying directly below a large quote, no need to quote the whole thing)

No i believe Pedersen was over zealous got away with alot of major incidents over the years.Riders ive seen Sigalos Carter Sanders both Morans havent got the tea shirt as such were better riders in my opinion.He to me is a example where the best rider has not one the series and over the years he has been lucky with major decisions.He still does it now will always do it it is in his make up.Remember seing Adams v Crump at the abbey think Leigh won 2.1 but you could see total trust in each other no sticking each other that for me is why i am not a lover of Pedersen.

 

Whilst agreeing completely with the sentiments about the potential for giant-killing, do have to point out that Wimbledon's victory in the 1988 FA Cup Final being flagged up as the media do all the time, as one of the biggest shocks in FA Cup Final history is something of a myth... Sure, Liverpool had a superb side then and they'd walked the League but Wimbledon were NOT the minnows they are now depicted as. The Crazy Gang finished in SEVENTH position in the top division (one place lower than they had the year before). A team 7th. in the top division beating the champions in the FA Cup Final was hardly astonishing - why in 1977, another year when Liverpool were denied the Double (actually denied the Treble!) in an FA Cup Final defeat, their conquerors Man United had finished sixth!! Never hear that one being described as one of the biggest shocks ever! And around that whole ten or so years period, Southampton and West Ham (like Sunderland before them) both won the Cup as Second Division teams...!

 

Talking of the Happy Hammers, they could've lent their famous song to the Liverpool of that era , "I'm Forever Blowing Doubles"!!

Correct that side was a good un ,they did create some good players over the years Beasant Winterburn Holdsworth Wise to name a few.If those teams had of met 10 times i recon Liverpool would of won 7 a couple of draws maybe the gang would of won 1.But they had a game plan and stuck to it it wasnt a fluke on the day thats why all sport is great.

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Re: wimbledon/Sunderland - yes, on the day they were the best, but same point, were they the best teams that year? no chance.

Not sure why you think this proves the series is easier to win? Wimbledon were nowhere near the best team in the premiership, but won the fa cup - so doesn't that show that a knock out is easier to win? Goes back to the point thats been made countless times, that a league/series is easier than a knock-out/one-off format if you're best in the competition, for everyone else the knock out style is easier, becuase its about being the best on the day, not a year.

 

I take your point. In sport there's always been a difference of this type between a 'league' style competition and a knock out one. As a matter of interest, where do you stand on the play-offs used now to decide the Elite League?

Ironically the major Speedway team competition which always used to be decided as a league championship is now decided in the form of a late season knock-out final. Whilst for the major individual championship it's been a change of the complete opposite!!

Though tbf, the knock out competitions you refer to like the FA Cup and the old style World Speedway Championship are/were not just one day - to win the FA Cup you do have to win at least seven games and to get to a WF you had to get through a number of qualifiers...

[BigFatDave]

Now, now... I know you're being very vocal here and making all sorts of utterly bizarre claims but you CAN'T be getting away with this one!

You are perfectly entitled to your view but twisting reality and frankly trying to rewrite history doesn't exactly strengthen your case I'd have to say!

Careful, Parsloes, or your retinue of 'followers/admirers - NOT!' will jump on you like a ton of horsefeathers, doubtless winding up and blazing away at you as if your backside was on fire. Remember, Pot, Kettle etc!

[waiheke1]

I take your point. In sport there's always been a difference of this type between a 'league' style competition and a knock out one. As a matter of interest, where do you stand on the play-offs used now to decide the Elite League?

Ironically the major Speedway team competition which always used to be decided as a league championship is now decided in the form of a late season knock-out final. Whilst for the major individual championship it's been a change of the complete opposite!!

Though tbf, the knock out competitions you refer to like the FA Cup and the old style World Speedway Championship are/were not just one day - to win the FA Cup you do have to win at least seven games and to get to a WF you had to get through a number of qualifiers...

In principle I'm opposed to the play-offs, but understand the commercial neccesity.

And yes, I fully acknowledge that to win the FA cup/old World Championship, it is an achievement in itself reaching the final.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

Hampel with two rounds to spare this year!!

[waiheke1]

No i believe Pedersen was over zealous got away with alot of major incidents over the years.Riders ive seen Sigalos Carter Sanders both Morans havent got the tea shirt as such were better riders in my opinion.He to me is a example where the best rider has not one the series and over the years he has been lucky with major decisions.He still does it now will always do it it is in his make up.Remember seing Adams v Crump at the abbey think Leigh won 2.1 but you could see total trust in each other no sticking each other that for me is why i am not a lover of Pedersen.

 

Sydney: stop avoiding the question:

In your opinion, who was the best rider in the world in 2007/8, why didn't they win the GP, and what is your reasoning for why they were better than Pedersen in those years.

To be honest, Pedersen must have got away with an awful lot of major incidents in 2007 if that's the only reason you think he won the GP by 70 points and topped the averages!

[g13webb]

The experience riders of Hancock, Crump and Gollob will always be in the mix. and of those three, Hancock to be the most promenant. Herbie is blessed with that uncanny knack of gating when it matters, and because of that he will be a thorn in everyones ambitions.

 

Hampel is my choice of top honours. I believe this is the year that he will become World champion after living in the shadow of Gollob in recent years.

Only a fool would dismiss AJ, he's always on the pace and capable of winning any race.

 

The younger riders are always a force to be reckon with. Of those, I reckon Sayfutdinov and Holder will make the most inroads, into the differences that separate them from the top.

 

Top 5 prediction. 1, Hampel; 2, AJ; 3 Hancock; 4 Sayfutdinov and 5 Crump.

Edited February 14, 2012 by GRW123