The Heat Leader List....

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

Just a thought, but whatever the racing format in past years, its the riders' finishing average that dictates whether he ends the season as a heat leader or a 2nd string, no matter how many meetings they may have ridden in different team positions during the season.

 

 

come on you know thats irrelevant.

Past seasons had HL SS and Res all riding each other and so did provide an accurate assessment.

The skewed format doesnt. If it didnt matter tgen a heat leader list wouldnt even be on the agenda.

[SteveLyric2]

Irrelevant to whom?? The promoters all agreed to it, with all its flaws!!

 

I'm not trying to say that it is an accurate assessment, simply trying to understand how the list was drawn up?!

 

This particular attempt at trying to provide some sort of 'equalisation' between 8 EL clubs, is in many ways no different to past seasons when new rules to regulate the number of heatleaders per team have been brought in eg only 2x 7+ riders; only 1 x 8+ rider etc.

 

Whatever the new rules are for each season - and whenever they are agreed - all promoters have the same equal opportunity (other than different race nights!!) to get their fingers out and start their team-building.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

The irrevelvance was aimed at the statement that final averages should dictate who is HL and SS whatever the format. Past years are irrelevant.

[Bagpuss]

Using the justification that the 'promoters all agreed to it' is woefully inadequate anyway Skidder.....the people in charge of our sport have shown time and time again that they are completely incapable of making decisions and regulations that benefit British speedway.

[g13webb]

Irrelevant to whom?? The promoters all agreed to it, with all its flaws!!

 

I'm not trying to say that it is an accurate assessment, simply trying to understand how the list was drawn up?!

 

This particular attempt at trying to provide some sort of 'equalisation' between 8 EL clubs, is in many ways no different to past seasons when new rules to regulate the number of heatleaders per team have been brought in eg only 2x 7+ riders; only 1 x 8+ rider etc.

 

Whatever the new rules are for each season - and whenever they are agreed - all promoters have the same equal opportunity (other than different race nights!!) to get their fingers out and start their team-building.

 

From history, team equality was always governed by limiting the points per team. This was seen as a fair and acceptable way for to be done. Two years ago the BSPA introduced the protected heat format that destroyed the present valuation of the riders score and each became a variance of the position they were riding. Some of us, seeing the issues this idea would create, spoke of the problems if we persevered with these ideas. I remember distinctly you actually called us 'Scare Mongers', saying the BSPA knew what they were doing and that we knew nothing.

Everything we spoke of is now happening, We have different quality riders on the same averages, we have same quality riders in variable team positions that bear little resemblance to their CMA. infact, we have the worse ever situation in regards to averages. The only way to have some form of relevance to team strength, is for the BSPA to opinionate riders on their ability. Its an admission that the CMA now mean nothing.

 

And true to form, you are of the same support to the BSPA as ever, and not understanding the problems that the teams have trying to assemble a team, is all the BSPA own doing.

[E I Addio]

From history, team equality was always governed by limiting the points per team. This was seen as a fair and acceptable way for to be done.

 

Fair and acceptable way ? We have seen endless arguments on this forum about teams- usually Poole- getting riders on false averages. An argument that raised its head on a fairly regular basis is that there should be some sort of grading system because working purely on averages doesn't work. There are plenty of forum members that don't think it is it is a fair and acceptable way. There is a wide division of opinion on the point.

 

Personally I think Skidder has a point. The problem with this sort of thread is that they always get hi-jacked by the usual suspects, led by yourself, that are always going to scream blue murder at anything the BSPA do, for better or worse. There have been some good posts on the thread with different points of view but the majority are incapable of judging the situation dispassionately.

 

The bottom line is that once you have an EDR system you are going to need some protected heats, and once you have protected heats you will have skewed averages, and once you have skewed averages you need some method of dealing with them, and that in turn is going to lead to some nuances or border line cases. That is the real world.

 

When we look at the teams that have been put together so far it seems to be the opinion of most posters that Poole and Belle Vue have strong looking sides and the rest are much of a muchness, or to put it another way round it is , broadly speaking a competitive league on paper. it's not going to be the end of the Elite League as we know it ( although other factors might cause that ) , but try taking a measured, dispassionate view, which is what Skidder is trying to do rather than going into melt down at the mere mention of the BSPA.

Edited December 14, 2015 by E I Addio

[SteveLyric2]

Thanks E I Addio, thats exactly what I was trying to say. You clearly have a better way of putting it than I do!

[B.V 72]

Looking at the list to me they have looked at a riders present true ability to decide if he is a heat leader or not in a weakened league.I don't think a riders average or where he rode in the team comes into it much at all.

Again looking at the list i think on the whole they have got it pretty much spot on.Towards the bottom end of the list there are bound to be a few disagreements and with the exception of Buzz i cant see anyone they have missed off.Not the best way of govening team strengths but doing it this way i don't think they have done a bad job to be fair.

[BWitcher]

Looking at the list to me they have looked at a riders present true ability to decide if he is a heat leader or not in a weakened league.I don't think a riders average or where he rode in the team comes into it much at all.

Again looking at the list i think on the whole they have got it pretty much spot on.Towards the bottom end of the list there are bound to be a few disagreements and with the exception of Buzz i cant see anyone they have missed off.Not the best way of govening team strengths but doing it this way i don't think they have done a bad job to be fair.

 

It's staggering just how people fail to understand the implications of the heat format and just why a list was even needed.

 

They have done an awful job.. so bad there wasn't even much point them bothering to start with.

 

That said, there isn't much damage done as most of them don't grasp how they can gain an advantage anyway.

[g13webb]

 

Fair and acceptable way ? We have seen endless arguments on this forum about teams- usually Poole- getting riders on false averages. An argument that raised its head on a fairly regular basis is that there should be some sort of grading system because working purely on averages doesn't work. There are plenty of forum members that don't think it is it is a fair and acceptable way. There is a wide division of opinion on the point.

 

You're getting mixed up here, When I spoke of 'Fair and Acceptable' way, it was relating to riders who had attained their CMA, riding in the correct way. Usually the problems occurred when some bandits were given unreal accessed averages..... If you look hard enough you'll always find evidence to the contrary.

Personally I think Skidder has a point. The problem with this sort of thread is that they always get hi-jacked by the usual suspects, led by yourself, that are always going to scream blue murder at anything the BSPA do, for better or worse. There have been some good posts on the thread with different points of view but the majority are incapable of judging the situation dispassionately.

Its very difficult to be polite in response to what you have said, but I will try...... But quite frankly your opinion of me is so way off, it's unreal. Never in my life have I generalise as you suggest and only make opinions on present development and not on previous misdemeanours. When the BSPA have done good I'm the first to congratulate, So your perception of me is way off. I was always brought up to speak as I find. Sometimes it offends people. that unfortunate. It is not my intention to lead anybody. I know a few promoters, some very well. Individually I have the greatest respect for the way they put their sole into our sport. Its just that sometimes, collectively, they have difficulty seeing the sport first.......

The bottom line is that once you have an EDR system you are going to need some protected heats, and once you have protected heats you will have skewed averages, and once you have skewed averages you need some method of dealing with them, and that in turn is going to lead to some nuances or border line cases. That is the real world.

 

The bottom line as you say, was the instrumentation of the EDR without taking into consideration the variance of difficulty in some races and the problems that now exist. The easiest thing in the world is to sweep problems under the carpet. Had the EDR been introduced with CMA calculated formula to create a connection illustrating the difference in quality. the CMA as we know it wouldn't have been destroyed. Its still not too late to resurrect it even now.....

When we look at the teams that have been put together so far it seems to be the opinion of most posters that Poole and Belle Vue have strong looking sides and the rest are much of a muchness, or to put it another way round it is , broadly speaking a competitive league on paper. it's not going to be the end of the Elite League as we know it ( although other factors might cause that ) , but try taking a measured, dispassionate view, which is what Skidder is trying to do rather than going into melt down at the mere mention of the BSPA.

 

Skidder is incapable of taking a dispassionate view, and each of his comments is based on the effect of Poole speedway. I have no problems with other teams having strong squads, and wish them well. I have a bigger problem with the unfairness of it all and how it is perceived from the outside. It all very well turning a blind eye saying everything in the garden is rosy, but when you talk to other people, who once were supporters of this great sport, you realise how poor this sport has become. By continuing with your and Skidders ideas, nothing will ever change.

 

 

 

 

 

[B.V 72]

 

It's staggering just how people fail to understand the implications of the heat format and just why a list was even needed.

 

They have done an awful job.. so bad there wasn't even much point them bothering to start with.

 

That said, there isn't much damage done as most of them don't grasp how they can gain an advantage anyway.

I well understand the implications of the heat format and to me now tier 1 FTRs have an average and can move up there is no reason why they could not revert back to the old format for next season that way all riders would then regain a true average.Again with the present format the reserves with protected heats cannot attain a true average when riding 2 protected heats so how can they move up and a second string with harder races move down.A top reserve could attain a 7 point average in the reserve birth does that mean he then rides as a heat leader.A heat leader cannot attain a true average riding mainly against heat leaders a 2nd string can't attain a true average riding mainly against 2nd strings and reserves and yes a clever team manager can manipulate the averages to have a certain rider in reserve come the play offs etc plus many more problems all of which will cock things up even more for the 2017 season.

But my above post was now that they have wrongly chosen to keep the same format and go with a heat leader list the thread has a title (the heat leader list)so on this subject alone then i don't think they have got many riders on or off the list wrong.

Edited December 14, 2015 by B.V 72

[kingbee]

I think what they should have done is any new rider coming in with an average higher than the bottom one on the h/l list would be classed as a h/l ?

[E I Addio]

GRW 123 I can't quote the section of the post I want to quote because of the way you have done the reply, but you have gone off at a tangent again.

 

You have talked about my and Skidders ideas but I haven't expressed any ideas. I have merely commented on a few things. I said Skidder has a point, I didn't say he is 100%correct. It seems that he , like me , his simply trying to assess the situation. If you bother to read my post properly I said there have been some good posts on the thread with DIFFERENT points of view. That's what is generally known as debate. The fact that there are different points of view, in some cases soundly put, indicates that it is not a clear cut matter. I like to look at each side of the argument. Unfortunately there are quite a few that are unable to put the argument coherently and it turns into the same old same old let's slag off the BSPA rhetoric that has all been done before. By going into meltdown all you do is turn people off the point you are trying to make, as others, including KL fans have said in the past.

 

As to whether Skidder can be dispassionate, far be it from me to defend a Poolite but it's a subjective test and personally I find that apart from his obvious tongue in cheek remarks he is usually not too far off the mark for a South Coaster, to be honest.

Edited December 14, 2015 by E I Addio

[SCB]

Fair and acceptable way ? We have seen endless arguments on this forum about teams- usually Poole- getting riders on false averages. An argument that raised its head on a fairly regular basis is that there should be some sort of grading system because working purely on averages doesn't work. There are plenty of forum members that don't think it is it is a fair and acceptable way. There is a wide division of opinion on the point.

Now I disagree. If a rider has an average and Poole sign him I see no complaints because everyone knows that riders average. Where people complain about the averages of riding signing for Poole is the assessed riders, they are the riders who averages are assessed, assessed in the same way grades would be! The worst thing possible is grading, whenever it's used it causes more arguments than a simple points limit EVER does.

[E I Addio]

Now I disagree. If a rider has an average and Poole sign him I see no complaints because everyone knows that riders average. Where people complain about the averages of riding signing for Poole is the assessed riders, they are the riders who averages are assessed, assessed in the same way grades would be! The worst thing possible is grading, whenever it's used it causes more arguments than a simple points limit EVER does.

I am pretty much in your camp on that . But the point I was making, if you look at the context, is not a question whether it should be averages or grades of rider control committees or any other single thing. It was in response to GRW 123 's sweeping generalisation that team equality governed by points per team has always been seen as a fair and acceptable way of doing things, but it clearly hasn't. Some people think it is but others clearly don't. That is the point. There is a divergence of views on all aspects.

 

For example Bwitcher says that a heatleader list is necessary but they went about it the wrong way. Others are saying there was no need for a heatleader list and others are raising the old chestnut about the independent body.

 

If someone wants to put forward the view that the system is a shambles, fair enough but that's no good if they can't put forward a coherent case for something that most others do along with.

 

Personally, I think there is no absolute right and wrong in these things , the most important thing is whatever system you have, you also have to have the will and business acumen to make it work and it is on that later point that the BSPA fail, rather than the systems themselves. FWIW I think your suggestion for the basis of the HL list is a good one, but there are others that would suffice if organised properly. I think the point Skidder was making, if I understood it correctly is that we have been presented with this HL list without really understanding what reasoning, rationale, or criteria they applied.

 

The final thing which I must admit I haven't got my mind round yet is what is the net result of the list. I take Bwitchers point that they seem to have more by luck than judgment got a reasonable list and without trawling back over the whole thread the only queries seem to relate to Watt , Buckowski and possibly Kennet but I am not sure that at the end of the day that will make a massive difference. Correct me if I am wrong because si am struggling with it a bit and others seem to be as well.

[g13webb]

I am pretty much in your camp on that . But the point I was making, if you look at the context, is not a question whether it should be averages or grades of rider control committees or any other single thing. It was in response to GRW 123 's sweeping generalisation that team equality governed by points per team has always been seen as a fair and acceptable way of doing things, but it clearly hasn't. Some people think it is but others clearly don't. That is the point. There is a divergence of views on all aspects.

 

For example Bwitcher says that a heatleader list is necessary but they went about it the wrong way. Others are saying there was no need for a heatleader list and others are raising the old chestnut about the independent body.

 

If someone wants to put forward the view that the system is a shambles, fair enough but that's no good if they can't put forward a coherent case for something that most others do along with.

 

Personally, I think there is no absolute right and wrong in these things , the most important thing is whatever system you have, you also have to have the will and business acumen to make it work and it is on that later point that the BSPA fail, rather than the systems themselves. FWIW I think your suggestion for the basis of the HL list is a good one, but there are others that would suffice if organised properly. I think the point Skidder was making, if I understood it correctly is that we have been presented with this HL list without really understanding what reasoning, rationale, or criteria they applied.

 

The final thing which I must admit I haven't got my mind round yet is what is the net result of the list. I take Bwitchers point that they seem to have more by luck than judgment got a reasonable list and without trawling back over the whole thread the only queries seem to relate to Watt , Buckowski and possibly Kennet but I am not sure that at the end of the day that will make a massive difference. Correct me if I am wrong because si am struggling with it a bit and others seem to be as well.

 

You seem to have some sort of problem with opinions I post, and grade them into groups that was not what they were meant to be . (I.e. sweeping generalisation) It wasn't a sweeping generalisation, merely a fact of the way is used to be. All I wrote was that years ago the team points limit was the only form of equality and it worked quite well. That was the time when all riders rode against all the other team and included bonus points.

 

Be interesting to know what I have done to offend you so much, for you to have this opinion that you have obviously nurtured such dislike, in your own mind.....

[E I Addio]

You seem to have some sort of problem with opinions I post, and grade them into groups that was not what they were meant to be . (I.e. sweeping generalisation) It wasn't a sweeping generalisation, merely a fact of the way is used to be. All I wrote was that years ago the team points limit was the only form of equality and it worked quite well. That was the time when all riders rode against all the other team and included bonus points.

 

Be interesting to know what I have done to offend you so much, for you to have this opinion that you have obviously nurtured such dislike, in your own mind.....

 

e

 

You haven't done anything to offend me. I think your heart is in the place so far as your passion for the sport is concerned, but long before this thread others have commented on your posts which putting it as politely as I can lose the plot a bit by going OTT on the hyperbole. I don't think I can add anything I have not already said but sometimes it a good idea to be a bit more measured in your expressions otherwise the point you are trying to make doesn't come across. Try taking a leaf out if Gordon Bennets book, his posts are more moderate, well thought out and less of a rant.

[g13webb]

e

 

You haven't done anything to offend me. I think your heart is in the place so far as your passion for the sport is concerned, but long before this thread others have commented on your posts which putting it as politely as I can lose the plot a bit by going OTT on the hyperbole. I don't think I can add anything I have not already said but sometimes it a good idea to be a bit more measured in your expressions otherwise the point you are trying to make doesn't come across. Try taking a leaf out if Gordon Bennets book, his posts are more moderate, well thought out and less of a rant.

 

Point taken....... But some of your comments were unnecessary....

[Big Al]

Point taken....... But some of your comments were unnecessary....

Tut tut GRW. It'll be the Headmaster's office for you if you're not more careful.;-)

[Alan_Jones]

Jon Cook has "explained" in Speedway Star how the heat leader list was arrived at.

 

A lot of what he says is about studying the obvious stuff about second string averages being higher than those of heat leaders and not being able to come up with a suitable formula.

 

All 8 clubs went through the averages rider by rider and .......... decided! If there were any doubts they went to a majority vote.

 

"It was as simple as that, Every club ticked off who they felt were heat leaders."

 

"Grading of heat leaders was done by common consensus of the EL promoters via an open poll and anyone thinking that's wrong is either thick or biased, or both."