Elite League Draft Riders

[foamfence]

Simon Lambert, Lee Smart, , Ben Hopwood

 

Belle Vue - Garrity, Halsey

Birmingham - Perry, Greenwood

Coventry - Jacobs, Sarjeant

Eastbourne - Nielsen, Worrall

Kings Lynn - Kerr, Rose

Lakeside - Ellis, Bates

Leicester - Blackbird, Halsey

Poole - Newman, Morley

Swindon - Starke, Ritchings

Wolverhampton - Morris, Clegg

 

my prediction

I think Worrall might go a bit further north. Good list though, It'll be interesting to see how many are right.

[John Leslie]

No they won't, and you know that. It's already been said their location would be taken into consideration when being allocated.

That seems to be out of the window now.

 

Seems a straight draft pick (barring the 4 protected assets). So Coventry with first pick could nick Garrity from Belle Vue's doorstep, or drag Ben Morley up from Essex

[foamfence]

So the BSPA list has 23 riders and no Robert Lambert.

No Branford either.

[BWitcher]

Why would Coventry who get to pick first pick someone so low? They HAVE to pick Garrity or the promotion will be showing they have no ambition.

It depends, a lower pick in the first round means a higher pick in the 2nd.

 

So its a case of weighing up whether you think the 5th and the 16th rider combination is better then the 10th and 11th for example..

 

I've not looked in detail at the list so don't know what combination would work best.

Edited November 29, 2013 by BWitcher

[g13webb]

No they won't, and you know that. It's already been said their location would be taken into consideration when being allocated.

 

Are you getting mixed up with the words, Allocated and Selected. two totally different meanings. I've read on the forum that the teams are Selecting their choice of rider in a said order, Now you say the riders are being allocated. ?????? Can't have it both ways......

[John Leslie]

Simon Lambert, Lee Smart, , Ben Hopwood

 

Belle Vue - Garrity, Halsey

Birmingham - Perry, Greenwood

Coventry - Jacobs, Sarjeant

Eastbourne - Nielsen, Worrall

Kings Lynn - Kerr, Rose

Lakeside - Ellis, Bates

Leicester - Blackbird, Halsey

Poole - Newman, Morley

Swindon - Starke, Ritchings

Wolverhampton - Morris, Clegg

 

my prediction

 

 

You've made Halsey a busy boy.

And Worrall from Lancashire to Eastbourne?

[iand]

Simon Lambert, Lee Smart, , Ben Hopwood

 

Belle Vue - Garrity, Halsey

Birmingham - Perry, Greenwood

Coventry - Jacobs, Sarjeant

Eastbourne - Nielsen, Worrall

Kings Lynn - Kerr, Rose

Lakeside - Ellis, Bates

Leicester - Blackbird, Halsey

Poole - Newman, Morley

Swindon - Starke, Ritchings

Wolverhampton - Morris, Clegg

 

my prediction

 

Halsey going to busy riding for Belle Vue and Leicester.

Ben Reade the one missed.

[SCB]

It depends, a lower pick in the first round means a higher pick in the 2nd.

 

So its a case of weighing up whether you think the 5th and the 16th rider combination is better then the 10th and 11th for example..

 

I've not looked in detail at the list so don't know what combination would work best.

You'd have to be barking mad not to want Garrity, a rider who would have got 5 in the EL last season had he been riding in it. with 2 protected rides then 2 rides against the reserves a second strings, plus one of the other guys easy rides he will score 10-11 a meeting even if the other guy scores 0. Or you would have two guys who score 3 or 4. ALWAYS, ALWAYS go with one good reserve and one not so good over two average. It gives you options for reserve changes.

[1 valve]

What a load of rubbish. Never have I read such complicated crap in my life as this, and you wonder why the sport is in permanent decline. The clubs who have helped these young riders into the sport, should be given preference, and not governed by what positioned they finished in last years bias, league format. Surely these riders should have some input into where they want to ride, hasn't anybody thought about that??

There's been some ridiculous ideas from the BSPA in the past but this one takes the biscuit.

Its quite a good idea and worth a try. As clubs have to pay travel expensese they may decide not to pull a rider based in the north to ride his regular track in the south and viceversa. Of course the riders have a say in this matter either by not accepting inclusion or even refusing to ride for the club. But lets face it, any opportunity to ride in the top flight is agod one and as for travel, surely good preperation for the future when they have to travel to Poland & Sweden

[500cc]

Looks like there is a good chance that Birmingham will pick their Number Seven before their Number Six then.

 

If their choice of Number Seven is below anybody picked to date the pick him with their tenth pick so they have first choice in Round 2 and get their Number Six.

 

In those circumstances it ensures they get their two riders. If they Pick Number 6 first and he's not lowest ranked so far, they may miss out on their preferred Number 7.

 

Whatever, it makes Birmingham's pick the ultimate poker play

[Tsunami]

That seems to be out of the window now.

 

Seems a straight draft pick (barring the 4 protected assets). So Coventry with first pick could nick Garrity from Belle Vue's doorstep, or drag Ben Morley up from Essex

It will always be a consideration otherwise for it all to work. No promoter in the North is going to go for as rider living say in Eastbourne.

[pointsmeanplayoffs]

It does appear (for the non-EL assets Kerr, Newman, Ellis and Morris), that any consideration given to a rider's location when making selections will be discretionary. The statement reads quite clearly that selections will based upon a riders rankings and a clubs seeding.

 

Such ambiguity, as we all know, is why our sport is where it is.

 

Now one of the brightest young talents our country has seen a while has pulled out of the 'fast-track' scheme.

[Tsunami]

 

Are you getting mixed up with the words, Allocated and Selected. two totally different meanings. I've read on the forum that the teams are Selecting their choice of rider in a said order, Now you say the riders are being allocated. ?????? Can't have it both ways......

Splitting hairs one thinks. When this system was first announced it stated the riders would be allocated, which is what I said.

[500cc]

It will always be a consideration otherwise for it all to work. No promoter in the North is going to go for as rider living say in Eastbourne.

But won't this create further inequality. Four teams already are comfortably placed. If the remaining six teams are restricted even further then it won't work.

 

And if Coventry pass on Garrity (unlikely), is he prepared to ride at BV after the apparent falling out? How many riders may be unavailable to BV?

 

I suspect the riders agreement requires them to ride where selected. If not we have a real can of worms.

 

Anyway Eastbourne is a lot closer than Poland and that has never worried the promoters !!!

[ouch]

If you look at the club most affected, then you'll work out why the location based scenario has been dropped but the protected asset idea kept.

Something's never change.

[Tsunami]

But won't this create further inequality. Four teams already are comfortably placed. If the remaining six teams are restricted even further then it won't work.

 

And if Coventry pass on Garrity (unlikely), is he prepared to ride at BV after the apparent falling out? How many riders may be unavailable to BV?

 

I suspect the riders agreement requires them to ride where selected. If not we have a real can of worms.

 

Anyway Eastbourne is a lot closer than Poland and that has never worried the promoters !!!

Nope. A rider will go to a track he is happy to go to, and not to a track he was allocated to, or selected by a promotion. The whole idea is to appease riders to move, and to give everyone a fair chance. There will always be inequality, if you are looking for it.

[BWitcher]

You'd have to be barking mad not to want Garrity, a rider who would have got 5 in the EL last season had he been riding in it. with 2 protected rides then 2 rides against the reserves a second strings, plus one of the other guys easy rides he will score 10-11 a meeting even if the other guy scores 0. Or you would have two guys who score 3 or 4. ALWAYS, ALWAYS go with one good reserve and one not so good over two average. It gives you options for reserve changes.

Not disputing it, as I said, not looked at the indivdual riders involved in any detail.

 

In these cases its always a case of working out where the biggest drop off is and basing your picks on that.

Nope. A rider will go to a track he is happy to go to, and not to a track he was allocated to, or selected by a promotion. The whole idea is to appease riders to move, and to give everyone a fair chance. There will always be inequality, if you are looking for it.

Then the system would very quickly fall on its head.

 

As others have said, by agreeing to take part in the draft, the riders must be in agreement that they join the team that selects them.

[John Leslie]

No promoter in the North is going to go for as rider living say in Eastbourne.

I think that thinking is a little naive.

 

If there was an out-and-out future superstar in the draft,and Poole had first pick, do you really think they would ignore him just because he lived in,say, Sheffield?

[Jacques]

http://www.coventrybees.co/news.php?extend.2525

[SteveLyric2]

I really don't understand why people don't check the official statements first, before making their comments/assumptions!!!??