New era Panthers Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted June 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 It won't make the slightest bit of difference. Btw starke gets his new average after today's meeting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldyman Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 The panthers should start flying up towards the top end of the table now. On paper the best team by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted June 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 Lambert's 3.00 average will be difficult to find a short-term replacement if necessary. I can only think of Liam Carr or Richard Hall. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panthers89 Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 Holub...... Just saying! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted June 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 Holub...... Just saying! Now has an average of 4. It can only he a brit with a 3 average Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 Holub...... Just saying! DON'T even go there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted June 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 Did Adam Roynon get dropped before his average dropped to 3? Carr Hall Wajtknecht Shanes Boxall? Bowen? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted June 11, 2017 Report Share Posted June 11, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Max Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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 , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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 😛 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthegearbutnaeidea Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 if if's and but's where pots and pans I'd be a scrap metal merchant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Max Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWatson Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 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 June 12, 2017 by NeilWatson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Max Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWatson Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 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....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.