Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

PL Fours, Peterborough, 15/07


Recommended Posts

Why should the lineup be diluted by replacing a stronger team with a weaker one? Defending champions - don't think they've ever been seeded through automatically, probably as the teams can change considerably each year. I'd rather watch the best four's of the current season.

 

A wild idea - on the day of the fours, seed one team through to the SF based upon the averages. For rest, make 3 groups of 4 teams - 4 riders each. Give each rider a single race. The top two teams of each group advance to the SF, along with the third placed team out of all the groups. This way you can add a quick qualifying round to the meeting so that every team has a chance to win it.

 

On the other hand the extra races would add costs to the meeting, and would any more supporters turn up?

Edited by DiamondsRock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should the lineup be diluted by replacing a stronger team with a weaker one? Defending champions - don't think they've ever been seeded through automatically, probably as the teams can change considerably each year. I'd rather watch the best four's of the current season.......

 

No, but the hosts have been seeded through in the past, ie Leicester last season. So in that respect it hasn't always been the "best" teams racing in the finals.

 

And if you do want to see the "best", then surely qualification should be based on the combined averages of the top five riders in each team, as each team in the final consists of five, not four riders.

 

No hint of dilution there!!!!!

Edited by Mr Snackette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but the hosts have been seeded through in the past, ie Leicester last season. So in that respect it hasn't always been the "best" teams racing in the finals.

 

I don't agree with that either, but can see why it's done. How many of the home crowd would turn up if their own team wasn't in it? All about the money!!

 

And if you do want to see the "best", then surely qualification should be based on the combined averages of the top five riders in each team, as each team in the final consists of five, not four riders.

 

No, I'd stick with top four - the reserve doesn't have any programmed rides, and may not ride at all in the meeting.

 

On a side note, does anyone know if they used 2012 season averages or 2011/12 rolling averages for qualification?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

............No, I'd stick with top four - the reserve doesn't have any programmed rides, and may not ride at all in the meeting......

 

Clearly you weren't at the Finals last season, where the reserves took 15 rides and scored 22 points between them!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 teams in the league. 3x4=12. Which team will miss out in the qualifying rounds?

 

2 groups of 4, and a group of 5 (with one team missing a round each), worked well enough a few years ago.

 

Group winners and best runner-up qualify for the Four Team Final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 teams in the league. 3x4=12. Which team will miss out in the qualifying rounds?

 

No team needs to miss out, even with 13 teams.

 

Each promotion would run a qualifer at home, which means that each team would race four qualifying meetings...one at home and three away.

 

The team winning the meeting would get 3 points, second 2 points, and 1 point for finshing 3rd. Collated into a league table, with the top eight (although personally I prefer four) qualifying for finals day.

 

The real problem which has already been highlighted in the cost of putting these meetings on. However the real challenge would be for promoters to do something that most of them have forgotten......to go out and PROMOTE!!!!

Edited by Mr Snackette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you weren't at the Finals last season, where the reserves took 15 rides and scored 22 points between them!!!!!!

 

Clearly you've forgot that the format of the final last year was considerably different to the standard 12 heat final, because it was re-staged with added heats due to the rain off :P

 

In previous season's (06-'10) the amount of reserve rides in the final were: 1, 2, 0, 1, 3 - so I'd suggest that including the reserve's average in the calculation isn't too important as they're rarely used. (Assuming that we're not having a 20 heat final regardless of the weather this year!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Clearly you've forgot that the format of the final last year was considerably different to the standard 12 heat final, because it was re-staged with added heats due to the rain off :P

 

In previous season's (06-'10) the amount of reserve rides in the final were: 1, 2, 0, 1, 3 - so I'd suggest that including the reserve's average in the calculation isn't too important as they're rarely used. (Assuming that we're not having a 20 heat final regardless of the weather this year!!)

After all it is the 4's and not the 5's:)

 

 

However the real challenge would be for promoters to do something that most of them have forgotten......to go out and PROMOTE!!!!

Spot on mista.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain or know the criteria for this competition as it's been announced that the defending champions , Ipswich are not included this year !

 

Is this random , another strange authorititive decision or just plain stupidity !

 

Please advise if you have any ideas .

 

While the BSPA continue with this barmy way of selecting the PL Fours field there will always be clubs that are done to and by the looks of things its Ipswich this year.

The Fours is always a great day out,IMO all the teams should be giving a fair chance of getting.

 

Happened to the Isle of Wight in 2008 so Ipswich are not the first.

 

Happened to Berwick after their 4s win at Coventry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all it is the 4's and not the 5's.........

 

Yes, but it's a four team meeting, consisting of four teams of five riders. hence the PL 4s. In the same way the old Craven Shield was three team meeting consisting of three teams of six riders each.

 

Clearly you've forgot that the format of the final last year was considerably different to the standard 12 heat final, because it was re-staged with added heats due to the rain off.

 

In previous season's (06-'10) the amount of reserve rides in the final were: 1, 2, 0, 1, 3 - so I'd suggest that including the reserve's average in the calculation isn't too important as they're rarely used. (Assuming that we're not having a 20 heat final regardless of the weather this year!!)

 

I accept last season was different, but none the less the reserves, as you have illustrated, do take rides, and therefore it does seem a little incongruous that their averages are ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, does anyone know if they used 2012 season averages or 2011/12 rolling averages for qualification?

Rolling averages were used, which kind of makes a mockery of anyone talking about wanting to see the best 8 teams, as the teams who have qualified are not the ones who would have made it in on current form ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No team needs to miss out, even with 13 teams.

 

Each promotion would run a qualifer at home, which means that each team would race four qualifying meetings...one at home and three away.

 

The team winning the meeting would get 3 points, second 2 points, and 1 point for finshing 3rd. Collated into a league table, with the top eight (although personally I prefer four) qualifying for finals day.

 

The real problem which has already been highlighted in the cost of putting these meetings on. However the real challenge would be for promoters to do something that most of them have forgotten......to go out and PROMOTE!!!!

Are you an Ipswich fan by any chance??People have been on here time and time again to find a solution to what teams qualify however nothing seems to change.Get in touch with the BSPA about it if you feel that strongly about it and put your suggestions forward to them. Otherwise accept it and move on, like so many other fans have had to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you an Ipswich fan by any chance??People have been on here time and time again to find a solution to what teams qualify however nothing seems to change.Get in touch with the BSPA about it if you feel that strongly about it and put your suggestions forward to them. Otherwise accept it and move on, like so many other fans have had to.

 

Blimey, it now appears wrong, to make comment about speedway matters on a speedway forum. And woe-betide anyone who makes any suggestions on this Forum, without having first run it passed the BSPA.

 

And what makes you think I haven't accepted it? Indeed I raised it elsewhere weeks ago, but as this is a SPEEDWAY FORUM, I thought it may have engaged some discussion, which I think it has.

 

Clearly this is not of interest to you, so may I respectively suggest that you MOVE ON, perhaps to a thread that more accurately reflects the issues which you find important!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you an Ipswich fan by any chance??People have been on here time and time again to find a solution to what teams qualify however nothing seems to change.Get in touch with the BSPA about it if you feel that strongly about it and put your suggestions forward to them. Otherwise accept it and move on, like so many other fans have had to.

 

How can it be right where theres an unbalance,every PL team deserves the right to have a go a qualifying for the 4s,had Ipswich or any other team for that matter gone through the qualifying meetings and not scored sufficient points then theres no arguement,alls fair,but not with this system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if i were a promoter i am sure i would be over the moon to have a 4's qualifying round with newcastle, edinburgh, glasgow as in the good old days these meetings generated big crowds and much needed income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every team does have a chance to qualify. :rolleyes:

 

If it were based on 2012 averages, you may have (although not much of) a case. Based on RAs it makes it virtually impossible for some teams to qualify, given that in some cases qualification relates to performances achieved by riders in 2010!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were based on 2012 averages, you may have (although not much of) a case. Based on RAs it makes it virtually impossible for some teams to qualify, given that in some cases qualification relates to performances achieved by riders in 2010!!!

I expected somebody to please wjm and bite at his post , i didn't expect it to be you Snackette . :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were based on 2012 averages, you may have (although not much of) a case. Based on RAs it makes it virtually impossible for some teams to qualify, given that in some cases qualification relates to performances achieved by riders in 2010!!!

 

And….., it’s the same criteria for every club, every year this crap gets spouted about the qualifying for the fours.

 

 

It is pretty tiresome, some teams make it, some don’t.

 

I expected somebody to please wjm and bite at his post , i didn't expect it to be you Snackette . :shock:

 

Aye because that’s what it is, if people don’t go with the same party line they must be fishing. :rolleyes:

Edited by wjm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy