dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted December 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2017 Yeah and we know exactly which Championship clubs to blame for that!!!!Do we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCOGNITO Posted December 3, 2017 Report Share Posted December 3, 2017 The only 3 league rule has been dropped now we and Poland have gone to set nights Don't think it has. The rule was Poland and two other leagues with most having to do their home nation as one option. i presume with the massive TV deal they have, British clubs will again have to sign up that Poland get priority on riders with meetings mainly on Sunday's but also the odd Friday, Saturday and Monday's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted December 3, 2017 Report Share Posted December 3, 2017 Don't think it has. The rule was Poland and two other leagues with most having to do their home nation as one option. i presume with the massive TV deal they have, British clubs will again have to sign up that Poland get priority on riders with meetings mainly on Sunday's but also the odd Friday, Saturday and Monday's. CVS said the ISLB (no idea who they are) have confirmed that Poland get priority on Fri/Sat/Sun. No idea about bank holidays tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted December 4, 2017 Report Share Posted December 4, 2017 CVS and Adams always mention Ford and Poole!! However if wasn't mentioned that Ford instigated the 9 point rule. Those words I wish for very single season so yes obviously I want transparency in the rules every single season that are set out clearly at the start of the year and no sudden we will change or amend this rule because we hadn't thought it. I can only assume you are referring to Woffy coming back on his real average?? It was all within the rules wasn't it??? If they had regraded Woffy and all GP standard riders as a 9 at the start of 2016 I'd have applauded it. For me it's always about what's best for our sport and league, not what's best for my club. Fairness and clarity would make things so much better for the fans and BSPA IMHO. So Wolves suffered a whole season yet it would be 'fair' to have to have his REAL average altered because it isn't fair to other teams??? Not fair at all. Wolves had to suffer 2 seasons because the world champion rode poor and achieved a poor average because of it. So its only fitting the team who suffered that year was able to take advantage of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted December 4, 2017 Report Share Posted December 4, 2017 So Wolves suffered a whole season yet it would be 'fair' to have to have his REAL average altered because it isn't fair to other teams??? Not fair at all. Wolves had to suffer 2 seasons because the world champion rode poor and achieved a poor average because of it. So its only fitting the team who suffered that year was able to take advantage of it. And look at the furore that caused and helped change the rule the following season (by putting deadline on when riders can return mid season) and for some reason they have altered Tai and other GP boys again this year by giving them an average that will as good as ensure they can't return in 2018. If it's 'fair' to change the GP boys real averages then it's 'fair' to reassess ANYONE who didn't ride here in 2017. And here is the key, if they are using the benchmark of 'not riding here in 2017' how fair is it to say it only affects certain riders and not others? ? Isn't that by any description unfair?? Either reassess ALL riders who missed 2017 or leave averages as they are for those who have a TRUE average like Tai had in 2016. Don't we want fairness and transparency from our governing body??? Or do we want to allow some teams to use ringers year in year out?? I speak as someone who supports a team that has 2 potential ringers for the future so I'm hardly thinking of my team alone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattK Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 So Wolves suffered a whole season yet it would be 'fair' to have to have his REAL average altered because it isn't fair to other teams??? Not fair at all. Wolves had to suffer 2 seasons because the world champion rode poor and achieved a poor average because of it. So its only fitting the team who suffered that year was able to take advantage of it. Woffinden doesn't have a real average, that's the point. The 2017 season was significantly weakened compared to previous years, meaning the average of any rider who didn't ride in 2017 is null and void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 That was a Stevebrum post from back when Wolves signed Tai to win the league. It interesting to compare to current postings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 The 2017 season was significantly weakened compared to previous years..... Was it? It didn’t seem any weaker than any year since the draft reserves were introduced and going further back Adams and Crump regularly exceeded a 10 point average while this season Doyle got only 9.67. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 Was it? It didn’t seem any weaker than any year since the draft reserves were introduced and going further back Adams and Crump regularly exceeded a 10 point average while this season Doyle got only 9.67. Yes it was. It was 20% weaker than it was at the end of the year before. Thats the joy of averages, you can work these things out quite easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 Woffinden doesn't have a real average, that's the point. The 2017 season was significantly weakened compared to previous years, meaning the average of any rider who didn't ride in 2017 is null and void. I agree Therefore someone like Woryna should be reassessed. Cant be right that only a select few should be reassessed surely One team loses out in team building because they have Woffinden and another team can gain by having Woryna!!! Only in speedway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 That was a Stevebrum post from back when Wolves signed Tai to win the league. It interesting to compare to current postings. do you mean me saying that I agree Tai and other riders should be reassessed for fairness and clarity?? you can't change the rules mid season but you can make the rules 'fair for all' to start a new season. It's interesting that you interpret it as bias towards my own club, which it's clear it isn't. Woffinden doesn't have a real average, that's the point. The 2017 season was significantly weakened compared to previous years, meaning the average of any rider who didn't ride in 2017 is null and void. Woffy has as valid an average of any rider. The year that Tai and all the other top boys got low averages was due to the race format. Making their averages falsely low. I can see it's only fair that riders who didn't ride here in 2017 (under the regular race format) have an outdated average so I think it's fair to give them a 'new' realistic average. It's just whether 9 is a 'fair' assessment. Of course I agree that any rider who didn't ride here in 2017 therefore has an outdated average. Reassess one, reassess all who weren't here in 2017. It's just the assessment of the new average that needs clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 Yes it was. It was 20% weaker than it was at the end of the year before. Thats the joy of averages, you can work these things out quite easily. Could you explain that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 Could you explain that? 50 point limit was ELx1.4 so that was 35ish EL points. Average team the year before was 42 so 35/42 is 0.83. So 83% which is about 20% when rounded as I posted above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 50 divided by 1.4 is 35.71, divided by 42 makes 85%. On this statistical basis you can argue that the league has been reduced in quality every year that the team building limit is less than 42, but in reality I wonder if this is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 50 divided by 1.4 is 35.71, divided by 42 makes 85%. On this statistical basis you can argue that the league has been reduced in quality every year that the team building limit is less than 42, but in reality I wonder if this is the case. It has been. It's been regularly weakened since 2008 (I think) when they did a 39.95 points limit. The 2017 league was weakened by a great deal. This year it is of similar strength to last year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 I think those statistics might prove your point if you were dealing with an inanimate object, but I’m not sure it does with human beings, being riders whose form and personal life ebbs and flows and declines or improves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 I think those statistics might prove your point if you were dealing with an inanimate object, but I’m not sure it does with human beings, being riders whose form and personal life ebbs and flows and declines or improves. True. It's statistical rather than a perfect scenario, but it's pretty much true and it's certainly the intent too. If a league finished with an average strength of 42, then making the following year start at 35.71 they are weakening the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted December 5, 2017 Report Share Posted December 5, 2017 And we now get a 1.3 multiplier between the leagues instead of this year’s 1.2 and previous years’ 1.4. The averages for Woryna and Holder need adjusting in the interests of fairness. I think 1.3 is a fairer multiplier between the leagues! Is that happening though? Straightforward really. Step 1: Get a data set of riders with averages in both leagues. Step 2: do linear regression to come up with a best fit. Step 3: apply formula to riders whose averages you wish to assess. That's far too sensible for Speedway! I've always thought that is how they should work out the conversions for Premier / Elite or now Championship / Premiership! I remember that last time we did grading, Lindback (Poole) was low and Harris (Coventry) was high, even though they were the same. Any system we adopt will not work satisfactorily as some of the people involved are bent. £££££ makes points, or hollow championships. I also remember Loram was the weakest grade 1 & Pedersen was the strongest grade 2, even though they were the same standard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Rich Posted December 6, 2017 Report Share Posted December 6, 2017 Surely riders averages will always be distorted unless the team building limit is kept to 45 each year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted December 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2017 Surely riders averages will always be distorted unless the team building limit is kept to 45 each year?Here we go again! 😆 2 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.