BluPanther Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 15 minutes ago, DC2 said: How old are Bacon, Mountain, Hume and Bowtell? 26, 22, 23 & 23 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, Blupanther said: 26, 22, 23 & 23 ... Blimey, didn’t realise Tom Bacon was that old. Thanks for the research! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, thecoombdog said: Clearly he means a under 21 Brit capped at a certain average level. Any ideas to get British reserve's back rather than a foreign ringer is good enough for me. But it wasnt clearly and that's the problem. Often a regulations CLEARLY have a particular intention but generally you find a team or 2 twisting it in a literal sense for an advantage If it is then changed to stop a manipulation it invariably means it then affects another rider the original intent didn't mean to exclude People often want black and white but then still expect to be able to add their own subjective view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoombdog Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, arnieg said: That would mean Rowe, Kemp, Kinsley, Edwards, Flint, Bickley, and Brennan riding in these positions. Don't think that would be a bad thing if they were protected at 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho3a Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 Not sure if its been discussed so apologies if so... Im all for letting teams keep the same team and a higher points limit but if you go for a winning teams points limit then each year you get riders improve averages and others stand still then year on year the points limit goes up and suddenly your over 50 points... This is fine but comes with a cost and then each year a younger rider gets less chance to come into the teams... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 31 minutes ago, thecoombdog said: Don't think that would be a bad thing if they were protected at 7. Protection is bad. Look at Anders Rowe this year. He started on a 2 point average and went up to 4.38 despite going into the main body of the team. Imagine the advantage Somerset would have had if he had been protected from moving up. He’d have beaten all of the other teams’ 2 point reserves home and away throughout the season. I’d be happy for them to be given the first third of the season at reserve but no more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoombdog Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, DC2 said: Protection is bad. Look at Anders Rowe this year. He started on a 2 point average and went up to 4.38 despite going into the main body of the team. Imagine the advantage Somerset would have had if he had been protected from moving up. He’d have beaten all of the other teams’ 2 point reserves home and away throughout the season. I’d be happy for them to be given the first third of the season at reserve but no more. To be fair who is to say he would have improved so much if he wasn't forced up to number 2 mid season. Maybe he would have only improved a little if he was beating the same riders all season. So I guess I've just disagreed with myself!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.V 72 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 3 hours ago, DC2 said: You’re basing Fricke and Covatti leaving on rumour. Just the same as the rumour that Nicki P might come back! A couple of weeks ago Klindt was leaving too but now he’s being linked with Ipswich. And you are just saying lets put the team average up to 46.34 just like that.Have you tried to put another six competitive teams together to see with the riders available its possible.If you can do that and prove to me its possible with realistic riders then you might change my mind.But just keep in mind last year Peterborough could not find one willing heat leader to replace Cook they ended up with Summers and left the team 3 points under the limit from the start of the season leaving themselves with no chance. If there are all these riders ready to ride for the money on offer to strengthen up the British league you would have thought that P/borough could have found at least one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, B.V 72 said: And you are just saying lets put the team average up to 46.34 just like that.Have you tried to put another six competitive teams together to see with the riders available its possible.If you can do that and prove to me its possible with realistic riders then you might change my mind.But just keep in mind last year Peterborough could not find one willing heat leader to replace Cook they ended up with Summers and left the team 3 points under the limit from the start of the season leaving themselves with no chance. If there are all these riders ready to ride for the money on offer to strengthen up the British league you would have thought that P/borough could have found at least one. I don’t know how hard Peterborough looked. Ipswich persuaded NKI and it seems that Sheffield might have attracted Nicki P. I bet you would have said those signings were impossible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.V 72 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, DC2 said: I don’t know how hard Peterborough looked. Ipswich persuaded NKI and it seems that Sheffield might have attracted Nicki P. I bet you would have said those signings were impossible! You might not agree with my opinions.But I bet you I am right that a 46.34 team average has no chance.P/boroughs case shows to me that not all teams can afford to sign the better missing riders.Also could Ipswich have afforded NKI for a full season who knows and if he was up for a full season why did he not sign for Kings lynn at the start of the season Edited November 12, 2019 by B.V 72 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, B.V 72 said: You might not agree with my opinions.But I bet you I am right that a 46.34 team average has no chance.P/boroughs case shows to me that not all teams can afford to sign the better missing riders.Also could Ipswich have afforded NKI for a full season who knows and if he was up for a full season why did he not sign for Kings lynn at the start of the season I agree that the AGM won’t agree a 46.34 limit, especially as they will be dictated to by the weakest and least ambitious clubs who have no intention of signing a big name rider. That said, if Cook had stayed, they had kept their two 5 point reserves and Hans Andersen hadn’t been injured and had ridden to his starting average, Peterborough would have been in the play offs. They were one of the fancied teams at the start of the season. Indeed, even now, if they brought in Zagar for Ostergaard they would have an attractive team with potential, even if they were 4 points short of 46.34: Zagar Nicholls Tungate Hans Andersen Wright Garrity Proctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 I'm amazed the amount of people who talk the CMA as if is a fair way to evaluate team strength. Them days are long gone. Once, when the heat program was of the original design all of the riders had equal difficulties and their CMA was comparison with each other. Now depending whether your a heat leader (HL), a second string (2S) or a reserve (R) the averages attained are a million miles apart. A (HL) may score say 6pts riding against opposite (HL) whereas a (R) could score 8pts against their opposite no in the same meeting. According to the averages the (R) rider achieved a better score than the (HL) but their performances are in a different league. This is why the points limits are a waste of time. For there to be any sort of equality within team strength all riders need to be graded. Only then will there be true comparisons between the teams... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, g13webb said: I'm amazed the amount of people who talk the CMA as if is a fair way to evaluate team strength. Them days are long gone. Once, when the heat program was of the original design all of the riders had equal difficulties and their CMA was comparison with each other. Now depending whether your a heat leader (HL), a second string (2S) or a reserve (R) the averages attained are a million miles apart. A (HL) may score say 6pts riding against opposite (HL) whereas a (R) could score 8pts against their opposite no in the same meeting. According to the averages the (R) rider achieved a better score than the (HL) but their performances are in a different league. This is why the points limits are a waste of time. For there to be any sort of equality within team strength all riders need to be graded. Only then will there be true comparisons between the teams... A little bit of what you’re saying is correct, but most of it isn’t. Sure, the best two riders, by and large, ride at 1 and 5 and have tough heats 13 and 15 which can suppress their averages, although they are generally well matched. The other team members have to ride against a mix of superior riders at number 1 and 5 and inferior riders at reserve. No second string would expect to finish higher in the averages than the best two riders from other clubs. Look at the top twos in the final averages this year: Fricke & Bjerre, Doyle & Batchelor, Masters & Thorsell, Kurtz & Holder, Lambert & Cook, NKI & King, Wright & Tungate. Only the last two pairs were unexpected (instead of Chris Harris and Hans Andersen) and had disappointing averages. The rest finished top two as expected and averaged more than every other second string/third heatleader, except for Rasmus Jensen and Nikolai Klindt who had exceptional seasons after a string of middling ones. Grading is far more subjective and inaccurate than actual averages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted November 13, 2019 Report Share Posted November 13, 2019 19 hours ago, DC2 said: A little bit of what you’re saying is correct, but most of it isn’t. Sure, the best two riders, by and large, ride at 1 and 5 and have tough heats 13 and 15 which can suppress their averages, although they are generally well matched. The other team members have to ride against a mix of superior riders at number 1 and 5 and inferior riders at reserve. No second string would expect to finish higher in the averages than the best two riders from other clubs. Look at the top twos in the final averages this year: Fricke & Bjerre, Doyle & Batchelor, Masters & Thorsell, Kurtz & Holder, Lambert & Cook, NKI & King, Wright & Tungate. Only the last two pairs were unexpected (instead of Chris Harris and Hans Andersen) and had disappointing averages. The rest finished top two as expected and averaged more than every other second string/third heatleader, except for Rasmus Jensen and Nikolai Klindt who had exceptional seasons after a string of middling ones. Grading is far more subjective and inaccurate than actual averages. Probably I didn't explain my point very clear. I was not saying the top riders from each club would be any other than the respectable (HL), merely to point out their point rating, can be far different from that of their ability. The point I was trying to make was the degree of difficult for the (HL) in riding against opposite (HL) was far greater than riding against fellow Reserves. Probably it would be more accurate to categorise how the rider acquired his average. ( Say HL 7-50, or 2S 7-00 and R 6-90). From that example there are only 0.60pts between the riders and one might conceive they were of equal, but we all know the that if the (HL) rode at 7 he would score far more points.. At least if they were to be categorise, you would be able to see a more accurate comparison of each rider's ability.. . These points each rider acquires is a good indication of how he is performing. but when assembling a team to a said maximum, the team Manager has to take into consideration how that rider gained them points. this is where the points rating falls down. A Reserve with a 6 CMA would not be a good choice when you can get a HL on the same CMA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC2 Posted November 13, 2019 Report Share Posted November 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, g13webb said: Probably I didn't explain my point very clear. I was not saying the top riders from each club would be any other than the respectable (HL), merely to point out their point rating, can be far different from that of their ability. The point I was trying to make was the degree of difficult for the (HL) in riding against opposite (HL) was far greater than riding against fellow Reserves. Probably it would be more accurate to categorise how the rider acquired his average. ( Say HL 7-50, or 2S 7-00 and R 6-90). From that example there are only 0.60pts between the riders and one might conceive they were of equal, but we all know the that if the (HL) rode at 7 he would score far more points.. At least if they were to be categorise, you would be able to see a more accurate comparison of each rider's ability.. . These points each rider acquires is a good indication of how he is performing. but when assembling a team to a said maximum, the team Manager has to take into consideration how that rider gained them points. this is where the points rating falls down. A Reserve with a 6 CMA would not be a good choice when you can get a HL on the same CMA. Why don’t you just look at the green sheet averages? You can clearly see riders’ respective abilities reflected in their actual averages. No need at all for an inferior system such as grading. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris116 Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 On this thread and in others many posts have said that they want to see riders staying at clubs for longer and not having the annual 'all change' that we get at present. Maybe a way to encourage clubs and riders to stick with each other would be that for team building purposes riders who were at a club the previous season would get a 4% reduction with riders who had been at a club for two seasons getting a 6% reduction. I know there could problems with this idea that I have not thought of but hopefully something could come out of it for the 2021 season. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Chris116 said: On this thread and in others many posts have said that they want to see riders staying at clubs for longer and not having the annual 'all change' that we get at present. Maybe a way to encourage clubs and riders to stick with each other would be that for team building purposes riders who were at a club the previous season would get a 4% reduction with riders who had been at a club for two seasons getting a 6% reduction. I know there could problems with this idea that I have not thought of but hopefully something could come out of it for the 2021 season. Something I have long advocated. Would require some special rules for clubs joining leagues, but those are not insurmountable. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobnob Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 why not let teams stay the same but if they make any changes then they must then adhere to a 45 point (or what ever its set at) limit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Rich Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 Personally I would like to see the league champions keep that line up for the next season, otherwise we never get to see that team defend their title. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 On 11/12/2019 at 3:34 PM, DC2 said: Protection is bad. Look at Anders Rowe this year. He started on a 2 point average and went up to 4.38 despite going into the main body of the team. Imagine the advantage Somerset would have had if he had been protected from moving up. He’d have beaten all of the other teams’ 2 point reserves home and away throughout the season. I’d be happy for them to be given the first third of the season at reserve but no more. Protection works well in Poland, however some teams have a distinct advantage! On 11/12/2019 at 5:25 PM, DC2 said: I don’t know how hard Peterborough looked. Ipswich persuaded NKI and it seems that Sheffield might have attracted Nicki P. I bet you would have said those signings were impossible! Where is this rumour that Nicki P might be going to Sheffield? 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.