In My View By Phil Rising

[Humphrey Appleby]

Averages - without bonus points - and points limits being used to control team strengths are the best way to equalise teams.

There is no sane argument against them.

There has to be some sort of limits on team building, but the way the points limit has been implemented down the years has been detrimental to the sport, especially as it's become more-and-more punitive rather than simply there to prevent teams becoming over-strong. You do want to limit cheque book speedway, but equally you need to provide incentives to developing teams who shouldn't be torn apart because a rider has improved by a point or so. There are ways to implement that, but sadly it would seem impossible for anyone to see the bigger picture beyond one season.

 

On that basis, you might as well pool all the riders at the end of each season, and let the teams for the following season pick them in some sort of draft system - lowest placed team picking first etc... Maybe teams could be allowed to retain a couple of riders from the previous season for continuity, but I don't think this system would be any more of a merry-go-round than what exists now.

[chunky]

There has to be some sort of limits on team building, but the way the points limit has been implemented down the years has been detrimental to the sport, especially as it's become more-and-more punitive rather than simply there to prevent teams becoming over-strong. You do want to limit cheque book speedway, but equally you need to provide incentives to developing teams who shouldn't be torn apart because a rider has improved by a point or so. There are ways to implement that, but sadly it would seem impossible for anyone to see the bigger picture beyond one season.

 

On that basis, you might as well pool all the riders at the end of each season, and let the teams for the following season pick them in some sort of draft system - lowest placed team picking first etc... Maybe teams could be allowed to retain a couple of riders from the previous season for continuity, but I don't think this system would be any more of a merry-go-round than what exists now.

I have been saying this for years. It's fine having a points limit - providing it is a realistic limit! Yes, it is - or should be -

designed to prevent teams from becoming "over-strong", but all it does now is force out riders for being "too good", and reduce teams (and leagues) to a level of mediocrity.

 

I remember back in the 80's, Andy Grahame was forced out of his team (Oxford, I think) because his average was too high. However, no other BL team could fit him in because his average was too high, and his assessed average was too high to allow him to go NL! Yes, they did resolve the situation, but how is forcing riders out of the sport productive in any shape or form?

 

The idea should not be to weaken the stronger teams (particularly if riders have had the audacity to actually improve during a season), but to help weaker sides come up to the appropriate standard.

 

Steve

[PHILIPRISING]

I have been saying this for years. It's fine having a points limit - providing it is a realistic limit! Yes, it is - or should be -

designed to prevent teams from becoming "over-strong", but all it does now is force out riders for being "too good", and reduce teams (and leagues) to a level of mediocrity.

 

I remember back in the 80's, Andy Grahame was forced out of his team (Oxford, I think) because his average was too high. However, no other BL team could fit him in because his average was too high, and his assessed average was too high to allow him to go NL! Yes, they did resolve the situation, but how is forcing riders out of the sport productive in any shape or form?

 

The idea should not be to weaken the stronger teams (particularly if riders have had the audacity to actually improve during a season), but to help weaker sides come up to the appropriate standard.

 

Steve

WELL said. Would endorse all that.

[cowboy cookie returns?]

Last night a Foxhall has proved to me that speedway can still be a fantastic night out I say that as a former season ticket holder however last night was only my second visit of the year.........come on BSPA & SCB sort this mess out!!!!!!!!

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

Last night a Foxhall has proved to me that speedway can still be a fantastic night out I say that as a former season ticket holder however last night was only my second visit of the year.........come on BSPA & SCB sort this mess out!!!!!!!!

Heres hoping you and a few more like you are tempted back for the cup match on the 13th (and then the final ☺) and again in 2018.

It was a fantastic atmosphere last night despite being ultimately fruitless for the Witches.

[SteveLyric2]

How much did it cost an adult to get into Ipswich last night??

[Tsunami]

How much did it cost an adult to get into Ipswich last night??

Normal prices was stated on another thread.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

Yep - normal adult price £16

Normal programme price £2.50

All kids were free last night (usually £4 outside school holidays)

[Humphrey Appleby]

I have been saying this for years. It's fine having a points limit - providing it is a realistic limit! Yes, it is - or should be -

designed to prevent teams from becoming "over-strong", but all it does now is force out riders for being "too good", and reduce teams (and leagues) to a level of mediocrity.

If you set the points limit higher, it'll just encourage some teams to go and sign riders up to that limit and will do very little for team development.

 

I'd start with something like a 42 points limit (around the equilibrium) and allow teams to increase that limit by a certain amount for each rider U21 or in the first 3 years of their careers. Then allow a further allowance for each rider retained from the previous season, so that teams wouldn't be penalised if some of their riders improve slightly for a season for two, but equally they can't become too strong as eventually a successful team will have to release riders.

 

So the points limit could be somewhere between (say) 42 and 49 points depending on who a team signs, but a team wouldn't just be able to go out and sign a team straight up to 49 points.

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

If you set the points limit at 46 or above you would get a more expensive team than if you used my idea of no points limit and one Brit and no more than one GP rider with 2 u21 Brits at reserve ,points to make teams has had its day and the sport needs to think outside its box ,its never been a better time to get rid of points limit due to the riders that are available

Edited October 1, 2017 by THE DEAN MACHINE

[foamfence]

If you set the points limit at 46 or above you would get a more expensive team than if you used my idea of no points limit and one Brit and no more than one GP rider with 2 u21 Brits at reserve ,points to make teams has had its day and the sport needs to think outside its box ,its never been a better time to get rid of points limit due to the riders that are available

How about a points limit for overseas riders only, say 21?

[mikebv]

The play off showed that all the four teams' top sixes were of similar level, with all of them having Number Sevens that struggled....

 

So maybe run six man teams and go with the Champion's top six average for next season for all teams?

 

It means the Champs can maintain all their riders if they wish, which many fans complain is a major issue in the sport, as their favourites get moved on for mathematic equation issues rather than on track performance. .

[PHILIPRISING]

The play off showed that all the four teams' top sixes were of similar level, with all of them having Number Sevens that struggled....

 

So maybe run six man teams and go with the Champion's top six average for next season for all teams?

 

It means the Champs can maintain all their riders if they wish, which many fans complain is a major issue in the sport, as their favourites get moved on for mathematic equation issues rather than on track performance. .

WORTH a thought or two

[Humphrey Appleby]

So maybe run six man teams and go with the Champion's top six average for next season for all teams?

 

It means the Champs can maintain all their riders if they wish, which many fans complain is a major issue in the sport, as their favourites get moved on for mathematic equation issues rather than on track performance. .

The point of the points limit is so that some riders have to be released, so they become available to weaker teams. If you build up to the strength of the champion team, that defeats the purpose.

 

And the fact is there have been occasions where a lower placed team than the champion had the highest combined points. It hardly seems fair they'd have to weaken whilst the champions didn't.

 

The 'mathematical equation' is a reflection of on-track performance to a large extent.

[steve roberts]

The point of the points limit is so that some riders have to be released, so they become available to weaker teams. If you build up to the strength of the champion team, that defeats the purpose.

 

And the fact is there have been occasions where a lower placed team than the champion had the highest combined points. It hardly seems fair they'd have to weaken whilst the champions didn't.

 

The 'mathematical equation' is a reflection of on-track performance to a large extent.

...way back in 1987 Oxford were the only team, if I recall, who released a 'star' rider (Simon Wigg) to assist the Hackey promotion who had taken the decision to enter Division One at a great cost.

 

It would prove costly for both Hackney and Oxord. Hackney survived only the one year at that level and Oxford just avoided the wooden spoon (although their League Cup campaign was good).

 

I remember Bernard Crapper saying that it had been a mistake but it was yet another example of not all promoters pulling together within the spirit of the sport.

[Humphrey Appleby]

...way back in 1987 Oxford were the only team, if I recall, who released a 'star' rider (Simon Wigg) to assist the Hackey promotion who had taken the decision to enter Division One at a great cost.

 

It would prove costly for both Hackney and Oxord. Hackney survived only the one year at that level and Oxford just avoided the wooden spoon (although their League Cup campaign was good).

 

I remember Bernard Crapper saying that it had been a mistake but it was yet another example of not all promoters pulling together within the spirit of the sport.

Probably most teams could point to being 'hard done by' by the points limit, but after sweeping all before them in 1986, it was not unreasonable that Oxford should be forced to release a star rider, especially to a new team. That Hackney couldn't make a go of things at BL level was undoubtedly down to other reasons, but they certainly wouldn't have made a go of things if no-one had released riders.

 

I'd not have said Wigg was really an out-and-out No. 1 for various reasons, but the likes of Marvyn Cox and Andy Grahame did go onto become significant riders for other teams when they had to be released by Oxford, which I think shows the positive aspect of the points limit.

 

The sport has to consider the bigger picture than one promoter complaining about his own selfish interests, although I suspect Bernard Crapper was doing it for public effect and knew full well that Oxford probably couldn't afford to keep all their championship winning riders even if they could.

[waiheke1]

...way back in 1987 Oxford were the only team, if I recall, who released a 'star' rider (Simon Wigg) to assist the Hackey promotion who had taken the decision to enter Division One at a great cost.

 

It would prove costly for both Hackney and Oxord. Hackney survived only the one year at that level and Oxford just avoided the wooden spoon (although their League Cup campaign was good).

 

I remember Bernard Crapper saying that it had been a mistake but it was yet another example of not all promoters pulling together within the spirit of the sport.

of course you could argue that Wigg only joined Oxford in the first place because the 83 Cradley team were forced to release Wigg (and Ravn, and Jan O) in 1984 in order to get under the points limit.

plenty of team had to release HL over the years - I remember in 85 for example Aces needed to release 2 out of Ross, Courtney and P Carr (they ended up releasing all 3 and bringing in Andy Campbell, surely one of the worst decisions of all time).

if Oxrod hadn't released Wigg in 87 they would have likely needed to release Cox and Grahame to get under the points limit - hard to build a team with two 11+ riders, between them Hand and Wigg would have taken up over half the points available for team building.

Probably most teams could point to being 'hard done by' by the points limit, but after sweeping all before them in 1986, it was not unreasonable that Oxford should be forced to release a star rider, especially to a new team. That Hackney couldn't make a go of things at BL level was undoubtedly down to other reasons, but they certainly wouldn't have made a go of things if no-one had released riders.

 

I'd not have said Wigg was really an out-and-out No. 1 for various reasons, but the likes of Marvyn Cox and Andy Grahame did go onto become significant riders for other teams when they had to be released by Oxford, which I think shows the positive aspect of the points limit.

 

The sport has to consider the bigger picture than one promoter complaining about his own selfish interests, although I suspect Bernard Crapper was doing it for public effect and knew full well that Oxford probably couldn't afford to keep all their championship winning riders even if they could.

hard to argue Wigg wasn't a number one when he averaged 11+ in 1986, which put him 3rd in the averages I believe (behind Hans and Eric). i know he dropped a couple of points riding as number 1 in 1987, but he was hardly the worst number 1 in the league even then.

[steve roberts]

of course you could argue that Wigg only joined Oxford in the first place because the 83 Cradley team were forced to release Wigg (and Ravn, and Jan O) in 1984 in order to get under the points limit.

plenty of team had to release HL over the years - I remember in 85 for example Aces needed to release 2 out of Ross, Courtney and P Carr (they ended up releasing all 3 and bringing in Andy Campbell, surely one of the worst decisions of all time).

if Oxrod hadn't released Wigg in 87 they would have likely needed to release Cox and Grahame to get under the points limit - hard to build a team with two 11+ riders, between them Hand and Wigg would have taken up over half the points available for team building.

hard to argue Wigg wasn't a number one when he averaged 11+ in 1986, which put him 3rd in the averages I believe (behind Hans and Eric). i know he dropped a couple of points riding as number 1 in 1987, but he was hardly the worst number 1 in the league even then.

My initial comment was not really based on Oxford having to release a rider but more about that they were the only team to do so to support an incoming team to bring them up to an acceptable strength which was the essence of Bernard Crapper's comment at the time.

 

Other promotions were less than willing despite the call for unity within the BSPA to assist for the overall benefit of the sport.

Edited October 2, 2017 by steve roberts

[cowboy cookie returns?]

You appear to be the sort of fan who knows his stuff.

 

What happened the first time you went this season to put you off and what did you think had changed to encourage you back?

 

Having been tempted back you may have been disappointed (but you obviously wasn't) so what was it that had actually changed and will it keep you going to every meeting?

Up until 2008 or 09 I was almost an ever present at Ipswich however during my final season the rules were changed half way through the season regarding the play off from the top 6 to the top 4 making it through. At the time this played a part in our number one rider Hampel leaving mid season. By the time the following season arrived I had just had enough of speedway & started to pick & choose when I would attend. This started with about 10 meetings a season which was done to one by last season & 2 this year. My reason for returning on Saturday night was the fact that it was a big meeting with 2 well matched sides & no double points rule. The atmosphere was fantastic & the racing was good which gives me heart that the sport can still provide a great night out.

My first visit this year saw the visiting team not giving a 100% which lead to very poor racing a couple of riders clearly out of there depth & the use of the double points rules with guests thrown in aswell. All in front of a poor crowd with no atmosphere.

 

For me in even consider going back every week the double points need dropping the use of guests needs scrapping or at least only used once in a blue moon & doubling up needs to go. The big point is that I feel no connection to 'my team' because the riders are riding for other teams all over the place. So Saturday I attend not as an Ipswich fan but as a neutral able to enjoy an meeting between to good teams. I need connection to my team to part with £16:00 every week.

 

Added in the bikes are clearly to quick but that is another matter........

[PHILIPRISING]

The point of the points limit is so that some riders have to be released, so they become available to weaker teams. If you build up to the strength of the champion team, that defeats the purpose.

 

And the fact is there have been occasions where a lower placed team than the champion had the highest combined points. It hardly seems fair they'd have to weaken whilst the champions didn't.

 

The 'mathematical equation' is a reflection of on-track performance to a large extent.

TYPICAL speedway ... weakened the strong to help the weak. That philosophy has damaged British speedway for decades. There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, which is what the BSPA thought might happened when Stuart Bamforth, bank-rolled by his business, came along. Any team that wants to continue from one season to another we the riders it has should be allowed to do so. Only if they want to make changes should that track be subject to whatever the points limit is.

 

I haver lost count of the times I have been told by a promoter that there is little point in trying to develop young riders if at the end of the season they are shunted off elsewhere to a track that cannot be bothered to do likewise.

Edited October 2, 2017 by PHILIPRISING