3 Point Reserves

[Humphrey Appleby]

Yes, grade the riders as per their averages.

This idea just keeps coming around again and again, but it's just moving the deckchairs. All grading achieves is to make riders with high averages in their grade more in demand, and those with low averages less so. It's a points limit by any other name, and taken to extreme examples under your scheme, one team could track riders with combined averages of 52.50, and another team only 37.00. Where is the fairness in that and simply leads to even more cheque book speedway as teams chase riders with the right grade, if not encouraging even more blatant average manipulation.

 

Any decent system needs to allow teams to develop and grow up to point, but force rider redistribution if they become overly strong. Teams should not be penalised for finishing just above mid-table, and certainly not because they happen to find a good 3.00 pointer. Indeed, teams should be positively rewarded for having a good 3.00 pointer.

 

Any under-21 rider or in the first three seasons of their career that's started at British track should be given and keep a 3.00 point average during that period, particularly if they stay at the same team. If they're good enough to move up, that should be done on a draft basis with the worst teams getting the preferential picks.

[ecksact]

One slight concern I have is the 3pointers going into turns one and two; there might be more than a few "hairy moments" if they get the idea of getting stuck in without the necessary experience. Might be fine if they get out the gate; but if they don't (and most will miss it) then if they come together on turn one two; and decide to shut their eyes and hope; it could all go pear shaped. I do not mean to underestimate the 3pointers clearly everyone has to learn sometime; and some the hard way. Theres a bit of difference between winning races in the NL and then stepping up to race at PL level. But good luck to all the guys; it will be interesting watching them go about their racing this season.

 

When I started this thread, my question was about how you replace an injured 3pt #7. But your post is what was really in my head at the time because - and I hope I'm wrong, SERIOUSLY hope I'm wrong - I can see some trying TOO hard to impress, or make an impact, call it what you will. Can only hope it's the right sort of impact they make.

 

For me it's too much, too soon for some. The good NL riders were getting rides in the PL anyway. That's how it works. If/when a 3-pointer gets injured, won't that open the door for someone else from the NL? (Maybe not, maybe you can just borrow another team's 3-pointer, I suppose).The rule has opened a door for some, but if they'd been good enough they'd have been offered a slot this season anyway, wouldn't they? No overseas rider would come 'cheap' enough.

[Humphrey Appleby]

When I started this thread, my question was about how you replace an injured 3pt #7.

A 3-point should be replaced with another 3-point rider. It completely undermines the 'point' of the system if you're effectively having guests for such riders, or even worse overseas riders.

[crescent girl]

A 3-point should be replaced with another 3-point rider. It completely undermines the 'point' of the system if you're effectively having guests for such riders, or even worse overseas riders.

 

 

Absolutely. Your #7 is out, you dip back into the NL pool for a temp (or indeed permanent) replacement. There can be no question of using a "guest #7" from another PL club.

 

The rather-more-ticklish question comes when a #7 is injured in (say) Heat 2. On several fronts.

Edited February 6, 2016 by crescent girl

[eric i]

The problem is when a 3 pointer ups his average and gets injured, he will have to replaced by a rider who averages significantly less.