2ndbendbeerhut Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Clubs will pick in reverse order from their finishing position in 2014, meaning Leicester have first pick in round one with Poole picking eighth. Swindon will pick fifth. As things stand, Poole will pick first in the second round with clubs then picking in order following their finishing positons last season. This will see Swindon picking fourth. So Poole will get possibly best round one pick in Newman, but then get 1st round pick in 2nd round as they finished 1st! Edited November 20, 2014 by 2ndbendbeerhut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) It seems ridiculous that a club can protect a rider who rode for them last year unless he is an asset of another EL club. The idea of the draft is that it gives clubs finishing in the bottom half of the league the benefit of having first picks. Fair enough that a club can protect one of their assets but why should a club who had an early pick in 2013 now be entitled to still gain from that benefit at the expense of clubs who finished below them this year. Edited November 20, 2014 by Aces51 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 It seems ridiculous that a club can protect a rider who rode for them last year unless he is an asset of another EL club. The idea of the draft is that it gives clubs finishing in the bottom half of the league the benefit of having first picks. Fair enough that a club can protect one of their assets but why should a club who had an early pick in 2013 now be entitled to still gain from that benefit at the expense of clubs who finished below them this year. I'm in two minds about this. It allows riders/club to stay together and keep familiarity - one of the complaints often made no this forum is the merry-go-round of riders. But equally, I didn't expect it to be this way, I assumed we'd lost Garrity, the fact I through this would be the case suggests it what I considered most fair. I do think that the first round riders should all be ranked, and the 2nd round should be picked in reverse order of your first round riders ranking. It seems totally unfair Poole seem to get to have 1st pick in both rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Pointless promotions picking riders who don't want to ride for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 http://www.swindonlinksport.com/swindon_sports_news/howitworksthedraft Carl Wilkinson FFS! They might as well pick Boocock, Boothroyd and Younghusband. Pointless promotions picking riders who don't want to ride for them! On the other hand, if you enter the draft you are declaring your availability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Carl Wilkinson FFS! They might as well pick Boocock, Boothroyd and Younghusband. Hes only there to guest. I guess you would prefer the situation that occurred last year where Coventry had to go with a blank rather than have a few older riders in to fill the gaps when needed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndbendbeerhut Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 I do think that the first round riders should all be ranked, and the 2nd round should be picked in reverse order of your first round riders ranking. It seems totally unfair Poole seem to get to have 1st pick in both rounds. Simple idea which should happen but its speedway so would never even been thought of! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy17 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 If Poole pick Rose we'll have a small war on our hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Hes only there to guest. I guess you would prefer the situation that occurred last year where Coventry had to go with a blank rather than have a few older riders in to fill the gaps when needed? I'd prefer the situation where ALL the riders involved still had improvement potential. Surely that's what it's meant to be about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Question: Can a rider refuse to ride for a specific clubs if he so wished, i.e .he don't like the track, too far to travel etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clambo71 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Everything you need to know about the draft will be posted on Swindon Link Sport tomorrow morning. This website is becoming must see for all speedway fans just not us Swindon fans. Andy Warren doing a top job! Is this the same site that said teams to be restricted to two riders over 7. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 I'd prefer the situation where ALL the riders involved still had improvement potential. Surely that's what it's meant to be about? No, I definitely prefer a situation where every meeting has 7 riders. I'd prefer to watch Carl Wilkinson take possibly half a dozen guest bookings rather than have to see a blank for the likes of Garrity (as happened in 2014) or replaced by some 16 or 17 year old who rolls around at the back off the pace. While the draft is about brining no riders, you also have to accept it's a professional sport so the racing has to be competitive. I seriously doubt you see Wilkinson, teams will use the other regular draft riders as guests at the first opportunity as they're better riders and will score more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Question: Can a rider refuse to ride for a specific clubs if he so wished, i.e .he don't like the track, too far to travel etc.... I think if you accept the draft you have to abide by the draw. No, I definitely prefer a situation where every meeting has 7 riders. I'd prefer to watch Carl Wilkinson take possibly half a dozen guest bookings rather than have to see a blank for the likes of Garrity (as happened in 2014) or replaced by some 16 or 17 year old who rolls around at the back off the pace. While the draft is about brining no riders, you also have to accept it's a professional sport so the racing has to be competitive. I seriously doubt you see Wilkinson, teams will use the other regular draft riders as guests at the first opportunity as they're better riders and will score more. The principle of the thing is to give riders with potential more chances and experiences. What you describe will create opportunities for trickery, eg 'you stop at home sonny and we'll get X rider in for the day,' I know there has already been abuse of that kind but this seems to make it even more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz01 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Is this the same site that said teams to be restricted to two riders over 7. Its also in the Speedway Star this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) I think if you accept the draft you have to abide by the draw. Josh Bates didn't this season. The rider needs to put his PL/NL commitments first IMHO Edited November 20, 2014 by stevebrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clambo71 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Its also in the Speedway Star this week. sorry haven't got my copy yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Josh Bates didn't this season. The rider needs to put his PL/NL commitments first IMHO All the clubs involved did agree to it, they might not have in another case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Is this the same site that said teams to be restricted to two riders over 7. Yes, a very good site, this is probably another one of the rules that were agreed but left out of the press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) I'm in two minds about this. It allows riders/club to stay together and keep familiarity - one of the complaints often made no this forum is the merry-go-round of riders. But equally, I didn't expect it to be this way, I assumed we'd lost Garrity, the fact I through this would be the case suggests it what I considered most fair. I do think that the first round riders should all be ranked, and the 2nd round should be picked in reverse order of your first round riders ranking. It seems totally unfair Poole seem to get to have 1st pick in both rounds. Apart from the unfairness of allowing a club to protect a ftd rider who is not their asset it also will lead to the inevitable collapse of the system. With the better quality riders available this year there is every chance that next year significantly more clubs will want to protect whoever they picked this year. Very quickly, all of the better riders will be protected or assets of an EL club and even the better category B riders will be tied up. We could end up with a farce of a draft where the only riders available to the bottom clubs will be the 8 that no-one thinks worth protecting. I see the argument about continuity and think that should be an aim for the 1-5 riders. For the FTD riders the more compelling argument to assist their development is for them to gain experience of different home tracks, to have the opportunity to see how different promotions operate and to learn from a range of top riders. Edited November 20, 2014 by Aces51 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 The principle of the thing is to give riders with potential more chances and experiences. What you describe will create opportunities for trickery, eg 'you stop at home sonny and we'll get X rider in for the day,' I know there has already been abuse of that kind but this seems to make it even more likely. Riders would have to be genuinely missing as is currently the case. So riding PL or injured. That's not going to change. I'm just pointing out that having Carl Wilkinson as a possible back up for draft reserves is better than having to use Brendon Johnson, Matt Williamson or a blank to replace the likes of Newman, Auty, Garrity and Worrall. Teams have to be competitive, meetings have to interest fans or they won't turn up. If that means Wilkinson gets the odd meeting rather than seeing uncompetitive meetings I'm all for it. I'd be against him being in the draft proper but he's not so no need to worry. Whats worse is the likes of Palovara, Edberg, Fox, Nielsen (Simon), Barrett, Dilger, Benko, Konopka and Covatti have been and could be reserves again in 2015 in the PL, so Carl Wilkinson getting a few meetings in the EL is nothing as 1 it'll be a 1 off (maybe a little more but I bet no more than 6 meetings, I doubt he'll even get 3) and 2 he is British and has raced for over 10 seasons now, possibly 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.