Buster's Views

[ch958]

it would be useful to have a simpler more robust rule book but the win at all costs attitude means that people hunt for loopholes. This attitude wasn't always there - it used to be a night at the speedway now its 'how many can we hammer the opposition by'.

 

Also the readiness to discard loyal riders at the drop of a hat is counter productive - my favourites over the years were not always the best riders.

 

I agree that is an old fashioned view but true nontheless

Edited May 27, 2016 by ch958

[Gresham]

it would be useful to have a simpler more robust rule book but the win at all costs attitude means that people hunt for loopholes. This attitude wasn't always there - it used to be a night at the speedway now its 'how many can we hammer the opposition by'.

 

Also the readiness to discard loyal riders at the drop of a hat is counter productive - my favourites over the years were not always the best riders.

 

I agree that is an old fashioned view but true nontheless

Indeed....I totally agree.

 

It was indeed a 'night at the Speedway'.

 

I can't think of anything more boring than watching your team hammer the opposition.

 

Nothing better than a close fought meeting...the old adage...'happiness is a 40-38'.

 

I realise Promotors have tried to keep a meeting close, by introducing the double points rules etc...but it just hides a glaring fault in Speedway.

 

The Away team very rarely wins in Speedway. Or has a chance of doing so. Home advantage is often way too much it seems.

 

How many other 'Team' sports have so few away wins?

 

In saying that...I don't have an answer...unless all tracks were made to the same playing field so to speak, which is impossible.

[Humphrey Appleby]

It doesn't matter how many times it has been said before. Give the guy a chance to actually try and turn over a new leaf. He did go into detail about several things that are wrong and there is any chance for fans to voice their views at Belle Vue shortly.

I'd accept the 'interview' was probably some sort of filler piece and there wasn't the room to elaborate much detail, but sorry what was printed didn't go into any detail about what specifically should be changed. There was some general mumbling about the mistake in allowing reserves to move up, the flaws of which were pointed out in significant detail on this forum before they were even implemented. Then there was some half-baked idea about only having one draft rider per team, ignoring the fact this would make it impossible to have any protected heats.

 

Is that really tearing up the rulebook and starting again? And in fact most of the rulebook is actually reasonably fine - it's just the bits related to team building that are badly thought out, inconsistent and at times ignored.

 

It's pointless 're-writing' the rulebook until the powers-that-be come up with a team building system that can help struggling teams but doesn't penalise mid-table ones, encourages more long-term rider development, and limits the incentives to fiddle averages. As others have pointed out, it's also pointless to re-write the rulebook whilst the rules are continually ignored or allowed to be broken.

 

Is it too much to ask to have some articulation of some sort of plan as to how to address the current farcical running of the sport?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Humphrey Appleby

[Grachan]

The averages are in a right state at the moment. THey have no bearing on the quality of the rider. The ace format needs to go back to one that gives riders proper averages.

 

If that involves a second reseves race and a nomnated riders heat, I'd even be inclined not to include those in the averages so that heatleaders have a proper hight figure and reserves have a proper low figure.

 

Also, there seems unneccesary complication of what a rider's average is when riding in a different league.

 

For me it should be this: EL - use EL average. PL - use PL average. Whatever their average was, that's their average. Seems logical to me.

 

If they only rode in one league in the previous season then use that one with an assessed average for the other league.

[Humphrey Appleby]

The sport needs an independent body and it was on course to happening when John Berry was given the job (1987?) but soon withdrew his name because he could see that he wouldn't get the necessary approval from certain members of the BSPA. A lost opportunity in my opinion and of course, as you say, it will never happen due to vestige interests.

John Berry was undoubtedly a great thinker about how the sport could be run, and was of course a successful promoter as well. However, I suspect his tenure in that sort of job would not have lasted long as he was obviously an abrasive character who didn't tolerate fools gladly, and would likely have alienated a significant number of people who needed to be onside. An independent commissioner needs to be wise, tough and fair, but they also need to be diplomatic if the job is going be held at the pleasure of the promoters (which ultimately it has to be).

[steve roberts]

When I had access to a rule book...and it's many years ago now...there were so many rules and supplementary regulations that it just became so difficult to comprehend. Many of the rules were about the technical side of the sport (bikes etc) and to be honest way too intense in it's interpretation.

[Tsunami]

When I had access to a rule book...and it's many years ago now...there were so many rules and supplementary regulations that it just became so difficult to comprehend. Many of the rules were about the technical side of the sport (bikes etc) and to be honest way too intense in it's interpretation.

The technical side of bikes is probably the simplest section.

[*JJ]

Would anyone trust Chipmunk to do the rewriting, anyway? After the Hall debacle - which had nothing to do with averages - I wouldn't trust him to wipe his nose.

[sparkafag]

I highly doubt a rewrite of the rule book will make one iota of difference to attendances other than a return of The White Knight for a week until he stops going again if his behaviour on here is anything to go by.

[BWitcher]

Indeed....I totally agree.

 

It was indeed a 'night at the Speedway'.

 

I can't think of anything more boring than watching your team hammer the opposition.

 

Nothing better than a close fought meeting...the old adage...'happiness is a 40-38'.

 

I realise Promotors have tried to keep a meeting close, by introducing the double points rules etc...but it just hides a glaring fault in Speedway.

 

The Away team very rarely wins in Speedway. Or has a chance of doing so. Home advantage is often way too much it seems.

 

How many other 'Team' sports have so few away wins?

 

In saying that...I don't have an answer...unless all tracks were made to the same playing field so to speak, which is impossible.

 

You realise incorrectly.

 

The introduction of the double points rule had nothing to do with keeping meetings 'close, they had a system in place that was more effective at doing that.

 

It was introduced as a cost saving measure.

 

In terms of 'keeping a meeting close', the current tactical system is the least effective in the sport's history.

[ch958]

 

You realise incorrectly.

 

The introduction of the double points rule had nothing to do with keeping meetings 'close, they had a system in place that was more effective at doing that.

 

It was introduced as a cost saving measure.

 

In terms of 'keeping a meeting close', the current tactical system is the least effective in the sport's history.

is that true? i'm not sure i understand how it would save money - am i being dull?

[sparkafag]

The away team rarely wins in speedway is sweeping statement that isn’t even remotely true.

 

In the past week Glasgow won AT Redcar, King Lynn and Swindon drew, Stoke won at Belle Vue, Belle Vue won at Poole, Sheffield won at Scunthorpe, Wolves won at Leicester and Workington won at Redcar

 

That is a single weeks’ worth of fixtures, that alone blows the theory re away sides rarely winning out of the water.

Edited May 27, 2016 by The Mockingjay

[BWitcher]

is that true? i'm not sure i understand how it would save money - am i being dull?

 

Under the old system a top rider (who is paid more per pt) would be brought in as a tactical sub, giving him an extra ride and more pts money to pay.

 

Now, they just take their normal ride.

The away team rarely wins in speedway is sweeping statement that isn’t even remotely true.

 

In the past week Glasgow won AT Redcar, King Lynn and Swindon drew, Stoke won at Belle Vue, Belle Vue won at Poole, Sheffield won at Scunthorpe, Wolves won at Leicester and Workington won at Redcar

 

That is a single weeks’ worth of fixtures, that alone blows the theory re away sides rarely winning out of the water.

 

Correct.

 

Also his repeated notion that it's boring to see the home team winning all the time, which is fine as his opinion, but he tends to think that is gospel across the board when the reality is quite the opposite.

 

As for the woes of speedway the biggest change they could make is having EL and PL run on different nights. It doesn't matter if riders are doubling up or not then, they aren't going to be missing matches because they are riding for someone else.

Edited May 27, 2016 by BWitcher

[PHILIPRISING]

Hi Phillip, did Buster give a timescale for when this task of re writing the rules? For the start of 2017 maybe?

YES 2017

[RobMcCaffery]

is that true? i'm not sure i understand how it would save money - am i being dull?

It was claimed that the cost of giving star riders an extra tactical substitute ride was getting far too high in the Elite League so the double points option where the team benefits but the rider gets paid the same saved money.

 

Poland and Sweden kept well clear of the idea, presumably because they could afford to carry on. Even in its original 'Golden Double' form with a handicap start I think few fell for the idea that it was some kind of step forward rather than a money-saving measure.

[PHILIPRISING]

Would anyone trust Chipmunk to do the rewriting, anyway? After the Hall debacle - which had nothing to do with averages - I wouldn't trust him to wipe his nose.

BUSTER hasn't said he will do it himself but engage others (Tony Steele and Craig Ackroyd would be among my choices) to help draft a far simpler set of rules rather than current ones which contain so many amendments and also to to envisage what they actually mean in practice rather than just theory.

 

When I first read that Hall had been banned from riding for Birmingham I, too, thought it a poor decision but, on reflection, if the National League is indeed supposed to be a stepping stone for younger riders to move up the ladder then I can see the reasoning.

[RobMcCaffery]

 

 

When I first read that Hall had been banned from riding for Birmingham I, too, thought it a poor decision but, on reflection, if the National League is indeed supposed to be a stepping stone for younger riders to move up the ladder then I can see the reasoning.

Yes, but the precedent was set by allowing Adam Ellis (in terms of ability if not experience) to sign for Eastbourne and there are plenty of riders more experienced than Hall riding in the NL.

 

If it had been a weaker team applying I wonder if the decision would have been the same? Hauling out a 2004 average is pretty desperate as a blocking tactic.

 

I hardly think Birmingham need to justify the age profile of the rest of their team.

Edited May 27, 2016 by rmc

[Gresham]

The away team rarely wins in speedway is sweeping statement that isn’t even remotely true.

 

In the past week Glasgow won AT Redcar, King Lynn and Swindon drew, Stoke won at Belle Vue, Belle Vue won at Poole, Sheffield won at Scunthorpe, Wolves won at Leicester and Workington won at Redcar

 

That is a single weeks’ worth of fixtures, that alone blows the theory re away sides rarely winning out of the water.

Maybe if you compare it with other team sports over a season, it may be different.

[sparkafag]

Maybe if you compare it with other team sports over a season, it may be different.

 

 

What happens in other sports doesn’t make a bit of difference to the number of away wins that happen in speedway or change the definition of the word rarely, it simply isn’t the case that “the away team rarely wins” it’s just a complete throw out line with no supporting evidence.

Edited May 27, 2016 by The Mockingjay

[BWitcher]

The original double points bollox was brought in at the behest of sky to keep meetings close because they weren't happy with the traditional tac sub, that's from a promoter, 100% fact.

 

It was sold to the promoters as it did indeed save money to 'make up' for the extra the promoters were spending for heat 15. Sky are not happy now the double points bollox can only be used once as it isn't as effective as the original tac sub rule and the promoters are still saving money.

 

I see you're gullible enough to fall for promoters spin, blaming someone else for their decision.

 

You're also suggesting that Sky are dumb enough to want a system less effective at keeping meetings close... in order to 'keep meetings close'.

 

I've heard it from two promoters that it was cost related and that Ipswich were the primary movers behind its introduction.

 

If Sky indeed had the power to make such rulings, it wouldn't have been changed from two to one...

Edited May 27, 2016 by BWitcher