Meeting Formula/Team Lineup

[E I Addio]

3 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

I was never a fan of this particular ruling because, despite popular belief, the "star" rider didn't always take the best gate available. Also having fixed gates limits the chance of team riding whereby the rider generally on the inside dictates the first turn but I guess that the art is generally less applied nowadays with the more powerful bikes amongst other things?

Team riding is less now because modern bikes have such a narrow power band that even if you let the revs drop a little bit waiting for a team mate you lose power . If you lose power the rear wheel starts gripping ( as opposed to sliding)and you are in all kinds of trouble.

[steve roberts]

6 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Team riding is less now because modern bikes have such a narrow power band that even if you let the revs drop a little bit waiting for a team mate you lose power . If you lose power the rear wheel starts gripping ( as opposed to sliding)and you are in all kinds of trouble.

Yes it's something I've just read in John Louis's book when son Chris also indicated that 'Lay Downs" have also played a significant part to the lack of team riding as they prove to be more unreliable in handling.

Edited December 8, 2021 by steve roberts

[E I Addio]

8 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Yes it's something I've just read in John Louis's book when son Chris also indicated that 'Lay Downs" have also played a significant part to the lack of team riding as they prove to be more unreliable in handling.

Yes .It’s not lay downs per se but each time you increase the power you normally narrow the power band more and more.

I once saw Chris Louis being interviewed and he said he had ridden Tony Rickardsons bike which actually wasn’t all that fast but it was tuned to a level that he could hang on to and get the best out of the power he did have. Many other riders have their bikes tuned to a level that it becomes unpredictable. That was why Rickardson was such a great rider - he understood his bikes. How often did you see him crash with nobody else involved. Hardly ever I would say.

[The Third Man]

13 hours ago, Triple.H. said:

Was it the late Jon Cook who suggested a team X points behind could choose gate positions, as in we'll go off 1 and 4 or 2 and 3 etc. I think thats worth a go, at the end of the day anything to shake up the same old familiar format must be worth a try.

Think it was Neil Machin, i can remember Sheffield having a couple of challenge matches using this formula  

[steve roberts]

4 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Yes .It’s not lay downs per se but each time you increase the power you normally narrow the power band more and more.

I once saw Chris Louis being interviewed and he said he had ridden Tony Rickardsons bike which actually wasn’t all that fast but it was tuned to a level that he could hang on to and get the best out of the power he did have. Many other riders have their bikes tuned to a level that it becomes unpredictable. That was why Rickardson was such a great rider - he understood his bikes. How often did you see him crash with nobody else involved. Hardly ever I would say.

I also remember in said book that John Louis stated that Rickardsson's bike was set up totally differently to Tomasz Gollob's during their time as team mates at Ipswich whereby Rickardsson's bike would be "screaming" whereas Gollob's would almost be "purring" as both riders preferred different set ups and handling/responsiveness.

[mikebv]

Six man teams. .

Nine heats where all pairs race against each other on alternate gates..

Then. Three heats of managers choosing pairs, winning team name theirs first, then losing team pick theirs, and losing team pick two out of the three gate positions, winning team then have what heat is left...

Last three heats lowest to highest scorers, losing team choose their gates for one heat, the winning team then get the other available, then heat 15 is a coin toss..

No riders under 4.5pt averages, however each team can have two 'subs' signed below 4.5pt (RS's?), to replace missing riders (similar to how a Number 8 would now).

So no guests needed, but instead a 'Number 7' allied to a fit for purpose RR facilty with each eligible rider allowed a max seven rides..

15 heats in total, only one tac sub in heats 10 to 14 allowed if 8 behind, as gate positions are also used to gain an advantage, and all riders of a reasonable ability level to cover even a missing No1 if the RR facilty is fit for purpose....

 

[Humphrey Appleby]

13 hours ago, enotian said:

The 15 heat format is pretty good in that it provides a min of 4 rides from 4 different programmed gates for each rider.  Not sure if each rider faces every opponent?

Sort of...

1 meets 1 twice, 2, 3, 4, 5 twice and 6 (missing 7) 

2 meets 1, 2 twice, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3 home meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 5, 6 twice (missing 7) / 3 away meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 5, 6, 7

4 meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6, 7 / 4 away meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6 twice (missing 7)

5 meets 1 twice, 2 3, 4, 5 twice, 6, 7

6 home meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 6, 7 twice (missing 5) / 6 away meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 6, 7 twice (missing 5)

7 home meets 2, 3, 5, 6 twice, 7 three times (missing 1 & 4) / 7 away meets 2, 4, 5, 6 twice, 7 three times (missing 1 & 3)

 

[Humphrey Appleby]

4 hours ago, mikebv said:

Then. Three heats of managers choosing pairs, winning team name theirs first, then losing team pick theirs, and losing team pick two out of the three gate positions, winning team then have what heat is left...

Last three heats lowest to highest scorers, losing team choose their gates for one heat, the winning team then get the other available, then heat 15 is a coin toss..

Would involve a lot of writing in the programme...    For Heat 15, I'd also leave the choice to the losing team, or the away team if the scores are level. 

However, I think I'd have 6-rider teams with 5 & 6 as the reserves and 1-4 can be named in any order. 

I'd then pair 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 and have them all ride against each other, separated by a reserves race (5 races). Then pair 1 & 5, 3 & 6 and 2 & 4, and have them ride against each other (9 races). So Nos 1-4 would ride against each other twice, and against the opposition reserves once. Nos 5 & 6 would ride against the opposition reserves twice (including in the reserves races), and against the opposition 1-4 twice. Heat 15 could be nominated. 

4 hours ago, mikebv said:

15 heats in total, only one tac sub in heats 10 to 14 allowed if 8 behind, as gate positions are also used to gain an advantage, and all riders of a reasonable ability level to cover even a missing No1 if the RR facilty is fit for purpose....

I'd look at a handicap scoring system for replacing a No. 1 or even heat leader, so that guests would not be necessary. 

[Arch Stanton]

Don’t give Ritchie Hawkins more thinking to do please it’s more than enough already 

[enotian]

On 12/8/2021 at 5:26 PM, Humphrey Appleby said:

I'd look at a handicap scoring system for replacing a No. 1 or even heat leader, so that guests would not be necessary. 

Agree.

Choice of R/R or handicap. Keep it simple. Missing riders average less the average of the no.8 replacing them (i.e. 9 pointer missing replaced by a 2 pointer, add 7 points to the team total at the end of the match), retaining 7 man teams and given opportunity to no.8 youngsters. Potentially for a missing no.1 or no.2 uplift the average to reflect 5 heats but you don't want to incentivise missing top men.

If both teams are operating a no.8 replacement net off the handicaps so only the team with the highest handicap value has the net handicap added to the team total at the end of the match.

[old bob at herne bay]

Lack of team riding is because the riders aren't good enough to do it.

some still can .........

 

[old bob at herne bay]

Lack of team riding is because most of the current riders aren't good enough to do it.

some still can .........

 

 

[KIRKYLANE]

On 12/7/2021 at 6:56 PM, E I Addio said:

Historically the  best ( and highest paid)  rider has ridden No1 . It’s only right from a riders perspective and from the point of view of the fans that the best rider earns his money by facing the opposition’s No1 two or three times rather than once as used to be the case years ago. It’s hardly fair that the best rider should be getting easy rides against second strings and second strings get less points, and therefore less money by facing Heatleaders every time out . Personally I think it’s fair that second strings and reserves get a chance with races against riders of similar. standard.

I don’t know if it’s still the case but until fairly recently at least it was the case that the home team had to declare their team first so apart from. No1 the away manager had a certain amount of latitude in his team order .

Peter Craven liked to ride at 5 and see how the track was riding…as did Peter Collins I think

[E I Addio]

3 minutes ago, KIRKYLANE said:

Peter Craven liked to ride at 5 and see how the track was riding…as did Peter Collins I think

I don’t know when they introduced the rule that the highest average was number 1. I am pretty sure it was long after Peter Cravens time. According to Malcolm Simmons DVD, if I remember rightly it was written into Terry Betts contract that he would ride No1. If that’s correct it would mean that No1 being dictated by averages came later than Terry Betts heyday.

It would be interesting to know if anyone can pinpoint the date, that the rule was introduced.

 

[enotian]

1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

It would be interesting to know if anyone can pinpoint the date, that the rule was introduced.

It's relatively recently isn't it.  Last 20 years or so. Done to appeal to the mass TV audiences. 

[mikebv]

6 hours ago, enotian said:

It's relatively recently isn't it.  Last 20 years or so. Done to appeal to the mass TV audiences. 

I think you are correct..,

I remember in the 90's Sam Ermolenko riding at 3 for Wolves when their "No1" rider...

Nicki P, Jason Crump and Leigh Adams were others I recall didn't ride as the No1 for their teams..

I would suggest it is circa the last 10 to15 years when an AGM decreed that the top two riders rode at one and five...

 

[RS50]

There was a time when your top 2 had to ride at 1 and 5 ( not necessarily the number 1 at one). Was then changed to top 2 riding at 1 and 3. Also recall that during the FTR era, heat leaders had to be 1, 3 and 5.

[E I Addio]

2 hours ago, RS50 said:

There was a time when your top 2 had to ride at 1 and 5 ( not necessarily the number 1 at one). Was then changed to top 2 riding at 1 and 3. Also recall that during the FTR era, heat leaders had to be 1, 3 and 5.

Yes, certainly in the 2008 season I recall the top two having to ride at 1 and 3 but I think not necessarily best at No 1 as there was one match where Jon Cook switched Andreas Jonsson and Adam Shields as an experiment to see how it worked but need week they were back to their old positions. I think 2009 was the first season the highest average rule only applied to No1.

Thanks for all your comments. I think between us we have more or less covered it.

[Najjer]

49 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Yes, certainly in the 2008 season I recall the top two having to ride at 1 and 3 but I think not necessarily best at No 1 as there was one match where Jon Cook switched Andreas Jonsson and Adam Shields as an experiment to see how it worked but need week they were back to their old positions. I think 2009 was the first season the highest average rule only applied to No1.

Thanks for all your comments. I think between us we have more or less covered it.

Pretty sure that is correct - in 2008 Somerset bad Jason Doyle and Emil Kramer at 1 and 3. Kramer was the highest averaged rider but didn’t ride at no.1 at all until the following season.

This is what takes me back to my point at the start of allowing managers the option of making different changes to their line up.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Najjer

[steve roberts]

Personally I think that you should be able to place your top five averaged riders in what order you wish and six and seventh at reserve (based on a seven man team) as it always used to be. Allow the Team Manager flexibilty allowing tactics to play a part.