More On The Decline Of British Speedway

[pandorum]

 

Why is it 'Mickey Mouse' ? A lot of people say that without actually giving defining reasons.

 

It's Mickey Mouse because in most cases it does not serve it's purpose.

The old tac sub rule (which is used in all the important leagues) allows a team to hit back once 6 points down.

 

The UK rule is dependant on luck as a team may not have anyone to utilise straight away once 10 points down as it may be several heats before an opportunity arises and as such may fall further behind.

They may have to waste it on someone who is having a poor night or lose the opportunity.

The UK rule helps the better teams with three 'heat leaders' who could throw a Ward or Holder in but is very little help to the poorer teams who may only have one top rider.

 

It's basically a lottery and a complete oxymoron as it allows for virtually no tactics.

 

The old rule allows for team tactics and sacrifices to allow a better option for the heat after going 6 points down.

 

A tactical rule has indeed been around in speedway for a while with the express purpose of allowing close scores.

One rule allows a team to take advantage of this and the other doesn't.

It's not as if speedway is trying to land a probe on a comet. It's simplicity itself.

[The White Knight]

 

Why is it 'Mickey Mouse' ? A lot of people say that without actually giving defining reasons.

 

I could argue that it is there - and has been in one form or another for 50 years or so - for the very specific purpose of keeping the scores closer and hence attempting to ensure that meetings are kept alive and made more exciting. On many occasions, its achieved precisely that when the alternative would have been a one sided contest which would have had fans streaming for the exits about heat 12.

 

Its unique to speedway simply because of the vast difference in tracks sizes and surfaces. As I have said before, if Chelsea's pitch was three times as big as Arsenal's, had goals that were triangular and grass two foot long there would be something similar in football.

 

As I have also said before, if we are talking Mickey Mouse how about having a rule in speedway where certain riders are only allowed on certain parts of the track and that is dependent upon the position of the other teams riders. Stupid ? Its called offside.

 

My point is not to denigrate football, but to point out that any comparison is so ridiculous as to be invalid.

 

There is a sound reason based upon logic why tactical changes and double points apply to speedway.

 

I won't say its unfair - it applies to all clubs in most meetings - but of course I can see that it is contrived to keep scores close. The point is there are grounds for that.

 

It only damages the sports credibility if a comparison is made to other sports without regard of the unique circumstances of speedway and any consideration of whether its application is both necessary and correct should be made on that basis alone. Just because no-one else has it doesn't mean its wrong.

 

But my real point is here is that I do not see how one rule can have such consequences that people will walk away. Does it ruin the sheer enjoyment of watching four blokes on bikes without brakes so much when in actual fact it doesn't affect that at all (and if it does, it merely makes a race more exciting) ?

 

My suspicion is that people who rail against it have seen their team lose as a result of its use, or alternatively have come in from another sport and can't - or won't - accept why speedway has it.

Well I can tell you that I have walked away.

 

The main reason being the Tactical Ride. It does not spoil the Races, I will give you that - but it sure as hell ruins the parts in between Races when I get angrier and angrier. The whole argument behind the Tactical Ride and the Tactical Substitute Ride is to CHEAT people (paying Customers) out of a TRUE Result. You can argue about that until you are blue in the face - but - that is a fact.

 

The other reason, though it does not stop me attending, is the 'Play Offs' - again CHEATING the League Champions out of the League Championship on occasions.

 

If Speedway remains with the Tactical Rides - I will NOT attend. If it bins the whole idea off - I will return.

 

So there you have it - an example of someone who has ceased to attend due to the Tactical Rides. I know there are others who have done the same. At a time of falling Attendances, that is criminal on the part of the Sports Hierarchy.

 

Speedway = a Sport with very little credibility left.

 

 

 

I agree with your penultimate paragraph and yes it seems very unlikely that one rule could have such consequences that many people walk away, BUT it is one of a number of things that cause people to lose interest. No single thing turns people off but put them all together and they become a serious irritation for some.

 

I think you have looked at it TR rule in too much of an analytical way. Most fans do not go on forums and go through the ins and outs of how we got the TR rule. Most fans simply want to see decent racing and see their team win. Its no good arguing that the TR rule is fairer than some previous rule which was itself less than logical. In the perception of many, many fans the TR rule is just a device to give unfair advantage to a failing team.. That's the way they view it, rightly or wrongly.

 

Really is all a matter of perception. At least with the TS rule most people were familiar with the concept that in many sports substitutes of one kind or another are permitted, but I can't think of another sport in which there is an equivalent of the double points rule. The seasoned fan might see the point of the rule but the average punter, especially the children often see it differently.

 

The bottom line is that the logic or otherwise of the rule compared to the TS rule doesn't come into it. It is rightly or wrongly a matter of perception. The fact is that a great number of fans are strongly opposed to it so it needs to be looked at. Lets put it another way round. if you got rid of the TR rule a lot of fans would be happier, but without the TR rule do you think there would me masses of fans protesting that the absence of a TR rule was ruining their enjoyment of the sport ? I doubt it.

Firstly, as a Supporter of over fifty years, I see it as a way to give unfair advantage to a failing Team, never mind the newcomers.

 

The seasoned Supporter may not see the point of the Tactical Ride other than an irritant and a way of fiddling a Result.

 

Your last sentence sums it up nicely.

[E I Addio]

 

With regard to your first paragraph, I have certainly seen, read and heard people who have said that they either do not go themselves or know of others who do not attend simply because of the TR rule. That maybe because they hate it so much they have made such stories up, but they exist.

 

 

 

I personally know two people who say they won't go again while the TR rule but frankly I don't believe that is the reason because they never were regular and still watch it on Sky sometimes so the real reason is that they can't be bothered, just as there are many people on the forum who constantly moan about things but haven't been for years and are never likely to go again. . I find it very difficult to believe that people stop going simply because of the TR rule and nothing else. That said , it is generally an unpopular rule and one of a number of things when put together detract rather than enhance the entertainment value in the eyes of many.

 

 

I think the only way to look at an issue is to be analytical. Its all very well to dismiss something as Mickey Mouse or less than credible without giving any reasons for that, but surely the only way to judge whether something is necessary or correct is to actually look at why it is both in existence and in force ? Part of the problem here is that those who dismiss TR do so because they simply don't like it without actually looking in any depth at why speedway has it.

 

 

 

I have never described the sport as micky Mouse, and I agree with you it is frustrating when people use that expression as a substitute for rational argument, but the fact remains that there are valid reasons why people don't like the TR rule

 

 

I have no real preference for TR over TS, but I do recognise that one makes more difference than the other (which is what most fans object to) and that one would cost speedway tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of pounds more than the other.

 

 

 

Why do we need either rule ? One of the anomalies of the points limit is that in the nature of things some teams are built with a strong top two and weak tail. Th eTR rule favours those teams by giving them extra points when they have the big heats, 13 and 15 to pull, up anyway. The other point is that the 4-3-2-1 league points system add snterest to the match that wasn't there in the pold days of straight win or lose when arguably the TS or TR rule added interest to a match.

 

Part of the problem here is that those who dismiss TR do so because they simply don't like it without actually looking in any depth at why speedway has it.

 

 

 

 

So why exactly does speedway have it ?

 

The only reason I get when speaking to anyone in any sort of official capacity is that Sky want it, although I hear that Rosco also likes it . I can understand the argument that Sky money is important and it is a necessary evil to keep the Sky money coming in but in reality how often does the TR rule enhance a meeting ? Not very often in my experience. In what ways would the sport suffer or lose fans if the TR rule were abolished ? You can't please all the people all the time, that is accepted but it does seem to me that getting rid of the rule would please a lot of people and not really upset very mant, at least not in a serious way.

 

I

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

Why is it 'Mickey Mouse' ? A lot of people say that without actually giving defining reasons.

 

 

 

I, along with many others, have posted 'defining reasons' why I consider that rule to be 'Mickey Mouse' in countless other threads since its inception. I have neither the time nor the inclination to give my full reasons every time I post on the subject. On this occasion I was answering a point you raised as to why people consider that rule bad enough to stop them attending and I put the case that they, for their own reasons, consider it 'Mickey Mouse'.

 

I see no reason to go into 'defining reasons' on this occasion.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Vincent Blackshadow

[The White Knight]

 

 

I personally know two people who say they won't go again while the TR rule but frankly I don't believe that is the reason because they never were regular and still watch it on Sky sometimes so the real reason is that they can't be bothered, just as there are many people on the forum who constantly moan about things but haven't been for years and are never likely to go again. . I find it very difficult to believe that people stop going simply because of the TR rule and nothing else. That said , it is generally an unpopular rule and one of a number of things when put together detract rather than enhance the entertainment value in the eyes of many.

NOT in my case E I Addio.

 

I will NOT attend as long as the Tactical Ride exists. The very day it is removed from the Sport - I will return.

 

I also watch it on SKY, even now. I pay for it so why shouldn't I? I see no hypocrisy there. If I start getting annoyed/angry - simple - I switch it off.

 

I hope that explains my position.

[SCB]

I must admit I have never understood why the implementation of this rule drove (and apparently still drives) people away.

 

As SCB has convincingly shown on many occasions, the tactical substitiute rule (which had been in force for 40 years) had more effect on scores. The skill in using it is still there and it saved the sport tens of thousands of pounds in wages.

 

What's wrong with that ?

The funny thing is, while I have always argued this, I prefer the old tac sub. Totally irrational but it seems fairer - it's not really but it seems it. It's also far more tactical, I could teach my 6 year old niece, "10 down so put the better of our two riders on a TR in the race" but would take a while to teach her the oddities of the tac sub, when to use 2, when to use 1. Which rider to put in, put a poorer second strings into heat 13 to get his ride out of the way but then put your top 2 in heat 14 in place of him and a reserve.... All sorts to think about.

[moxey63]

The old tactcial rule had stood the test of time, more credible to the outer public, and kept alive many tedious matches that were all but over by a handful of heats. There was more scope for team managers back in the day of TS, you could use TS from heat four until the final race (usually Heat 13 - please bring back 13 Heats an' all).

 

I have said before, my interest in attending live matches began derailing once the introduction of the Golden Double was implemented. There is only so much you can do with the Golden Double, and a time to do it. If the perfect moment doesn't arrive at that particualr juncture, that moment has gone and the direction of the league points faces no further test.

 

People may argue that the old TS was better than the current GD, but I put forward the 2006 farce - the Grand Final Play-Off, in which Reading, much the ebtter team over two legs, were leapfrogged by Peterborough and the false extra points the Golden Double handed them.

 

I know most fans wished the GD's death after that, but it was tinkled with, and is better than it was then (bread and water is better than anything when you're hungry)... but not as good as the old Tac Sub. Tac Sub every day for me.

 

The GD should be used in novelty meetings, even during a rare Christmas speedway event or indoor one. It isn't a serious speedway rule - like a fella wearing lady cloths on one of those You've Been Framed videos. II always feel it's a lark-about rule. But that's just me.

Edited November 12, 2014 by moxey63

[New Science]

Well I can tell you that I have walked away.

 

The main reason being the Tactical Ride. It does not spoil the Races, I will give you that - but it sure as hell ruins the parts in between Races when I get angrier and angrier. The whole argument behind the Tactical Ride and the Tactical Substitute Ride is to CHEAT people (paying Customers) out of a TRUE Result. You can argue about that until you are blue in the face - but - that is a fact.

 

The other reason, though it does not stop me attending, is the 'Play Offs' - again CHEATING the League Champions out of the League Championship on occasions.

 

If Speedway remains with the Tactical Rides - I will NOT attend. If it bins the whole idea off - I will return.

 

So there you have it - an example of someone who has ceased to attend due to the Tactical Rides. I know there are others who have done the same. At a time of falling Attendances, that is criminal on the part of the Sports Hierarchy.

 

Speedway = a Sport with very little credibility left.

 

Firstly, as a Supporter of over fifty years, I see it as a way to give unfair advantage to a failing Team, never mind the newcomers.

 

The seasoned Supporter may not see the point of the Tactical Ride other than an irritant and a way of fiddling a Result.

 

Your last sentence sums it up nicely.

All we seemed to be learning is that some want the tactical ride, some want the tactical substitute and some want nothing at all.Put yourself in the promoters shoes ! What are they to do? , they can't please everyone.Whatever the outcome of the AGM. lets hope that all those who didn't get their wish will not simply just choose to walk away from the sport

[moxey63]

All we seemed to be learning is that some want the tactical ride, some want the tactical substitute and some want nothing at all.Put yourself in the promoters shoes ! What are they to do? , they can't please everyone.Whatever the outcome of the AGM. lets hope that all those who didn't get their wish will not simply just choose to walk away from the sport

 

So true. One particular substitute rule doesn't get a complete thumbs up from the forum and therefore, if us experts don't know what we want, how on earth can we criticise promoters?

Edited November 13, 2014 by moxey63

[daveallan81]

By using a TS, a team had the chance to replace an under-performing rider with one who could be better.

The complaint that a TS was always used in Heat 8 is valid (e.g. Steve Lawson would only take a TS in Heat 8, from Gate 1), but that could be prevented/adapted. Indeed, the new EL heat format lends itself more readily to the TS rule.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your comments regarding Lawson and assume that they are just poorly worded as the inference that Lawson wouldn't take a TS under any other circumstances is total and unequivocable garbage.

[orion]

 

 

People may argue that the old TS was better than the current GD, but I put forward the 2006 farce - the Grand Final Play-Off, in which Reading, much the ebtter team over two legs, were leapfrogged by Peterborough and the false extra points the Golden Double handed them.

 

 

And ? the old rule as has proved change more match results than double points ...it one thing saying that the old rule was better more fun etc ...but fairer it was never was . Of course that brings in the double standards of that everything was better in the old days gang who after saying they like the old tac rule also say the play offs are unfair .

[Shadders]

People won't go because the facilities are poor and the stadiums are shabby? What a load of crap.

Arena Essex attracts thousands for stock car racing in the same stadium that hosts speedway. Lakeside crowds are far less than stocks attendances

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shads

[Halifaxtiger]

 

 

I personally know two people who say they won't go again while the TR rule but frankly I don't believe that is the reason because they never were regular and still watch it on Sky sometimes so the real reason is that they can't be bothered, just as there are many people on the forum who constantly moan about things but haven't been for years and are never likely to go again. . I find it very difficult to believe that people stop going simply because of the TR rule and nothing else. That said , it is generally an unpopular rule and one of a number of things when put together detract rather than enhance the entertainment value in the eyes of many.

 

I have never described the sport as micky Mouse, and I agree with you it is frustrating when people use that expression as a substitute for rational argument, but the fact remains that there are valid reasons why people don't like the TR rule

 

Why do we need either rule ? One of the anomalies of the points limit is that in the nature of things some teams are built with a strong top two and weak tail. Th eTR rule favours those teams by giving them extra points when they have the big heats, 13 and 15 to pull, up anyway. The other point is that the 4-3-2-1 league points system add snterest to the match that wasn't there in the pold days of straight win or lose when arguably the TS or TR rule added interest to a match.

 

So why exactly does speedway have it ?

 

The only reason I get when speaking to anyone in any sort of official capacity is that Sky want it, although I hear that Rosco also likes it . I can understand the argument that Sky money is important and it is a necessary evil to keep the Sky money coming in but in reality how often does the TR rule enhance a meeting ? Not very often in my experience. In what ways would the sport suffer or lose fans if the TR rule were abolished ? You can't please all the people all the time, that is accepted but it does seem to me that getting rid of the rule would please a lot of people and not really upset very mant, at least not in a serious way.

 

 

I only know TWK who won't go because of the TR rule, and with respect to him (because I have a lot of time for him) we'll see if that's the case come March.I just can't grasp why it affects someone's enjoyment of speedway to the extent that they will not attend.

 

The rule is there to ensure that meetings are closer and therefore more entertaining. The scoring system has added to that, but in many ways it merely enhances the case for tactical changes. If it was just about 2 points only, then the chances of using it are less if a team is 10 or 12 points behind going into heat 12 as the meeting has completely gone.

 

I am genuinely surprised that it is stated here that 'a tactical rule has indeed been around in speedway for a while with the express purpose of allowing close scores.

One rule allows a team to take advantage of this and the other doesn't'. I would have thought that the PL Grand Final this season, when a tactical ride turned a meeting on its head completely, would be more than adequate evidence of that. Many point to the 2006 Peterborough-Reading EL grand final as being one of the best ever, and that too was radically affected by a TR. Its absolutely true to suggest that it is only in a minority of meetings that a TR has significant effect, but its existence allows at least some meetings to be enhanced. Take it away, and they would have been dead.

 

I think Vince (as usual) is right. He hates the rule, but accepts that the number of people affected is minimal.

 

The fact that tactical changes have been in existence for 50 years is of itself evidence that speedway needs it - or at least, that it is desirable. I think you are right when you say that many would be pleased if TR's were scrapped, but I reiterate that I wonder whether they would be saying the same thing 2 or 3 seasons from now.

The financial argument is a red herring - guessing the "savings" based on an archaic payment system is false. You can't seriously believe that riders (top men especially) are paid purely on ride & points money? I know of riders who, quite a few years ago, were on a guaranteed basic - it assumed they achieved an expected level, and they then had incentives based on improved performance, e.g. if they reached or scored over a certain number of points, and so on.

 

 

 

I do know of one top EL rider who is on a guarantee but he's the only one. Word I got was that Ward & Holder, for example, were both paid per point (albeit with sponsorship, flights etc thrown in). I'd say riders on large guarantees are very rare exceptions, and its more likely that it is those at the bottom end who have some sort of fixed amount agreed before hand.

 

Whenever I get into a discussion about riders wages, the amount per point comes up (albeit that they may get other funding as above). From that, I would say that the overwhelming number of those competing in the three leagues are paid that way. If that's the case, then my position regarding the cost of reverting to the TS is fully valid.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[Guest]

People won't go because the facilities are poor and the stadiums are shabby? What a load of crap.

Arena Essex attracts thousands for stock car racing in the same stadium that hosts speedway. Lakeside crowds are far less than stocks attendances

 

This popularity for 'small oval' car racing in preference to speedway is not just a factor at Arena Essex (home of Lakeside Hammers) it happens in many other 'sharing stadia- in the UK (I think other prime examples include Arlington (aka Eastbourne), Ipswich, Coventry, Belle Vue and Sheffield among them.

It's also the case worldwide in USA, New Zealand (where speedway has virtually vanished), South Africa and Australia. I can put no finger on this - but sadly that is the case from a speedway supporter viewpoint.

[E I Addio]

The rule is there to ensure that meetings are closer and therefore more entertaining.

 

 

That doesn't follow. . For one thing 48-42 on a slick track with most races won from the gate is never as entertaining as 55-35 with plenty of passing. The TR rule does not automatically make a meeting more entertaining. It can make the scores but as said before it gives an advantage to top-heavy teams who get an advantage by having a TR mid-match when they still have their strongest heats to come ie heats 13 and 15. It works against teams built with strength in depth who need to build an advantage in the early heats before facing the big hitters in 13 &15. Its not more entertaining to fans who have seen their side as the better team on the track but drop league points to a team that gains on the rule book.

 

The fact that tactical changes have been in existence for 50 years is of itself evidence that speedway needs it - or at least, that it is desirable.

 

 

Times move on. To say we need it simply because it has been around for 50 years is like saying we need the One-off World Final because that was around for years or we ought to have a straight league with no play-offs because that arrangement worked for years. The fact that something has been around for years does not automatically justify it.

 

 

. I think you are right when you say that many would be pleased if TR's were scrapped, but I reiterate that I wonder whether they would be saying the same thing 2 or 3 seasons from now.

 

 

The only way to test that theory would be to scrap it and see. Speedway is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to willingness to change to rules so the TR rule could always be re-introduced if it was felt necessary but unless we try a season or two without it we'll never know.

Edited November 13, 2014 by E I Addio

[moxey63]

And ? the old rule as has proved change more match results than double points ...it one thing saying that the old rule was better more fun etc ...but fairer it was never was . Of course that brings in the double standards of that everything was better in the old days gang who after saying they like the old tac rule also say the play offs are unfair .

 

The ethics of speedway - the 3, 2, 1, 0 scoring - the tradition that goes right back before any of us were thought of... that's what the Golden Double has done. It has altered the basics of what speedway has been built.

 

When the normal scoring system gets altered so a match can artificially remain interesting, it does any credibility the sport strives for no good.

 

We can argue the plus and minuses of the old Tact Sub, as we can the Golden Double, but I for one still cannot see why the old Tac Sub was ditched. If, as they say, it was to save money, surely it could have been altered... instead of doubling the points and making it pantomime speedway.

 

That's all it's done in my opinion.

Edited November 13, 2014 by moxey63

[arnieg]

The funny thing is, while I have always argued this, I prefer the old tac sub. Totally irrational but it seems fairer - it's not really but it seems it. It's also far more tactical, I could teach my 6 year old niece, "10 down so put the better of our two riders on a TR in the race" but would take a while to teach her the oddities of the tac sub, when to use 2, when to use 1. Which rider to put in, put a poorer second strings into heat 13 to get his ride out of the way but then put your top 2 in heat 14 in place of him and a reserve.... All sorts to think about.

I suspect that like me it is your statistical bent. One of the effects of the TR is that the points scored in a set of team averages no longer equal the points scored by the team, thus depriving us of a straight forward check mechanism. (And as for the final season of the EL knockout cup - well how do you cope with that:?)

[SCB]

I suspect that like me it is your statistical bent. One of the effects of the TR is that the points scored in a set of team averages no longer equal the points scored by the team, thus depriving us of a straight forward check mechanism. (And as for the final season of the EL knockout cup - well how do you cope with that:?)

Possibly. As for the KOC farce the season before last, I pretty much chose to pretend it never happened. In 10 years time nobody will believe we had a genuine tactical play called a "man on man heat" so it shouldn't be hard to pretend it never happened

[Shale Searcher]

Possibly. As for the KOC farce the season before last, I pretty much chose to pretend it never happened. In 10 years time nobody will believe we had a genuine tactical play called a "man on man heat" so it shouldn't be hard to pretend it never happened

Man on man heat?

Please expand........

Possibly. As for the KOC farce the season before last, I pretty much chose to pretend it never happened. In 10 years time nobody will believe we had a genuine tactical play called a "man on man heat" so it shouldn't be hard to pretend it never happened

Man on man heat?

Please expand........

[Leicester Hunter]

Man on man heat?

Please expand........

 

Well, you did ask.

 

If a team was 6 (or was it 8?) points behind after heat 4 and before heat - well, that bit was open to a fair amount of interpretation, their team manager could nominate (a maximum of two times) a rider, but not the same one twice, to challenge a member of the opposition. A match race. Clear so far? But only one rider could score points, and that one was from the losing team. If the rider from the team that was ahead won, the heat was classified as a 0-0. With this 'facility' being used at any stage, the two boxes set aside for it in the programme were completely separate from the scorecard, so if it was used successfully, the scorecard didn't make any sense at all.

 

In all my years of following speedway, that has to be the daftest 'rule' ever....

Edited November 13, 2014 by Leicester Hunter