stevehone Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Somerset this season and Edinburgh the year before had two 8-9 pointers in their teams and topped the league. how many do/did their reserves score Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted October 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) how many do/did their reserves score For somerset Dean averages 5.02 and the other averages 3.00 as for Edinburgh both averaged under 3.50. I honestly don't believe there is a real science to team building other than you need riders who will improve their averages greatly and of course finding the odd ringer on a false average. Edited October 20, 2016 by Flappy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 For somerset Dean averages 5.02 and the other averages 3.00 as for Edinburgh both averaged under 3.50. I honestly don't believe there is a real science to team building other than you need riders who will improve their averages greatly and of course finding the odd ringer on a false average.dan bewley Dan bewley is averaging 4.00 .according to the green sheets . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) I honestly don't believe there is a real science to team building other than you need riders who will improve their averages greatly and of course finding the odd ringer on a false average.Agreed, but I think the other key principle is to maximise the average of your nos. 1,2 & 6 as they are the riders who get extra rides. So with a 42.50 limit the optimum lineup is something like: 9.00, 8.50, 6.00, 5.50, 5.50, 5.00, 3.00. Then just find the riders on bargain averages (oh and the money to pay for them!) Edited October 20, 2016 by arnieg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Agreed, but I think the other key principle is to maximise the average of your nos. 1,2 & 6 as they are the riders who get extra rides. So with a 42.50 limit the optimum lineup is something like: 9.00, 8.50, 6.00, 5.50, 5.50, 5.00, 3.00. Then just find the riders on bargain averages (oh and the money to pay for them!) Good logics but putting it into practice is something else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted October 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Dan bewley is averaging 4.00 .according to the green sheets . Yep I was using their title winning team as an example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehone Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 For somerset Dean averages 5.02 and the other averages 3.00 as for Edinburgh both averaged under 3.50. I honestly don't believe there is a real science to team building other than you need riders who will improve their averages greatly and of course finding the odd ringer on a false average. I wasn't after the averages, I was after what the opposition reserves scored at the Showground - and I've had a look .... v Somerset KOC - Jake Allen 9+1 v Somerset PL - BWD 8+1 v Edinburgh PL - Bewley 10+2 This is what makes the difference, when Peterborough lose at home it's generally helped on it's way by a big hitting reserve in the opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Don't think it was the make up of the team but the poor continued form of several riders that caused the disastrous results of the team , when Cook was added to the team along with Holub , no doubt it was hoped that Holub would score alot more than he did at reserve once Perry moved into the 1-5 Lambert briefly then Grondal went to reserve so there should of been a decent reserve at all times but Grondal was woeful at reserve for a 5+ averaging reserve, coupled with Lamberts injury and NBJ and then Ulrich struggling the team had no back up for Cook in the middle part of the season and suffered as a result. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proud panther Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 Would put Jack Holder high on my list, but think he will end up at Somerset. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted October 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 1 Lawson 8.17 2 Lambert 5.25 3 Hansen 6.25 4 T.Kurtz 5.76 5 L.Bjerre 6.65 6 Bewley 4.00 7 Williamson 3.76 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 1 Lawson 8.17 2 Lambert 5.25 3 Hansen 6.25 4 T.Kurtz 5.76 5 L.Bjerre 6.65 6 Bewley 4.00 7 Williamson 3.76 hansen 6.75. lawson . no chance . bewley glasgow bound . matt . back at workington (if they run) = points limit will be lower for team building . nice team tho . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 hansen 6.75. lawson . no chance . bewley glasgow bound . matt . back at workington (if they run) = points limit will be lower for team building . nice team tho . I can see K.Hansen L.Bjerre and S.Lambert being the only ones out of that 7 and Flappy also forgot to mention U.Ostergaard who will be in leaving spaces for a new NO1 and 2 reserves should it be 40.50 limit and 1 reserve (NL) on a 2 point average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted October 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) How about 1 Schlein 2 Jacobs 3 Hansen 4 Ostergaard 5 Bjerre 6 Lambert 7 Phillips Or 1 Wells 2 Lambert 3 Ostergaard 4 Hansen 5 Bjerre 6 Roynon/Etheridge 7 Phillips Edited October 25, 2016 by Flappy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans fan Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 How about 1 Schlein 2 Jacobs 3 Hansen 4 Ostergaard 5 Bjerre 6 Lambert 7 Phillips phillips not good enough , schlein most likely to have a polish gig ( so that rules panthers out if he does ) , can't see the pts limit being over 40.5 myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted October 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 phillips not good enough , schlein most likely to have a polish gig ( so that rules panthers out if he does ) , can't see the pts limit being over 40.5 myself That is to a 40.5 limit with Phillips as the 2 pointer at reserve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldyman Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 You should definitely take Jacobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sings4Speedway Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 You should definitely take Jacobs Not convinced anyone will take Jacobs on 5.36. Sadly he looks a victim of his own success with Clegg, Perry, Morris, Perry, Bewley, Branford, Boxall, Roynon, Sissis & Wilson-Dean all available on lower averages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldyman Posted October 25, 2016 Report Share Posted October 25, 2016 I believe you are right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudflaps Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 phillips not good enough , Agree with that!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flappy Posted October 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 Agree with that!! Not even on a 2 average? I see Lasse Bjerre is looking for a ride in Poland and the elite league 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.