Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Peterborough Panthers 2017


Recommended Posts

The crack is that Peterborough (and others) were allowed to use the mix of new and old averages when there was a mechanism within the regs to update all which wouldve resulted in the team total being a truer reflection of its strength.

 

One of the most fundamental elements of speedway regs is the aim to have equal strength teams through the points limit.

 

This has been undermined IMO.

 

The saddest and most frustrating part is that it was so obviously an issue that could have been dealt with in the winter when it was decided to reset the averages (along with conversion ratios etc)

Believe me if Ipswich had been in the same position as Peterborough they would have done the same also , the fault lies with the BSPA who like you said should have dealt with this during the winter off season but failed to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me if Ipswich had been in the same position as Peterborough they would have done the same also , the fault lies with the BSPA who like you said should have dealt with this during the winter off season but failed to do so.

I agree and it would still be wrong if it was Ipswich. Yes it is down to the BSPA.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crack is that Peterborough (and others) were allowed to use the mix of new and old averages when there was a mechanism within the regs to update all which wouldve resulted in the team total being a truer reflection of its strength.

One of the most fundamental elements of speedway regs is the aim to have equal strength teams through the points limit.

This has been undermined IMO.

The saddest and most frustrating part is that it was so obviously an issue that could have been dealt with in the winter when it was decided to reset the averages (along with conversion ratios etc)

I think the mix of averages mentioned is more for riders with assessed averages rather than established ones but averages and points limits always have played a major part in the UK speedway scene.

 

As for an issue that could have been dealt with over winter, Buster mentioned the rulebook needing overhauling when he was elected chairman, here we are 18 months or more down the line and nothing's changed and I dare say nothing will.

The panthers should start flying up towards the top end of the table now. On paper the best team by far.

We will see but on paper it looks very tidy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Adam Roynon get dropped before his average dropped to 3?

 

Carr

Hall

Wajtknecht

Shanes

 

Boxall?

Bowen?

Liam Carr is the stand out temp replacement for me Hall Boxall and Bowen I wouldn't even bother with, Shanes would miss too many matches. Next best Wajtknecht. Roynon's average I think would be too high.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me if Ipswich had been in the same position as Peterborough they would have done the same also , the fault lies with the BSPA who like you said should have dealt with this during the winter off season but failed to do so.

 

Didn't Ipswich also take advantage of Heeps old average to get Greaves in ?

 

Not quite on same scale as others, but same principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Didn't Ipswich also take advantage of Heeps old average to get Greaves in ?

 

Not quite on same scale as others, but same principle.

Yes they did but as you say not on the same scale . The problem is the BSPA didn't see this happening when many supporters on this site were saying it was open to abuse . Its not cheating because it's within the rules ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Didn't Ipswich also take advantage of Heeps old average to get Greaves in ?

 

Not quite on same scale as others, but same principle.

Not quite the same as all the original averages were used for the total to be under 40 and not a mix taking advantage of some dropping.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that had the revised averages been used then Danyon would have been raised from his 2 to a new figure of 4.57 meaning Greaves would fit under by over 2 points 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite the same as all the original averages were used for the total to be under 40 and not a mix taking advantage of some dropping.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that had the revised averages been used then Danyon would have been raised from his 2 to a new figure of 4.57 meaning Greaves would fit under by over 2 points

 

The first time Greaves was declared in official averages 3 Ippo riders had their new averages, 3 didn't - sedgmen just signed , Newman just back from injury and Heeps not enough matches - if Heeps had his "proper" average Greaves wouldn't have fitted.

 

Not trying to make a big issue out of this and apologies for using Peterborough thread, but that's how I see it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NONE of the Ipswich riders had their new average in force.

 

ALL of the 1-7 were using the season start figures to make the 40 limit.

 

Yes it couldve been decided to enforce ALL revised figures (indeed perhaps SHOULD) in which case Greaves was over 2 points BELOW the rider he replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NONE of the Ipswich riders had their new average in force.

ALL of the 1-7 were using the season start figures to make the 40 limit.

Yes it couldve been decided to enforce ALL revised figures (indeed perhaps SHOULD) in which case Greaves was over 2 points BELOW the rider he replaced.

Your first two assertions above are incorrect, and 'Mad Max' is quite correct. In Issue 8 of the GSAs Danny King, Rory Schlein and Connor Mountain achieved new averages. Nathan Greaves was declared in Issue 9.

 

Once again you appear to be confusing the team declaration rules, which Ipswich used quite legitimately, and the wider subject of how rider averages are determined.

Edited by NeilWatson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NONE of the Ipswich riders had their new average in force.

 

ALL of the 1-7 were using the season start figures to make the 40 limit.

 

Yes it couldve been decided to enforce ALL revised figures (indeed perhaps SHOULD) in which case Greaves was over 2 points BELOW the rider he replaced.

 

I'm obviously not reading and understanding the issued averages correctly, this is the first appearance of Greaves in Ipswich's declared team

 



http://speedwaygb.co/files/downloads/c17_issue_9.pdf

 

and this clearly has updated averages for King, Schlein and Mountain, so my logic says it is a mixture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm obviously not reading and understanding the issued averages correctly, this is the first appearance of Greaves in Ipswich's declared team

 



http://speedwaygb.co/files/downloads/c17_issue_9.pdf

 

and this clearly has updated averages for King, Schlein and Mountain, so my logic says it is a mixture?

You're understanding perfectly.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy