Tactical Rides

[BWitcher]

Well you can't legislate for Agent Watt

[SteveLyric2]

Well you can't legislate for Agent Watt

Actually you CAN usually!!! But not the fact that Bomber 'bombed'!!!

Edited September 3, 2013 by Skidder1

[moxey63]

Was it introduced when there was 13 or 15 heats ?

 

Sorry, my stating heats 13 and 15 in brackets was supposed to give a clue.., even a slight one. It was, therefore, introduced during 15 heats. Had you known anything about speedway, perhaps your question would have been needless. In 1987 13 heats stopped being used and we have had nominated heats ever since, needless in my humble opinion and just increase costs,

 

Anything else I can educate you on?

[BWitcher]

 

 

Sorry, my stating heats 13 and 15 in brackets was supposed to give a clue.., even a slight one. It was, therefore, introduced during 15 heats. Had you known anything about speedway, perhaps your question would have been needless. In 1987 13 heats stopped being used and we have had nominated heats ever since, needless in my humble opinion and just increase costs,

 

Anything else I can educate you on?

 

So you feel that in order to cut costs they should have scrapped the nominated heats and thus reduced the value the paying customer is/was getting even further?

[moxey63]

So you feel that in order to cut costs they should have scrapped the nominated heats and thus reduced the value the paying customer is/was getting even further?

 

 

Depends on what you term value. You can see the same riders in Heats 13 that appear in the nominated race, and so that must thrust god knows how many hundreds onto the track's/team's wage-bill. Surely any extra races could be introduced using lower-order riders who warrant less bucks per point.

 

Maybe that is too simple, especially at a time admission is going up, costs the same, and crowds are dipping, which means the ardent fans are forking out for their loyalty...

[orion]

 

 

Sorry, my stating heats 13 and 15 in brackets was supposed to give a clue.., even a slight one. It was, therefore, introduced during 15 heats. Had you known anything about speedway, perhaps your question would have been needless. In 1987 13 heats stopped being used and we have had nominated heats ever since, needless in my humble opinion and just increase costs,...

 

Anything else I can educate you on?

So as I said seeing that 15 heats were already in place the rule was brought into save money as it has done ..the point about saving money by having two more heats is another debate and has nothing to do with subject we are talking about .

[BWitcher]

 

 

 

Depends on what you term value. You can see the same riders in Heats 13 that appear in the nominated race, and so that must thrust god knows how many hundreds onto the track's/team's wage-bill. Surely any extra races could be introduced using lower-order riders who warrant less bucks per point.

 

Maybe that is too simple, especially at a time admission is going up, costs the same, and crowds are dipping, which means the ardent fans are forking out for their loyalty...

 

So you want to lower the quality even further. We've seen the success of that business model over the last 5 or 6 years in the Elite League.

[noggin]

I think most fans hate the Tactical ride, and even more so in a two legged match where aggregate scores decide winner, dump T/R for play offs.

[uk_martin]

I think most fans hate the Tactical ride, and even more so in a two legged match where aggregate scores decide winner, dump T/R for play offs.

 

Not if the alternative when you are 12 points behind after 5 heats at Trick Track Central and the only other thought in your head is "shall we make an early start on our journey home"

 

As for dumping the TR in play-off's, shall we also dump home track advantages and have all the meetings at neutral venues? Dumping the TR's will play right into the hands of the teams with the biggest home track advantages.

[noggin]

Not if the alternative when you are 12 points behind after 5 heats at Trick Track Central and the only other thought in your head is "shall we make an early start on our journey home"

 

As for dumping the TR in play-off's, shall we also dump home track advantages and have all the meetings at neutral venues? Dumping the TR's will play right into the hands of the teams with the biggest home track advantages.

 

So its fair one team gets to use them, and one doesn't is it?

[BWitcher]

Yes it is fair. The rules are the same for all teams (most of the time ).

 

Of course you might prefer to watch more meetings like Poole V Lakeside, which tactical riders and the league scoring system go a long way towards preventing happening on a more frequent basis.

[hrhbig]

Yes it is fair. The rules are the same for all teams (most of the time ).

 

Of course you might prefer to watch more meetings like Poole V Lakeside, which tactical riders and the league scoring system go a long way towards preventing happening on a more frequent basis.

Or Ipswich v Plymouth,... do away with double points, not T/S

[uk_martin]

So its fair one team gets to use them, and one doesn't is it?

 

Is it fair that teams like Eastbourne and Lakeside (both play-off contenders in recent years) have big home track advantages and others like Birmingham have tracks that are fair to all? The principle applies just as well to the PL where Edinburgh have a big home track advantage and Somerset have a fair track.

 

Life just ain't fair sometimes. Live with it.

[BWitcher]

Or Ipswich v Plymouth,... do away with double points, not T/S

 

So you prefer a more unfair system?

 

 

 

Is it fair that teams like Eastbourne and Lakeside (both play-off contenders in recent years) have big home track advantages and others like Birmingham have tracks that are fair to all? The principle applies just as well to the PL where Edinburgh have a big home track advantage and Somerset have a fair track.

 

Life just ain't fair sometimes. Live with it.

 

Its amusing, we get this every time. Complaints of the current system being unfair and how we should revert back to the old way of doing it which was a hell of a lot more unfair.

[waiheke1]

Wasn't Simon Wigg behind the original idea?

My he was precocious wasn't he - was he at infant school or still a tinkle in his dad's eye when tactical riders were first intorduced?

 

I think most fans hate the Tactical ride, and even more so in a two legged match where aggregate scores decide winner, dump T/R for play offs.

Can't say I hate them or dislike them even - they are just one of those quirks that every sport has.

I prefer the old tac sub, I realise it gave more an advnatge to the trailing team, but it used to mean getting to see the oppositions top rider more often (when at home) and your own stars more often away . Bring back that I say, but make it 8 point arrears not the six it was.

[noggin]

Perhaps we should just have the T/S replace a rider for 3 pts from gate or 6 from the 15m handicap.

[BWitcher]

In principle its a good idea as it makes riders work and earn the extra points. Sadly some riders used to refuse to take the ride, citing it as 'dangerous'.

 

It certainly never bothered Peter Karlsson

[noggin]

No more dangerous than totally missing gate, your still in 4th, until you can pass, but atleat you'll get rewarded.

[Lewis]

I'm not a fan & really dont see the point in the home team being able to use them, they already have home track advantage.

[BWitcher]

No more dangerous than totally missing gate, your still in 4th, until you can pass, but atleat you'll get rewarded.

 

I don't disagree with you, indeed I would have thought it was safer as most speedway crashes are in the first turn when 4 riders hit the bend together.

 

Fact remains though, some riders wouldn't take them. Jason Crump to name one.