Rob Godfrey interview in Speedway Star

[steve roberts]

3 minutes ago, HGould said:

Have to agree, both great riders, Mavis was flash, brash, great gater ; Gordon was Mr Consistent, best white line passer I think of that era, so close to winning WC in 1978 and like Peter Collins couldn't gate, PC went round the boards and GK round the line. 

Hard to split them but would agree Steve GK was more complete rider for me. 

 

 

...you've just reminded me of that great race at Hackney in 1977 when they both rode as you described and it ended as a dead-heat! Great stuff!

[iris123]

1 minute ago, steve roberts said:

Gordon was/is one of my 'all-time' favourites...saw him race many times at Arlington also.

Saw him at White City where he really rose to the top and subsequently back st Eastbourne.But was surprised he rode that last time at Plough Lane as when I talked to Barney it sounded like Gordon wasn’t that interested in speedway any more.Think Barney said he had tried to get Gordon to watch a meeting without any luck.

[BWitcher]

2 hours ago, Sidney the robin said:

Did averages ever come into your way of thinking Steve? i can't quite get my head around that part of the discussion.Hans for example from 1977 he was a good rider until he broke his hoodoo to win his first title then he was a outstanding rider did averages influence that decision i think not He was .the best of his generation mainly because of his longevity, also  i felt in yesteryear a lot of the teams had three heat leaders Ex)( Belle Vue Collins,SjostenPusey.   Ipswich Louis, Sanders,Davey  Kings Lynn Betts, Lee, Turner,  so that high standard of rider showed just how good some of the number one's were.

"You felt a lot of the teams had three heat leaders". Really! Amazing! A seven man team ALWAYS has three heat leaders. 

Now you are claiming that Hans Nielsen's average had no impact in you deciding he was good? lmao. The average comes from winning most of your races. It's part and parcel. Had he not had a good average you would not have thought he was one of the worlds best. Period.

You also thought many of the second and third heat leaders were amazing because they had high averages, due to the league format they were in.

Every post you make confirms what I say, you just don't see it.

The second and third heat leaders of that time were the akin of riders such as Kenneth Bjerre, Jack Holder, Jakub Jamrog, Rune Holta etc.I bet you don't rank those as highly do you? Yet they are the same level. 

[waytogo28]

5 hours ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

He may well only own 2 through 2019 and be back to only 1 for 2020

Did I miss something and Buster is intending to sell one of his clubs imminently ( or during the 2019 season)? And hopes for offers next close season on one of the remaining two? I am genuinely interested. Quite honestly I prefer it if he did own all of the "top" league clubs. It would present less uncertainty. that's for sure!

[martinmauger]

Also in 1977, I still vividly remember when at the Boulevard Gordon Kennet passed the team-riding Bobby Beaton & Frank Auffret turning a Hull 5-1 into a 3-3.  GK went around the outside of Frank and as Bobby looked ahead entering the 1st bend, he looked around in time to see Kennet slip inside as neatly as you like.  Grr , blooming good bit of riding though.  Then there is the WTC Qualy meet at Reading in 1979, it's on Youtube, when GK is battling the late Kelly Moran - and the mud - after both had lost their goggles.  By 'lost their goggles' I don't mean out of tear offs; both had literally lost their racing goggles.  Kelly was wearing a full-face helmet whereas Gordon wore an open face + monkey mask, which he had pulled down, so was copping the spray full in the face....

Edited February 16, 2019 by martinmauger
added GK stuff

[chunky]

2 hours ago, BWitcher said:

"You felt a lot of the teams had three heat leaders". Really! Amazing! A seven man team ALWAYS has three heat leaders.

Hmmm... You beat me to it! Just waiting to see Sidney's response to that.

I have a cunning plan, so watch this space, folks...

Steve

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

2 hours ago, waytogo28 said:

Did I miss something and Buster is intending to sell one of his clubs imminently ( or during the 2019 season)? And hopes for offers next close season on one of the remaining two? I am genuinely interested. Quite honestly I prefer it if he did own all of the "top" league clubs. It would present less uncertainty. that's for sure!

Id say you knowledge of the facts is at its usual level 

[steve roberts]

4 hours ago, chunky said:

Hmmm... You beat me to it! Just waiting to see Sidney's response to that.

I have a cunning plan, so watch this space, folks...

Steve

...unless one wishes to be pedantic and recall that during 1977 White City operated the Rider Replacement facility all season in place of a missing' heat leader thereby only declaring two heat leaders instead of the usual three. Both Hull and Hackney had similar facilities granted that season replacing 'missing' riders. The facilty could only be used for any one of the three highest averaged riders (the ruling varied in subsequent seasons) so technically those teams rode a heat leader short although some riders raised their game to meet the challenges that it presented.

[Chadster]

Of course all teams have three heat leaders, but I suspect that what Sidney meant was teams with 3 good heat leaders. In the early BL years the best teams usually had 4 heat leaders (Simmons for West Ham in the second half of 65, Roper for Halifa in 66 and Kilby for Swindon in 67 are just three examples). But equally, there were some woefully weak teams whose heat leaders would be second strings in most other teams.

[chunky]

17 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

...unless one wishes to be pedantic and recall that during 1977 White City operated the Rider Replacement facility all season in place of a missing' heat leader thereby only declaring two heat leaders instead of the usual three. Both Hull and Hackney had similar facilities granted that season replacing 'missing' riders. The facilty could only be used for any one of the three highest averaged riders (the ruling varied in subsequent seasons) so technically those teams rode a heat leader short although some riders raised their game to meet the challenges that it presented.

Being even more pedantic, it doesn't matter whether the heat leaders are on track, or on paper.

The thing to remember is that a seven man speedway team(certainly from years gone by) has three heat leaders, two second strings, and two reserves.  The actual quality of each of those seven riders was irrelevant.  Averages were pretty irrelevant too, as far as team makeup, except for the reserves - who had to be the lowest two averages in the team.

Steve

[steve roberts]

1 hour ago, chunky said:

Being even more pedantic, it doesn't matter whether the heat leaders are on track, or on paper.

The thing to remember is that a seven man speedway team(certainly from years gone by) has three heat leaders, two second strings, and two reserves.  The actual quality of each of those seven riders was irrelevant.  Averages were pretty irrelevant too, as far as team makeup, except for the reserves - who had to be the lowest two averages in the team.

Steve

...as I said I was being pedantic and having a bit of fun!

The scenario you describe in your post was obviously correct when I first attended speedway and was for many years and you could place riders in any particular order within the main body of the team. However,  I can't remember when the ruling was introduced,  but I recall in subsequent years that the riders with the three highest averages had to be placed at one, three and five (the accepted heat leader roles) therefore making averages relevant as regards team makeup and, dare I suggest, limited the role of the Team Manager regarding applying tactical measures. I can't recall how long this ruling was in place for however or whether it still exists?

Edited February 16, 2019 by steve roberts

[chunky]

50 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

...as I said I was being pedantic and having a bit of fun!

As I said, I was being pedantic, and I was having a bit of fun too!

Now, this is what I was talking about earlier...  I love numbers and statistics, and I love logic, reason, and fact.  This is pure logic, reason, and fact, and PROVES why averages drop when there are fewer teams and riders.  Yes, it is extreme.  No, it would never happen.  However, it shows the effect.  Riders can still ride at EXACTLY the same standard, but their averages will not reflect that.  I know that Bwitcher and Orion will get this, and I think you will get it too.  O hope Sidney will, but he has to stop letting opinion (without any logical grounds for justification) get in the way of fact.

This isn't the first time I've done something like this, either!  A while back, I PROVED that it was possible for a rider to win EVERY GP - yet still not finish in the Top eight of the GP standings at the end of the season!  People still argue that I am wrong on that, but I have ABSOLUTE PROOF.

Anyway...

Here is an example – albeit extreme – of how fewer teams and riders can – and will – reduce averages. The thing to remember is that speedway averages are not only influenced by a rider’s own ability, but by the ability of those around him. Ability can only be judged compared to those averages around him (and in that particular format and numbers of teams and riders) – not by another rider’s 20 years earlier or 20 years later.

As I said, this is extreme, nut it is the easiest way to prove things, particularly using the old 18-heat, 6-rider team format (but still using the 4-ride CMA – we can all relate to that). Now, the basics are :

The league has 16 teams
Top average rider rides at No.1, second highest at No.3, third highest at No.5, fourth highest at No.2, fifth highest at No.4, and sixth highest at No.6
No.1’s only drops points to HOME No.1
No.3’s only drop points to No.1’s and HOME No.3
No.5’s only drop points to No.1’s and No.3’s, and HOME No.5

And so on… This means that all matches will finish like this.

HOME                                AWAY
1 – 3 3 3 3 3 3 – 18         1 – 2 3 3 2 3 3 – 16
2 – 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 6             2 - 0 1 1 0 1 1 - 4
3 – 3 2 3 3 2 3 – 16         3 – 2 3 2 2 3 2 – 14
4 – 1 0 1 1 0 1 - 4             4 – 0 1 0 0 1 0 - 2
5 – 3 2 2 3 2 2 – 14         5 – 2 2 2 2 2 2 – 12
6 – 1 0 0 1 0 0 - 2             6 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0

So, all riders at a particular number will finish with an identical average (and identical record), namely No.1 – 11.33, No.3 – 10.00, No.5 – 8.67, No.2 – 3.33, No.4 – 2.00, No.6 – 0.67.

The following season, the league is reduced from 16 teams to 8, and all second strings drop down a division. The league is now much stronger, and consists of all the best riders.
Each team in the new eight man league will consist of two old No.1’s, two old No.3’s, and two old No.’5’s. The old No.1’s will ride at 1 and 3, the old No.3’s will ride at 5 and 2, and the old No.5’s will ride at 4 and 6.

All results finish exactly the same as the previous season, but look what happens...

All No.1’s will again record an average of 11.33

All No.3’s (formerly No.1’s) will drop from 11.33 to 10.00
All No.5’s (formerly No.3’s) will drop from 10.00 to 8.67
All No.2’s (formerly No.3’s) will drop from 10.00 to 3.33
All No.4’s (formerly No.5’s) will drop from 8.67 to 2.00
All No.6’s (formerly No.5’s) will drop from 8.67 to 0.67

The riders are all riding at exactly the same level as the did the previous year, but they are simply facing top riders more often than they were, and that is the result of having fewer teams, fewer riders, and a more level playing field.

You wanna talk about having fun???  

Steve

[chunky]

Damn Steve Roberts, you read that quickly!!!  

[steve roberts]

2 minutes ago, chunky said:

As I said, I was being pedantic, and I was having a bit of fun too!

Now, this is what I was talking about earlier...  I love numbers and statistics, and I love logic, reason, and fact.  This is pure logic, reason, and fact, and PROVES why averages drop when there are fewer teams and riders.  Yes, it is extreme.  No, it would never happen.  However, it shows the effect.  Riders can still ride at EXACTLY the same standard, but their averages will not reflect that.  I know that Bwitcher and Orion will get this, and I think you will get it too.  O hope Sidney will, but he has to stop letting opinion (without any logical grounds for justification) get in the way of fact.

This isn't the first time I've done something like this, either!  A while back, I PROVED that it was possible for a rider to win EVERY GP - yet still not finish in the Top eight of the GP standings at the end of the season!  People still argue that I am wrong on that, but I have ABSOLUTE PROOF.

Anyway...

Here is an example – albeit extreme – of how fewer teams and riders can – and will – reduce averages. The thing to remember is that speedway averages are not only influenced by a rider’s own ability, but by the ability of those around him. Ability can only be judged compared to those averages around him (and in that particular format and numbers of teams and riders) – not by another rider’s 20 years earlier or 20 years later.

As I said, this is extreme, nut it is the easiest way to prove things, particularly using the old 18-heat, 6-rider team format (but still using the 4-ride CMA – we can all relate to that). Now, the basics are :

The league has 16 teams
Top average rider rides at No.1, second highest at No.3, third highest at No.5, fourth highest at No.2, fifth highest at No.4, and sixth highest at No.6
No.1’s only drops points to HOME No.1
No.3’s only drop points to No.1’s and HOME No.3
No.5’s only drop points to No.1’s and No.3’s, and HOME No.5

And so on… This means that all matches will finish like this.

HOME                                AWAY
1 – 3 3 3 3 3 3 – 18         1 – 2 3 3 2 3 3 – 16
2 – 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 6             2 - 0 1 1 0 1 1 - 4
3 – 3 2 3 3 2 3 – 16         3 – 2 3 2 2 3 2 – 14
4 – 1 0 1 1 0 1 - 4             4 – 0 1 0 0 1 0 - 2
5 – 3 2 2 3 2 2 – 14         5 – 2 2 2 2 2 2 – 12
6 – 1 0 0 1 0 0 - 2             6 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0

So, all riders at a particular number will finish with an identical average (and identical record), namely No.1 – 11.33, No.3 – 10.00, No.5 – 8.67, No.2 – 3.33, No.4 – 2.00, No.6 – 0.67.

The following season, the league is reduced from 16 teams to 8, and all second strings drop down a division. The league is now much stronger, and consists of all the best riders.
Each team in the new eight man league will consist of two old No.1’s, two old No.3’s, and two old No.’5’s. The old No.1’s will ride at 1 and 3, the old No.3’s will ride at 5 and 2, and the old No.5’s will ride at 4 and 6.

All results finish exactly the same as the previous season, but look what happens...

All No.1’s will again record an average of 11.33

All No.3’s (formerly No.1’s) will drop from 11.33 to 10.00
All No.5’s (formerly No.3’s) will drop from 10.00 to 8.67
All No.2’s (formerly No.3’s) will drop from 10.00 to 3.33
All No.4’s (formerly No.5’s) will drop from 8.67 to 2.00
All No.6’s (formerly No.5’s) will drop from 8.67 to 0.67

The riders are all riding at exactly the same level as the did the previous year, but they are simply facing top riders more often than they were, and that is the result of having fewer teams, fewer riders, and a more level playing field.

You wanna talk about having fun???  

Steve

Blimey mate...that's an impressive statistal journey. I'll have to digest all of that before adding any comment!!

[steve roberts]

1 minute ago, chunky said:

Damn Steve Roberts, you read that quickly!!!  

...no I'm not that fast! It'll take a while for me to read thru' it and digest,. Great study however from first impressions!

[BWitcher]

Good post Chunky, it's worrying that it has to be spelt out in such a fashion to be honest.

Even more worrying it takes digesting.. it's just so obvious.

Now take your analysis a step further into Sidneys world.. Had he been watching those number 5's from the first format.. but in the second format for ten years or so, he would not be ranking those riders very highly. Whereas in the first format he.. and the rest of us to be fair would be thinking very differently.

Simple example is to look at what happened in 1995/96.

A rider like Jan Staechman, never more than a 6-6.5 rider in the top flight in its usual format.. but in those two years in the larger league jumped to 8.20 and 8.44. 

Shane Parker always a 6-7 pt rider in those two years was 8.54 and 8.67.

Had they rode their whole careers in the larger format they'd be listed amongst those high quality heat leaders around at the time... they didn't, so they don't get a mention in such a conversation.

It's not the average per se, the average is just a measuring stick, it's the simple reality, the less often you see a rider lose.. or the more you see them win, the higher regard you hold them in.

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by BWitcher

[chunky]

18 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Good post Chunky, it's worrying that it has to be spelt out in such a fashion to be honest.

Even more worrying it takes digesting.. it's just so obvious.

What is worrying is that so many people seem mathematically challenged these days. It's not just that they don't understand it, but because they don't understand it, they don't believe it.

Simple mathematics is generally - well - simple! More than that, it tends to be consistent and reliable - until people start adding unnecessary variables. Without the variables, even though the actual answers may differ (and here, I did state that the example was extreme and unlikely - though not impossible) the concept and the processes used to reach that conclusion remain constant.

That could be one of the reasons I love darts and speedway so much; they both revolve around numbers!

Steve

[steve roberts]

6 hours ago, BWitcher said:

Good post Chunky, it's worrying that it has to be spelt out in such a fashion to be honest.

Even more worrying it takes digesting.. it's just so obvious.

Now take your analysis a step further into Sidneys world.. Had he been watching those number 5's from the first format.. but in the second format for ten years or so, he would not be ranking those riders very highly. Whereas in the first format he.. and the rest of us to be fair would be thinking very differently.

Simple example is to look at what happened in 1995/96.

A rider like Jan Staechman, never more than a 6-6.5 rider in the top flight in its usual format.. but in those two years in the larger league jumped to 8.20 and 8.44. 

Shane Parker always a 6-7 pt rider in those two years was 8.54 and 8.67.

Had they rode their whole careers in the larger format they'd be listed amongst those high quality heat leaders around at the time... they didn't, so they don't get a mention in such a conversation.

It's not the average per se, the average is just a measuring stick, it's the simple reality, the less often you see a rider lose.. or the more you see them win, the higher regard you hold them in.

 

Dear me! You do get on your high horse. For your information the fact that I required time to 'digest'  (as your comment is obviously in reference to my earlier posts) the mathematical  conundrum was that I had other immediate issues to contend with and wasn't able to read it fully at the time thus giving it my full attention. Now that I've had the opportunity to do same it makes for a fascinating statistical study and  certainly thought provoking.

Edited February 17, 2019 by steve roberts

[steve roberts]

7 hours ago, chunky said:

What is worrying is that so many people seem mathematically challenged these days. It's not just that they don't understand it, but because they don't understand it, they don't believe it.

Simple mathematics is generally - well - simple! More than that, it tends to be consistent and reliable - until people start adding unnecessary variables. Without the variables, even though the actual answers may differ (and here, I did state that the example was extreme and unlikely - though not impossible) the concept and the processes used to reach that conclusion remain constant.

That could be one of the reasons I love darts and speedway so much; they both revolve around numbers!

Steve

I'm the first to admit that mathematics is not my strongest subject (having failed my 'O' Level three times!!) but I found your example case scenario interesting (albeit "extreme" in  your own words) and certainly providing plenty of food for thought and, at the same time, proving statisically challenging and fun deciphering!

Edited February 17, 2019 by steve roberts

[steve roberts]

16 hours ago, martinmauger said:

Also in 1977, I still vividly remember when at the Boulevard Gordon Kennet passed the team-riding Bobby Beaton & Frank Auffret turning a Hull 5-1 into a 3-3.  GK went around the outside of Frank and as Bobby looked ahead entering the 1st bend, he looked around in time to see Kennet slip inside as neatly as you like.  Grr , blooming good bit of riding though.  Then there is the WTC Qualy meet at Reading in 1979, it's on Youtube, when GK is battling the late Kelly Moran - and the mud - after both had lost their goggles.  By 'lost their goggles' I don't mean out of tear offs; both had literally lost their racing goggles.  Kelly was wearing a full-face helmet whereas Gordon wore an open face + monkey mask, which he had pulled down, so was copping the spray full in the face....

Remember it well as I was there. In my opinion the meeting should never have taken place due to the heavy rain prior and during the meeting. Gordon rode heroically in the race with Kelly Moran getting totally 'filled-in' as he attempted to find a a way past. Of course as the record books prove New Zealand qualifiied together with the Yanks and went on to win the Final at White City (another meeting I attended) beating the Danes in the process. Rather bizarrely England failed three times (76, 79 & 82) in qualifying for the final at Wood Lane!

Edited February 17, 2019 by steve roberts