Speedway Star Article : 'lindback Adds Up'

[heathen chemistry]

exactly brummie kev thats why fans are so peed off with the bspa and are lea in in droves . one rule for oneclub and a new different one for another club . it stinks of corruption , back handers , or just plain fear

[Gemini]

.

I bet that post was interesting. Not like you to think twice about something and then delete the comments. You've got me wondering now.

[Aces51]

I bet that post was interesting. Not like you to think twice about something and then delete the comments. You've got me wondering now.

He's trying to join the silent majority.

[BurntFaceMan]

 

What has there being an incentive to bring in a GP rider got to do with it. If you want to replace a rider it has to be on a like for like basis. Taking the example of Andersen it had to be someone on 7.15 or less otherwise, it is against the rules and would be unfair on every other team. GP riders have previously been assessed at 8 and lo and behold the current averages for GP riders currently in the EL is almost exactly that figure. If they want to create an incentive to encourage GP riders then the rules have to be changed prior to the beginning of the season so that every team has the opportunity to take advantage of it, not virtually at the end of a season when only one team can bring in a rider on a falsely low assessed average.

 

Because the rules should be there to strengthen the sport, not to bottleneck it. There needs to be plenty of incentive for world class riders to race in our "so called" Elite League.

 

GP riders HAD previously been assessed at 8pts, but that rule was made when our league was stronger, when our reserves weren't in protected races and when heatleaders have an extra 0.5pts on their average to what they do now.

 

The problem isn't the 7pt assessment, the 7pt assessment is the most sensible option for our league and the level of the riders competing in it. The problem is that this has all happened behind closed doors, that no such reasoning has been passed on to the fans and one club appears to be benefiting whereas others are not. It's not the 7pt average, its the complete lack of transparency within our league that leaves regular fans like you and I feeling disparaged and unable to have any faith in the leaders of our sport.

[HenryW]

My mistake, there are 8.

 

However, there are still only 4 GP riders on an 8pt + average, which means there is a 50% chance that a GP rider will not achieve the 8pt average he has been bought in on, besides actually exceed that average. For a team to win the league they need their riders to exceed their averages. When there is only a 50% chance that a GP rider will even attain that average, there is no incentive to bring the rider into the league.

So...what you are saying is that there were 8 riders racing in the GP and 50% of them had an average in excess of 8 points.

 

Going for really basic arithmetic, that suggests that anyone in the top half of the GP standings should have an average in excess of 8.

 

Antonio Lindback is in the top half of the GP series.

 

Interesting.

 

Based on this years league, each team needs to win at least 46% of their meetings to make it into the play offs. On the assumption that 46pts are required to win a meeting (although obviously this can be higher with tactical rides), you'd need your riders to each increase their average by 0.86pts for 46% of the meetings, just to make the play offs. Let's say this averages out to be 0.4pts per rider, per season.

What now? This makes no sense at all...Do you not know how averages are calculated or do you just not understand basic arithmetic at all?

 

This means that if you were to bring a GP rider into the league, they'd need to achieve an average of approximately 8.4pts to be worth bringing into the league. Currently, only 37.5% of GP riders in the league are actually achieving this average. That means that any promoter who wants to bring a GP rider into the league, on an assessed 8pt average, has a 62.5% chance that their rider will fail to deliver the goods required to warrant that average.

 

Doesn't that logic make sense?

As suggested above...NO.

 

If you were a promoter, would you risk bringing one of the top 15 riders in the world into our league, when there is a 62.5% chance that they will not score enough to warrant their average?

Ignoring everything I said before, let's remember that we are not talking about a rider being brought in for the season, we are talking about an injury replacement being brought in only for the play off matches, so not exactly the same thing as building your entire season around this rider.

 

Looking at it that way, does it make any sense that a rider who isn't even good enough to be in the GP series can be replaced by someone who is in the top half of the GP standings based on the idea that the rider he is replacing is better than him??

 

Or, to put it another way...Do you think that Hans Andersen is a better rider than Antonio Lindback?

Edited September 25, 2016 by HenryW

[waiheke1]

Excellent post henry. The other thing I would add is that the whole point of an assessed average is it should mirror what the rider is likely to average. 50% chance if scoring higher 50% chance of scoring lower seems right, so average of 8 sounds good. Bearing in mind that your top two riders get an extra ride in heat 15 and therefore if they can hit an average of 8 over rides your team is getting in effect an extra .5 out of them assuming a 42 point limit

And again the simple solution is if they ride top flight sweden or Poland, and have not ridden in uk in previous two seasons, they should come in on that average (or midpoint of the two if they ride both).

[g13webb]

 

Because the rules should be there to strengthen the sport, not to bottleneck it. There needs to be plenty of incentive for world class riders to race in our "so called" Elite League.

 

GP riders HAD previously been assessed at 8pts, but that rule was made when our league was stronger, when our reserves weren't in protected races and when heatleaders have an extra 0.5pts on their average to what they do now.

 

The problem isn't the 7pt assessment, the 7pt assessment is the most sensible option for our league and the level of the riders competing in it. The problem is that this has all happened behind closed doors, that no such reasoning has been passed on to the fans and one club appears to be benefiting whereas others are not. It's not the 7pt average, its the complete lack of transparency within our league that leaves regular fans like you and I feeling disparaged and unable to have any faith in the leaders of our sport.

 

Whatever average a rider is assigned, it doesn't make any difference to the incentive for foreign riders to race there. He doesn't earn more money on a low average, he earns money from the point he earns.

 

Your comments you would gain far more credibility if you were to say accept that Lindback was assessed wrongly. Also that Poole were extremely fortunate the outcome was so favourable to their cause. But to go on and on, trying to find some justification of a non-sensible idea you lose any support your ideas might suggest.

 

Why is it that the whole speedway world can see the unjust of this decision, yet Poole supporters are bending over backward to justify its correctness. We have heard, 'it was because it was professionally presented', we have heard it was because Poole asked for a reassessment and that Lakeside didn't' , We have heard it was because Woffy was on a 7'. We have heard it was because 'Lindback has not rode here for 9 yrs' , all ridiculous ideas that should have not bearing on Common Sense . No way should Lindback be allowed to replace a lesser rider....

 

​Our whole average system has been shot to bits and now bears little relevance to the reasons it was first introduced. But to use them figures, that are 9 yrs old, to fully justify any resemblance of fact is unbelievable. In the real world, any average over a year old, is out of date and should be replaced. But this will never happen because then the promoters won't be able to manipulate them to their advantage.... and that is where Matt Ford is king....

[BurntFaceMan]

So...what you are saying is that there were 8 riders racing in the GP and 50% of them had an average in excess of 8 points.

 

Going for really basic arithmetic, that suggests that anyone in the top half of the GP standings should have an average in excess of 8.

 

Antonio Lindback is in the top half of the GP series.

 

Interesting.

 

What now? This makes no sense at all...Do you not know how averages are calculated or do you just not understand basic arithmetic at all?

 

As suggested above...NO.

 

Ignoring everything I said before, let's remember that we are not talking about a rider being brought in for the season, we are talking about an injury replacement being brought in only for the play off matches, so not exactly the same thing as building your entire season around this rider.

 

Looking at it that way, does it make any sense that a rider who isn't even good enough to be in the GP series can be replaced by someone who is in the top half of the GP standings based on the idea that the rider he is replacing is better than him??

 

Or, to put it another way...Do you think that Hans Andersen is a better rider than Antonio Lindback?

Henry, I appreciate you're upset with the situation, but writing a condescending post to try and discredit me, without applying any logic whatsoever is not going to change anything. I appreciate it may make you, and other fellow fans (who are just as disillusioned with the management of this sport as you or I) who liked your post, feel better, but it's not the answer. In fact all of the points you made were incorrect.

 

I've addressed each of your condescending remarks directly.

 

So...what you are saying is that there were 8 riders racing in the GP and 50% of them had an average in excess of 8 points.

 

Going for really basic arithmetic, that suggests that anyone in the top half of the GP standings should have an average in excess of 8.

 

Antonio Lindback is in the top half of the GP series.

 

Interesting.

No. That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying there are 8 GP riders racing in our league. 50% of them have an average of at least 8 pts. Additionally, only 37.5% of them have an average in excess of 8 pts.

 

I think that the really basic arithmetic you were searching for has failed you a little bit. Let's take a look at the 4 GP riders racing in our league with an average of at least 8 pts.

 

Jason Doyle - 9.81 - Top half of the GP

Chris Holder - 8.00 - Top half of the GP

Niels Kristian Iversen - 8.99 - Bottom half of the GP

Andreas Jonsson - 8.78 - Bottom half of the GP

 

So can you explain the "really basic arithmetic" you used to determine that any rider in the top half of the GP standings should be assessed an average of 8pts?

 

What now? This makes no sense at all...Do you not know how averages are calculated or do you just not understand basic arithmetic at all?

It actually makes perfect sense, but I'll try and explain it again for you.

 

There are 4 positions available in the play offs. This year, the team that finished in 4th place won 13 of their 28 matches (as did the teams in 2nd and 3rd). So based on this years league, a team has to win 46% of their matches to make it into the play offs.

 

In general, a team would need to score 46pts (at least) to win a meeting (it can actually, of course, be higher if the opposing team uses a tactical ride), however, the team building limit is only 40pts. This means you'd need each rider in the team to perform 0.86pts better than their average for at least 46% of their meetings to ensure that enough matches are won to compete in the play offs.

 

Of course that doesn't mean a rider needs to add 0.86 pts to their average, as they only need to do so in just under half of their meetings. So let's say that over the course of a season, a rider needs to add about 0.4pts to their average if their team is to be in the winning half of the league.

 

This means that if you were to bring a GP rider into the league, they'd need to achieve an average of approximately 8.4pts over the course of the season to be worth their initial assessed 8 pt average. Currently, only 37.5% of GP riders in the league are actually achieving this average. That means that any promoter who wants to bring a GP rider into the league, on an assessed 8pt average, has a 62.5% chance that their rider will fail to deliver the goods required to warrant that average. This makes bringing a GP rider into the league bad business, as it is an unattractive risk to a promoter and means the fans are less likely to see more GP riders in our league.

 

Ignoring everything I said before, let's remember that we are not talking about a rider being brought in for the season, we are talking about an injury replacement being brought in only for the play off matches, so not exactly the same thing as building your entire season around this rider.

It is actually exactly the same thing. The fact that the rider is being brought in to replace an injured rider is irrelevant. The assessment formula should be black and white and applied to all riders equally. That is exactly the problem with our league. It shouldn't be down to any person to decide they feel these circumstances are different, it should be fair and equal for all.

 

Looking at it that way, does it make any sense that a rider who isn't even good enough to be in the GP series can be replaced by someone who is in the top half of the GP standings based on the idea that the rider he is replacing is better than him??

Yes, it makes perfect sense. The fact that a rider isn't good enough to be in the GP series doesn't mean that they are not better league riders.

 

For example, the lowest average GP rider in our league is Chris Harris (6.77). The current world champion is Tai Woffinden (7.03).

 

Without even including Chris Harris (we'll just stick to the world champion to prove a point), let's look at all the riders in our league who "aren't good enough" to be in the GP, but are still out performing the world champion.

 

Krzysztof Kasprzak - 7.91

Sam Masters - 7.46

Hans Andersen - 7.15

Max Fricke - 7.14

 

All of these riders are "not good enough" to be in the GPs, but all have an average better than the world champion.

 

Then let's take a look at all the riders "not good enough" to be in the GPs, yet are still out performing GP rider Chris Harris (6.77).

 

Krzysztof Kasprzak - 7.91

Sam Masters - 7.46

Hans Andersen - 7.15

Max Fricke - 7.14

Robert Lambert - 6.92

Jacob Thorssell - 6.88

Danny King - 6.87

Kim Nilsson - 6.86

 

8 different riders, all "not good enough" to be in the GP's and all out performing a GP rider in the league. So to answer your question, yes it does make sense that a rider who isn't even good enough to be in the GP series can be replaced by someone who is in the top half of the GP standings.

 

Or, to put it another way...Do you think that Hans Andersen is a better rider than Antonio Lindback?

No, I do not, but that is not why you, I or any other fans are upset. You are upset because you, like many others, are quite rightly so upset that the blanket rule of assessing any GP rider as 8 pts has not been applied fairly. The argument I am making is that it is clear that the rule (made in a time where heat leaders had averages 0.5pts stronger than they do now) is outdated, unfair and counter productive to the growth (or even just survival!) of the league.

 

Only half the GP riders in our league have managed to attain that average, and only 37.5% have managed to beat it.

 

If we're going to have a blanket rule as stupid as "all GP riders get assessed as XX pts average", then 8pts is not the correct choice. With all these factors taken into account, a 7pt assessment is more fair, more realistic and more beneficial to the sport in that promoters need not take such a large risk when signing a GP rider. However, a blanket assessment of any sort is, by it's very nature, bound to be incorrect.

 

I do not agree that 7 pts is a fair assessed average for Antonio Lindback. I do not believe that a blanket assessment for GP riders is fair or accurate. What I believe is that their should be a fair and transparent formula to convert a riders true and current ability into an accurate and fair average. The point I have been trying to make this entire time is that the problem is not with the assessment, it is with the lack of transparency of the formula or decision making used to determine this average, and the disrepute that doing such things behind closed doors brings to our sport. It leaves fans like you and I feeling, QUITE RIGHTLY SO, that their is foul play at hand.

[Bryn]

Whilst I'm not decrying "Burntfaceman's" impressive plethora of figures I can't help but think of a common saying during my working for a living days, that saying being, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics!"

[BWitcher]

Burntfaceman seems to be trying awfully hard, but each post he makes only adds to the argument that Lindback should have been on an eight.

 

Besides, all of this is a moot point anyway as the rules have been flagrantly broken.

 

A replacement was only allowed, as per the rules, for a 'long term injury'. Andersen is riding today.

 

As such Poole have deceived the BSPA and signed a rider ineligible by the rules.

 

The only solution is to deduct his pts from the original match and re-instate Hans Andersen into the side.

[Steve0]

Burntfaceman seems to be trying awfully hard, but each post he makes only adds to the argument that Lindback should have been on an eight.

 

Besides, all of this is a moot point anyway as the rules have been flagrantly broken.

 

A replacement was only allowed, as per the rules, for a 'long term injury'. Andersen is riding today.

 

As such Poole have deceived the BSPA and signed a rider ineligible by the rules.

 

The only solution is to deduct his pts from the original match and re-instate Hans Andersen into the side.

So Lindback needs to be dropped and Hans reinstated otherwise no one can argue that Poole are CHEATING SCUMBAGS! They have also used an ineligible rider for the first leg (as Hans wasn't out with a long term injury as you said) so are already CHEATING SCUMBAGS as I've been saying since Lindback's signing was announced.

[ABS]

If only Hans could return in place of Bjarne, things would be just perfect down Wimborne Road way.

[BurntFaceMan]

That was a long post but the two things I got out of it are, you don't understand how averages work in a 15 heat el meeting and a blanket assessment for gp riders is the way to go on the kiss principle and 8.00 makes the most sense.

 

Nonsense, as expected from some. All I got from your post is that not only are there idiots running the league, but plenty supporting it too.

 

Ok, you're right. A blanket 8 pt average is the most appropriate way to assess GP riders. Chris Harris and Tai Woffinden are both basically as good as each other. Tai Woffinden's 7.03 pt average is fair and Antonio Lindback's 7.00 pt average is not.

 

Let's all keep bleating on about how unfair it is, but not suggest any reason why it's unfair or any way to change it.

Burntfaceman seems to be trying awfully hard, but each post he makes only adds to the argument that Lindback should have been on an eight.

 

Besides, all of this is a moot point anyway as the rules have been flagrantly broken.

 

A replacement was only allowed, as per the rules, for a 'long term injury'. Andersen is riding today.

 

As such Poole have deceived the BSPA and signed a rider ineligible by the rules.

 

The only solution is to deduct his pts from the original match and re-instate Hans Andersen into the side.

 

Wow! What an intelligent post! Ok, from now on if a rider is injured we will run the play offs without him, and if he doesn't recover before the end, it will be clear that a new signing was justified and we'll rerun the play offs all over again with a new rider in his place.

You and Freddy would make a fantastic addition to the BSPA!

[TheReturn]

Burntfaceman seems to be trying awfully hard, but each post he makes only adds to the argument that Lindback should have been on an eight.

 

Besides, all of this is a moot point anyway as the rules have been flagrantly broken.

 

A replacement was only allowed, as per the rules, for a 'long term injury'. Andersen is riding today.

 

As such Poole have deceived the BSPA and signed a rider ineligible by the rules.

 

The only solution is to deduct his pts from the original match and re-instate Hans Andersen into the side.

 

If Hans is now riding, he should be back in place of Lindback tomorrow, otherwise Poole are surely guilty of a team change beyond the deadline?

[ABS]

We can now anticipate the premature "retirement" of Bjarne, which will allow Poole to handpick guests for what remains of the play-offs. Will not be breaking any rules, of course, but showing, as with the Lindback affair, what a morally bankrupt outfit our friends on the South Coast really is. I hope that our unchanged 1-7 win the play-offs and no doubt most, if not all, neutrals will be behind The Aces.

I got it wrong - a "twisted knee" will suffice.

[Halifaxtiger]

 

Nonsense, as expected from some. All I got from your post is that not only are there idiots running the league, but plenty supporting it too.

 

Ok, you're right. A blanket 8 pt average is the most appropriate way to assess GP riders. Chris Harris and Tai Woffinden are both basically as good as each other. Tai Woffinden's 7.03 pt average is fair and Antonio Lindback's 7.00 pt average is not.

 

Let's all keep bleating on about how unfair it is, but not suggest any reason why it's unfair or any way to change it.

 

Wow! What an intelligent post! Ok, from now on if a rider is injured we will run the play offs without him, and if he doesn't recover before the end, it will be clear that a new signing was justified and we'll rerun the play offs all over again with a new rider in his place.

You and Freddy would make a fantastic addition to the BSPA!

 

I would point out that Woffinden's 7pt average results from actual racing performances, Lindback's doesn't. The racing formula is different, but Lindback is also a better rider.

 

I'd also say that a facility for a long term injury in these circumstances is one that is allowed where the rider definitely will not be competing again. Clearly that isn't the case here and it surely makes a mockery of the rule that a team are allowed to sign a rider as a replacement for a long term injury and then the injured rider is back on a bike barely a week later.

 

Having said that, I completely agree with almost everything you have said above. As you rightly point out, it is why the average reduction has been allowed, not the fact that it has.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Halifaxtiger

[waiheke1]

Ok burnt man to go over explicitly what is wrong with sum of your post.

Averages are based on a rider having 4 heats. That equates to a 14 heat meeting. So to have a "winning team " you need your riders to average 43, being one more than 42.

Now this year's limit was set at 40.5. However, most reserves had their starting averages lowered beyond what they achieved. Lets say that equates to 1.5 points. So your point limit is usual to what you need to achieve to get a draw. What you need then is an improvement of .14 points per rider, less if the riders improving will generally race in heat 15. That equates to roughly a 2.5% improvement per rider.Now do you see why people weren't taking you seriously, when you have the fundamentals of averages wrong?

[SCB]

You actually don't even need 42 to win a meeting. You can do it with 40.8. The two riders going into heat 15 will go in with high average as they're the better riders, one of them at least is likely to see his average drop. If you assume they both have 3333 going into heat 15 and get 5-1d both of their averages drop and you may have still scored 46

[waiheke1]

You actually don't even need 42 to win a meeting. You can do it with 40.8. The two riders going into heat 15 will go in with high average as they're the better riders, one of them at least is likely to see his average drop. If you assume they both have 3333 going into heat 15 and get 5-1d both of their averages drop and you may have still scored 46

Spot on. I alluded to this somewhere earlier in the thread. A realistic assumption is a top 2 who average 16 between them, which would mean a team average of 42 to give a meeting average of 46. But if your top 2 average 20 (cma) between them, then you ate down to a team average of 41. And at the extreme end 40.8 will do it as you say. Hans Nielsen and Ivan Mauger don't race EL these days though!

[Bleeds Pirate Blue]

@BurntFaceMan While I agree with the points you have been trying to make, your application of statistics in this argument is misguided at best...

 

"This means that if you were to bring a GP rider into the league, they'd need to achieve an average of approximately 8.4pts to be worth bringing into the league. Currently, only 37.5% of GP riders in the league are actually achieving this average. That means that any promoter who wants to bring a GP rider into the league, on an assessed 8pt average, has a 62.5% chance that their rider will fail to deliver the goods required to warrant that average."

 

You keep saying that unless an 8.00 rider (aka a GP rider) can achieve a 8.40+ average he is essentially a poor selection for a team, and then added that 62.5% of GP riders haven't succeeded in that regard. Firstly I want to address this figure of 62.5%. Your sample size to attain this figure is whole inadequate - one season. Anyone with any sort of background in statistical analysis would know this, and wouldn't keep running it into the ground. Why haven't you included similar analysis of rider averages since the GPs started? Or perhaps for the last five seasons? Your use of this one, flawed statistic, then shapes statements like:

 

"If you were a promoter, would you risk bringing one of the top 15 riders in the world into our league, when there is a 62.5% chance that they will not score enough to warrant their average?"

 

So for team building purposes for next season promotors will be thinking about the 2016 season in isolation?

 

Then there is your whole argument about needing 46pts (13 wins) and approx 46 points to win a meeting, hence the 0.40 increase in all riders averages.... This assumes all riders are equally responsible for a team's improvement, which isn't something any sane promotor would be looking to achieve. If a side signs GP Rider A, one of the top 15 in the world, on say a 9.50 GSA and he only MAINTAINS it, because he's already at his peak, while at reserve that allows you to sign a young, up and coming rider on a low average who improves who adds 1.00+ to his GSA, then between them they have been a success. In your back and white analysis, GP Rider A has been a poor signing. He could have topped the league averages without improving and still been a bad signing...

 

We also cannot assume that the riders in the Grand Prix Series are the sport's very best riders because of a variety of issues, such as injuries, form and machinery, not to mention including the fact the event organisers award permanent wildcards based on their financial pull for the series (i.e. a Swedish rider if none qualify as there are two GPs in Sweden each season etc...)

 

Anyway, sorry to attack your though-out and lengthy analysis, but as someone who quite likes a bit of data analysis, your interpretation of some flawed data was particularly irksome.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Bleeds Pirate Blue