There Can Be Beauty In Simplicity...

[E I Addio]

As I say, I haven't missed it in NL meetings at all.

 

 

 

That's not true. The logic behind them is clear : they are there to try to make a meeting that would basically be dead in terms of a result more exciting. That's a very good reason to have them and I doubt if there is any regular attender who hasn't seen a meeting improved in terms of its actual quality after one has been used.

 

.

I wouldn't call that logic, it's more like papering over the cracks. I say that because there is nothing remotely like it in any other sport. It means that teams can win meetings on the rule book that they can't win on the track.

 

Almost everyone agrees that the system of league points we have now is as close to the ideal as we can get. It makes the T/R redundant. The interest or excitement comes from how many points a team wins or loses by. All a T/R does is to give a team a chance to get in the league points bracket. It's not just unfair to their opponents it's also unfair to other teams in the race for the play offs that keep the scores close without getting a leg up from a T/R.

 

It's all very well to say Speedwáy is not like any other sport, but football is nothing like badminton and cricket is nothing like golf. All sports have there differences, but none have anything like a T/R. As you say you haven't noticed its absence in the NL, nor have I. In fact I think we are far better off without it.

 

As for the argument that it gives team managers more control over tactics, let them build teams that have strength throughout and pairing that know how to ride with each other rather than relying on one or two highly paid stars to pull their chestnuts out of the fire with a T/R or T/S.

[IronScorpion]

and Sheffield.

There are a couple more teams with a very heavy home advantage. Wolverhampton, Edinburgh & Newcastle are 3 that would get big home wins so the aggregate point was easier to get.

 

I agree with home wins still getting 3points but at the start of the season, it was stated that the make up of teams was to give the meetings result in doubt until heats 14 or 15. So why does the home team get nothing for a tight result. Surely 1point should be given for a loss between 1-6points or what's the point! Make your team strong at home & get the result decided by heats 10 or 11.

[False dawn]

There are a couple more teams with a very heavy home advantage. Wolverhampton, Edinburgh & Newcastle are 3 that would get big home wins so the aggregate point was easier to get.

 

I agree with home wins still getting 3points but at the start of the season, it was stated that the make up of teams was to give the meetings result in doubt until heats 14 or 15. So why does the home team get nothing for a tight result. Surely 1point should be given for a loss between 1-6points or what's the point! Make your team strong at home & get the result decided by heats 10 or 11.

Well we could devise a system that means that the total points awarded is always the same, say 4. But I suspect we'd be into half points for some results. The statisticians would love that!

 

But wait, I have the answer. Double the points awarded so the total is 8. So let's see.....

Draw = 3 for the home side 5 for the away (3H 5A)

Home win 6 or less = 6H 2A

Home win over 6 = 8H 0A

Away win 6 or less = 2H 6A

Away win over 6 = 0H 8A

 

And let's have 1 point for the aggregate winner

 

The only drawback is that we'd still be working out who should be in the playoffs after the final had been run

I've just read what I've written and the topic title....

 

Whoops

So how about 2 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss?

 

But I think we tried that!!

[Tsunami]

There are a couple more teams with a very heavy home advantage. Wolverhampton, Edinburgh & Newcastle are 3 that would get big home wins so the aggregate point was easier to get.

 

I agree with home wins still getting 3points but at the start of the season, it was stated that the make up of teams was to give the meetings result in doubt until heats 14 or 15. So why does the home team get nothing for a tight result. Surely 1point should be given for a loss between 1-6points or what's the point! Make your team strong at home & get the result decided by heats 10 or 11.

At the time of the change from aggregate to points, the teams that had massive home advantages were Exeter, Sheffield, Eastbourne and also Kings Lynn. In the early 00's Sheffield was odds on for the aggregate along with Exeter, but teams like Newcastle and Hull had good teams always in the title fight but lost out until we won in 2001 and Hull always in the fight for a number of years with a great team but little home advantage. Ironically Exeter was closed, but Sheffield and Kings Lynn fans got sick of 60-30 wins every week, because of their heavy dirt clay tracks, and both clubs opted to change their preparation and made slicker tracks which made the meetings a bit fairer.

[steve roberts]

At the time of the change from aggregate to points, the teams that had massive home advantages were Exeter, Sheffield, Eastbourne and also Kings Lynn. In the early 00's Sheffield was odds on for the aggregate along with Exeter, but teams like Newcastle and Hull had good teams always in the title fight but lost out until we won in 2001 and Hull always in the fight for a number of years with a great team but little home advantage. Ironically Exeter was closed, but Sheffield and Kings Lynn fans got sick of 60-30 wins every week, because of their heavy dirt clay tracks, and both clubs opted to change their preparation and made slicker tracks which made the meetings a bit fairer.

Thankfully Oxford were always competitive during the 'Nielsen Years' and generally put up good performances away from home...if anything sometimes better than at home.

 

Should have won the 1990 Championship but their home record tended to let them down. Their away record was better than most during that particular season.

[racers and royals]

Thankfully Oxford were always competitive during the 'Nielsen Years' and generally put up good performances away from home...if anything sometimes better than at home.

 

Should have won the 1990 Championship but their home record tended to let them down. Their away record was better than most during that particular season.

"Should have won the 1990 championship"- are you on a wind-up. The team that won that year were different class !!!!!

[Halifaxtiger]

I wouldn't call that logic, it's more like papering over the cracks. I say that because there is nothing remotely like it in any other sport. It means that teams can win meetings on the rule book that they can't win on the track.

 

Almost everyone agrees that the system of league points we have now is as close to the ideal as we can get. It makes the T/R redundant. The interest or excitement comes from how many points a team wins or loses by. All a T/R does is to give a team a chance to get in the league points bracket. It's not just unfair to their opponents it's also unfair to other teams in the race for the play offs that keep the scores close without getting a leg up from a T/R.

 

It's all very well to say Speedwáy is not like any other sport, but football is nothing like badminton and cricket is nothing like golf. All sports have there differences, but none have anything like a T/R. As you say you haven't noticed its absence in the NL, nor have I. In fact I think we are far better off without it.

 

As for the argument that it gives team managers more control over tactics, let them build teams that have strength throughout and pairing that know how to ride with each other rather than relying on one or two highly paid stars to pull their chestnuts out of the fire with a T/R or T/S.

 

 

I don't think its illogical to try to make an event more exciting and, as I have said, I doubt if there is a single speedway fan who hasn't seen one meeting that has been significantly improved in terms of almost everything - the racing, the atmosphere, the contest - by a tactical ride, and that's even with the new points system.

 

I wonder if football would have something like it if Chelsea's pitch was three times the size of Arsenal's, its grass twice as long and its goals half the size ? Just possibly they would.

 

As to other sports having 3 points count as 6, how about one goal counting as two ? Differing circumstances maybe, but football most certainly has it.

 

The reasoning behind tactical changes is sound, and that's why it has been in existence in speedway for 50 years or more. As someone has already said, the tactical substitute rule was pretty much never questioned and there's probably a majority who would want to go back to that regardless of the fact that it would create huge additional costs and has the same effect on score lines anyway.

Daft example.

 

In that particular case neither a tactical ride or old tac subs is going to make a match of it.

.

 

Not a good example, but I have seen meetings turn on their head as a result of a tactical ride and improve significantly (from being dead as a door nail to game on) and I'll be surprised if anyone else hasn't.

 

 

 

And lets face it the double up, guest, rider replacement clap trap we have today FAR EXCEEDS this entire TR thing anyway.

 

Far exceeds it. Something simply has to be done, because I know serious diehard fans who have had enough because of it.

[Gunner85]

As a matter of interest why was the 'bonus point' dropped based on the home and away aggregate score?

Probably because it favoured those teams with a big home advantage like Exeter where many riders hated going.

[Sotonian]

 

.

 

As to other sports having 3 points count as 6, how about one goal counting as two ? Differing circumstances maybe, but football most certainly has it.

 

 

Chalk and cheese frankly. Now, if a team could declare that the next goal scored will count as two then you'd have a point.

[steve roberts]

"Should have won the 1990 championship"- are you on a wind-up. The team that won that year were different class !!!!!

Just compare the away records of Oxford and Reading. Oxford won eight and drew one (points For 703 Against 733) - Reading six and two (685.5 and 751.5).

 

As I stated it was Oxford's home record that let them down. If they had beaten Reading at home in the A & B matches (plus bonus points) they would have been Champions....it was that close.

Edited September 19, 2017 by steve roberts

[Sidney the robin]

Are you coming around to my way of thinking HT? :approve:

 

No Tactical Substitutes = No increase in Cost.

 

No Tactical Rides = No increase in Cost.

 

Result decided on the Track.

 

Sounds good to me.

Sport should be brutal that is how it should be,over the years i have seen teams hammered but i have still been entertained.

[racers and royals]

Just compare the away records of Oxford and Reading. Oxford won eight and drew one (points For 703 Against 733) - Reading six and two (685.5 and 751.5).

 

As I stated it was Oxford's home record that let them down. If they had beaten Reading at home in the A & B matches (plus bonus points) they would have been Champions....it was that close.

IF IF IF !!!!! anyone would think from what you are saying- Oxford were just pipped to the title- the truth of the matter was that Oxford finished 4th and from here http://www.speedwaygb.co/history/leaguetables1990.php one can only conclude that Oxford were just losers that season !!!- beaten in the league, beaten in the Premiership and beaten in the Gold cup. The Racers of course did the double- league and cup and to add icing on the cake had the 1st and 3rd in the world.

[Grand Central]

IF IF IF !!!!! anyone would think from what you are saying- Oxford were just pipped to the title- the truth of the matter was that Oxford finished 4th and from here http://www.speedwaygb.co/history/leaguetables1990.php one can only conclude that Oxford were just losers that season !!!- beaten in the league, beaten in the Premiership and beaten in the Gold cup. The Racers of course did the double- league and cup and to add icing on the cake had the 1st and 3rd in the world.

 

It's funny how we are here twenty seven years later.

And so much of the unpleasentness of 1990 can be so easily unleashed.

As an Aces fan of the time it lives long in the memory.

 

It's one thing to be a bad loser.

But to be a bad winner, after all that time, is quite a thing to behold.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Grand Central

[racers and royals]

 

It's funny how we are here twenty seven years later.

And so much of the unpleasantness of 1990 can be so easily unleashed.

As an Aces fan of the time it lives long in the memory.

 

It's one thing to be a bad loser.

But to be a bad winner, after all that time, is quite a thing to behold.

Hardly -Steve Roberts said they should have won the 1990 title- complete cr@p. you can`t do the double without being the best team by far. You can`t fluke a title after a season of 32 matches- sore losers the lot of you

[steve roberts]

Hardly -Steve Roberts said they should have won the 1990 title- complete cr@p. you can`t do the double without being the best team by far. You can`t fluke a title after a season of 32 matches- sore losers the lot of you

You're not reading my initial comment as it's not meant to be a criticism on Reading who were worthy winners that year.

 

To quote from my initial post "It was their home form that tended to let them down"

 

My comment was highlighting Oxford's poor home form but that their away from was unquestionable during that particular season and was, in fact, the best in the league hence why Oxford's tally of Match Bonus Points (which is what was being discussed) was generally healthy during 'The Nielsen Years' because the team travelled well.

 

Their record at home was only nine wins with one draw...the only two teams with a worse home record that season were Coventry and King's Lynn.

 

For the record

 

Reading - Played 32 Won 13 Drew 1 Lost 2 For 827 Against 609 Won 6 Drew 2 Lost 8 For 685.5 Against 751.5 Bonus 13 Points 54

 

Oxford - Played 32 Won 9 Drew 1 Lost 6 For 764 Against 672 Won 8 Drew 1 Lost 7 For 703 Against 733 Bonus 10 Points 46

 

The record books show Reading as Champions and Oxford fourth. I wasn't questioning Reading's other achievements that year which were admirable to say the least.

 

To summarise I was only highlighting Oxford's poor home form compared to their away form and that a couple of 'nicked' home wins could have made things different...but that's speedway.

Edited September 20, 2017 by steve roberts

[arnieg]

Racers had More wins, more bonus points and more race points - I'm struggling to follow Steve Roberts' argument. Basically Oxford could have won the league if only Reading weren't so good that they won at Oxford - TWICE. [and the A match was won by seven, not one or two or three but seven]

 

I do have some sympathy with Grand central though - the KO cup win was down to the team manager after the riders lost the semi on track.

[steve roberts]

Racers had More wins, more bonus points and more race points - I'm struggling to follow Steve Roberts' argument. Basically Oxford could have won the league if only Reading weren't so good that they won at Oxford - TWICE. [and the A match was won by seven, not one or two or three but seven]

 

I do have some sympathy with Grand central though - the KO cup win was down to the team manager after the riders lost the semi on track.

...not sure how I can put it any other way personally.

 

I was not questioning Reading's Championship win but the fact that Oxford's home form was poor...which is what my initial post highlighted...and ultimately cost them any chance of the championship that season but that their away form was impressive (best in the league in fact)

[racers and royals]

...not sure how I can put it any other way personally.

 

I was not questioning Reading's Championship win but the fact that Oxford's home form was poor...which is what my initial post highlighted...and ultimately cost them any chance of the championship that season but that their away form was impressive (best in the league in fact)

That was because Oxford`s track offered no home advantage at all- whereas Smallmead was such a trick track that only the home riders could ride it properly

[steve roberts]

That was because Oxford`s track offered no home advantage at all- whereas Smallmead was such a trick track that only the home riders could ride it properly

There is some truth in that...taken literally!

 

To quote from the book 'The History of Oxford Speedway'

 

"...Reading emerged as Champions, and the Cheetahs were left thinking how different things could have been had they not suffered that string of home defeats in July and August, since their away record was the best in the league"

Edited September 20, 2017 by steve roberts

[arnieg]

So your argument is:

 

• Cowley was effectively a 'neutral' track

• Oxford lost twice to Reading on this 'neutral' track

• Therefore Oxford were better than Reading