Riders' Averages

[Tapeworm]

Okay, I confess that I haven’t thought this right through. But I would welcome the input of any other radical free-thinkers who think that this aspect of British speedway needs a major review.

I can understand that the current system leads to an evening out of strengths during the annual team-building but in which other sport are participants penalised for improving their performance (average) by becoming less attractive for re-selection? Can you imagine a top football team being forced to let go a striker because he scored too many goals in the previous season? Or “Sorry, I can’t select you for the Ryder Cup team as you’ve won too much money!” This is plainly ridiculous.

The current system also lends itself to manipulation. Who has not harboured suspicions at the tail end of a season when certain riders suddenly under-perform against expectations, or experience sudden illnesses, or are the victims of an unusually high level of mechanical failures, or ride across centre greens, or engage in gardening with the bike facing the wrong way, or fail to make the 2 minutes, or blatantly crash through the tapes? And who doesn’t feel gutted for the rider who is sacked because his average is too high to fit within a team change? And what about assets on loan to rival teams unexpectedly experiencing a significant loss of form only to return to their home team next year with a lowered average? It all stinks.

So, what other system could we employ? I wouldn’t advocate an unrestricted free-for-all or speedway might eventually follow football by being owned by absentee millionaires or foreign oligarchs. Some sort of control would be beneficial for the common good.

An American “draft” system would not work as riders might not be willing to ride for the team which picks them for geographical, historical, financial or personality reasons.

My suggestion, therefore, is to invoke a system based on riders’ ages. I haven’t analysed the spectrum of current riders’ ages but would envisage a possible format such that each team must comprise:-

One rider younger than 18 at January 1^st

One rider younger than 21 at January 1^st

Two riders younger than 24 at January 1^st

Two riders younger than 30 at January 1^st

One rider older than 30 at January 1^st

Someone within our governing body could refine this outline but it should continue the aspiration to introduce younger riders to the higher leagues. With the abandonment of averages, more thought may have to be given to possible restrictions on riding order but why not simply make this a free choice for team managers? And, yes, I realise that each team ages by 7 years every season but all riders would not necessarily move up an age category so it might be possible to retain a winning line up for a couple of seasons………… in theory a team could comprise six 17 year olds and one 40 year old but managers would have to specify into which category each rider is nominated. Guests would have to fit the same category as the rider being replaced.

Until Brexit is resolved, riders of any nationality could be allowed subject to obtaining a work permit, if required. This would dispense with debatable claims of a British licence/wife/granny.

What does anyone else think?

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

Bonkers!

[Tapeworm]

58 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

Bonkers!

Thank you for your well reasoned and smartly presented response. Your positive ideas are so important. 

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

1 hour ago, Tapeworm said:

Thank you for your well reasoned and smartly presented response. Your positive ideas are so important. 

Age is largely irrelevant

Many 'new' riders enter the sport in their 20s and these would be lost

Also if you start only allowing only 1 rider over 30 you have a huge pool of fully competant riders just cast aside

A more reasoned response for you although the original was perfectly sufficient 

[Sings4Speedway]

Have to say i am 100% against any level of ageism within sport. If you are good enough you are in whether that be young or old. Setting limits like that in any other walk of life is purely not tolerated and would not be something i would support in Speedway. 

Personally i would like to see a reduction for British riders at the end of the season so that they remain the most viable option to sign. Something between 10-20% reduction in averages keeping British prospect and established riders within team places and making overseas riders have to really prove their value.

[steve roberts]

21 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Have to say i am 100% against any level of ageism within sport. If you are good enough you are in whether that be young or old. Setting limits like that in any other walk of life is purely not tolerated and would not be something i would support in Speedway. 

Personally i would like to see a reduction for British riders at the end of the season so that they remain the most viable option to sign. Something between 10-20% reduction in averages keeping British prospect and established riders within team places and making overseas riders have to really prove their value.

...If I recall something akin to that suggestion was in place some years ago now and quickly forgotten?

Edited October 3, 2018 by steve roberts

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

1 hour ago, steve roberts said:

...If I recall something akin to that suggestion was in place some years ago now and quickly forgotten?

There is still 2.5% reduction in place for riders in the first 3 years after making the jump from the NL

[Heedthebaw]

On 10/2/2018 at 12:53 AM, Tapeworm said:

Okay, I confess that I haven’t thought this right through. But I would welcome the input of any other radical free-thinkers who think that this aspect of British speedway needs a major review.

I can understand that the current system leads to an evening out of strengths during the annual team-building but in which other sport are participants penalised for improving their performance (average) by becoming less attractive for re-selection? Can you imagine a top football team being forced to let go a striker because he scored too many goals in the previous season? Or “Sorry, I can’t select you for the Ryder Cup team as you’ve won too much money!” This is plainly ridiculous.

The current system also lends itself to manipulation. Who has not harboured suspicions at the tail end of a season when certain riders suddenly under-perform against expectations, or experience sudden illnesses, or are the victims of an unusually high level of mechanical failures, or ride across centre greens, or engage in gardening with the bike facing the wrong way, or fail to make the 2 minutes, or blatantly crash through the tapes? And who doesn’t feel gutted for the rider who is sacked because his average is too high to fit within a team change? And what about assets on loan to rival teams unexpectedly experiencing a significant loss of form only to return to their home team next year with a lowered average? It all stinks.

So, what other system could we employ? I wouldn’t advocate an unrestricted free-for-all or speedway might eventually follow football by being owned by absentee millionaires or foreign oligarchs. Some sort of control would be beneficial for the common good.

An American “draft” system would not work as riders might not be willing to ride for the team which picks them for geographical, historical, financial or personality reasons.

My suggestion, therefore, is to invoke a system based on riders’ ages. I haven’t analysed the spectrum of current riders’ ages but would envisage a possible format such that each team must comprise:-

One rider younger than 18 at January 1^st

One rider younger than 21 at January 1^st

Two riders younger than 24 at January 1^st

Two riders younger than 30 at January 1^st

One rider older than 30 at January 1^st

Someone within our governing body could refine this outline but it should continue the aspiration to introduce younger riders to the higher leagues. With the abandonment of averages, more thought may have to be given to possible restrictions on riding order but why not simply make this a free choice for team managers? And, yes, I realise that each team ages by 7 years every season but all riders would not necessarily move up an age category so it might be possible to retain a winning line up for a couple of seasons………… in theory a team could comprise six 17 year olds and one 40 year old but managers would have to specify into which category each rider is nominated. Guests would have to fit the same category as the rider being replaced.

Until Brexit is resolved, riders of any nationality could be allowed subject to obtaining a work permit, if required. This would dispense with debatable claims of a British licence/wife/granny.

What does anyone else think?

I’ll have a pint of what your on !!

Barking !!

[Tapeworm]

11 hours ago, Heedthebaw said:

I’ll have a pint of what your on !!

Barking !!

Tennents lager.............. but you'll struggle to drink it with your head buried in the sand! Is "Barking !!" the most positive contribution you can make in this unsatisfacory situation? Do you not acknowledge that the current "socialist" system of penalising, rather than rewarding, success is flawed? This is unparalleled in any other sport I can think of. I was prompted to write my original post after reading on other threads that some contributors considered that Coty Garcia had reached such a level this year that they wouldn't pick him in their team for next year. That would be a terrible slap in the face of a rider who has ridden his heart out for his team.

My premise is based on the generally followed career path whereby a rider's performance improves as he ages and gains experience, budget, physical strength and racecraft. My categories are simply illustrative and would, of course, be refined following detailed analysis of the current pool of available riders........ I have no aspiration to throw some over 30s on the scrapheap on an ageist agenda.

My suggestion may not be perfect. It does not currently cater for a rider switching to speedway in his mid-twenties. But has no-one got any better ideas?   

[arnieg]

Every single major  American sport is run on 'socialist' lines. [Ironic isn't it]

Edited October 6, 2018 by arnieg

[enotian]

So rather than age is it number of competitive matches that should differentiate. Or a combination of both to encourage youth.

If a season is 25(?) matches then after 100 matches a ride should no longer be eligible to ride at reserve, for example.

Probably only appropriate for a development league level (somewhere between Championship and National) where teams could be made up of:

UK under 23 rider

Non UK under 23 rider

Rider with over 100 matches

3 UK riders with less than 100 matches

UK rider with less than 10 matches

all criteria applicable from the start of the season. Clearly it'll still be manipulated with riders missing matches at the end of seasons to remain eligible but rules are there to be 'manipulated'.

It would mean that teams could be less evenly matched but the finances will probably dictate otherwise, at a development league level.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

1 hour ago, enotian said:

So rather than age is it number of competitive matches that should differentiate. Or a combination of both to encourage youth.

If a season is 25(?) matches then after 100 matches a ride should no longer be eligible to ride at reserve, for example.

Probably only appropriate for a development league level (somewhere between Championship and National) where teams could be made up of:

UK under 23 rider

Non UK under 23 rider

Rider with over 100 matches

3 UK riders with less than 100 matches

UK rider with less than 10 matches

all criteria applicable from the start of the season. Clearly it'll still be manipulated with riders missing matches at the end of seasons to remain eligible but rules are there to be 'manipulated'.

It would mean that teams could be less evenly matched but the finances will probably dictate otherwise, at a development league level.

This is worse than the age suggestion!

Most riders will be 24 and have ridden more than 100 meetings and you suggest only 1 per team

[enotian]

20 hours ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

This is worse than the age suggestion!

Most riders will be 24 and have ridden more than 100 meetings and you suggest only 1 per team

In the context of a development league isn't that what you'd want?  And of course the allocation between classification's is fluid.  Could be 1, 2 or 3 whatever is appropriate based on rider availability or strategic approach to giving more opportunity to new talent.

It's the concept of categorisation based on number of matches (=experience) which is the point for discussion.

[Thornaby48]

On 10/2/2018 at 12:53 AM, Tapeworm said:

Okay, I confess that I haven’t thought this right through. But I would welcome the input of any other radical free-thinkers who think that this aspect of British speedway needs a major review.

I can understand that the current system leads to an evening out of strengths during the annual team-building but in which other sport are participants penalised for improving their performance (average) by becoming less attractive for re-selection? Can you imagine a top football team being forced to let go a striker because he scored too many goals in the previous season? Or “Sorry, I can’t select you for the Ryder Cup team as you’ve won too much money!” This is plainly ridiculous.

The current system also lends itself to manipulation. Who has not harboured suspicions at the tail end of a season when certain riders suddenly under-perform against expectations, or experience sudden illnesses, or are the victims of an unusually high level of mechanical failures, or ride across centre greens, or engage in gardening with the bike facing the wrong way, or fail to make the 2 minutes, or blatantly crash through the tapes? And who doesn’t feel gutted for the rider who is sacked because his average is too high to fit within a team change? And what about assets on loan to rival teams unexpectedly experiencing a significant loss of form only to return to their home team next year with a lowered average? It all stinks.

So, what other system could we employ? I wouldn’t advocate an unrestricted free-for-all or speedway might eventually follow football by being owned by absentee millionaires or foreign oligarchs. Some sort of control would be beneficial for the common good.

An American “draft” system would not work as riders might not be willing to ride for the team which picks them for geographical, historical, financial or personality reasons.

My suggestion, therefore, is to invoke a system based on riders’ ages. I haven’t analysed the spectrum of current riders’ ages but would envisage a possible format such that each team must comprise:-

One rider younger than 18 at January 1^st

One rider younger than 21 at January 1^st

Two riders younger than 24 at January 1^st

Two riders younger than 30 at January 1^st

One rider older than 30 at January 1^st

Someone within our governing body could refine this outline but it should continue the aspiration to introduce younger riders to the higher leagues. With the abandonment of averages, more thought may have to be given to possible restrictions on riding order but why not simply make this a free choice for team managers? And, yes, I realise that each team ages by 7 years every season but all riders would not necessarily move up an age category so it might be possible to retain a winning line up for a couple of seasons………… in theory a team could comprise six 17 year olds and one 40 year old but managers would have to specify into which category each rider is nominated. Guests would have to fit the same category as the rider being replaced.

Until Brexit is resolved, riders of any nationality could be allowed subject to obtaining a work permit, if required. This would dispense with debatable claims of a British licence/wife/granny.

What does anyone else think?

Like Tapeworm, I don't like rider control but it is a necessary evil. Speed way, unlike other major sports doesn't have strength in depth. Take football, it has hundreds of teams from pub teams to the Premier League with thousands of players, so the cream can rise to the top. Rugby likewise has thousands of players. When I played for West Hartlepool RFU we had 5 teams and I played in the 2 nd team. Cricket is another and sports like golf ,tennis and athletics have mass participants with the best rising to the top.

Speed way does have a stepped structure from junior teams ,the NL, then CL and at the top PL.  But with 28 teams and about 250 riders ranging from novices to world class it is not possible to have  league's of teams with similar strength. Since we no longer have the traditional second halves the new riders are not coming through. In deed non of Redcars junior team have ridden in the first team. So without a points limit the rich teams would sign all the best riders and the PL would consist of maybe only 4 teams!

Tapeworm idea was a bit like looking at a painting by Picasso----puzzling, but at least someone has raised the question.

Like guest riders, the points limit is a necessary evil but needs some refining to stop  teams abusing the system. The only thing I can think of is to raise the points limit but I would like to see teams who raise a rider from novice to heat leader having some form of exemption so that they can keep them rather than being punished.

 

 

 

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

11 hours ago, enotian said:

In the context of a development league isn't that what you'd want?  And of course the allocation between classification's is fluid.  Could be 1, 2 or 3 whatever is appropriate based on rider availability or strategic approach to giving more opportunity to new talent.

It's the concept of categorisation based on number of matches (=experience) which is the point for discussion.

The post did mention 'development league' but then suggested it at a level 'between Championship and NL' - that level isnt development level IMO

[Sings4Speedway]

Its often a problem that posters who do not care to watch or follow the NL or development leagues feel they have valid input into how they would be structured and following the restructure would still shun the lower echelons of the sport. If anything the sport as a whole needs to look at attracting more riders & retaining the current ones. More competition for places equals higher standard. 

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

8 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Its often a problem that posters who do not care to watch or follow the NL or development leagues feel they have valid input into how they would be structured and following the restructure would still shun the lower echelons of the sport. If anything the sport as a whole needs to look at attracting more riders & retaining the current ones. More competition for places equals higher standard. 

Lets not also forget that these raw newbies need someone to aim to beat