BigBoaby

Blah blah blah. What a load of garbage. You're talking through a hole in your backside. They didn't ride at Ashfield. Aye right. Poole don't ride at Ashfield either. What a load of guff. Obviously team full of 10 point men would fail around Ashfield. You're talking crap. According to you a 10 point man will always lose to a 5 pointer. Absolute mince. The one consistent factor in championship winning teams throughout the points limit era has been improving averages and if you don't know that you know nuthin. To quote you, maybe you have no relevance today.

Tell that to Arena Essex's all-conquering 1991 team, and Newcastle's all-conquering 1982 team and 1983 team. They were all "top heavy" and totally dominated. It is a fallacy that people criticise so called "top-heavy" teams. If you look at the facts, the one single factor in any winning team is improving averages over the previous year and in fact it makes little difference where the spread of power is. You can't tell me that four 10 point men will not steamroller most teams in the league as that is exactly what would happen for a team that had that kind of fire power. Far too much is made of criticising so called "top heavy" teams when invariably they are missing the point that there is some other factor involved and the acid test of "whether the averages have improved over or gone down over the whole team" is the true acid test as invariably when the averages do improve significantly over the whole team and improved by more than improvement on averages in the rest of the league, that is what has always determined which team ends up top and certainly in the points limit era. Arena Essex are a case in point, some say it was a bit controversial that they changed the make-up of their team part way through the season and strengthened, riders on false averages etc and by whichever means they as a team did markedly improve on their overall team averages, with an ultra strong top five - oh how they struggled (not!!). It was their ultra strong top 5 that did the damage and scored the vast majority of their points, the opposing teams tended to get points back from their reserves but not enough to offset their ultra strong top five.

Especially when Coventry visited From memory Bees won with a team that included a certain S.Bowes.

Thanks for clarifying. Doesn't look as if it's that far removed from the rules of yesteryear so probably just my imagination that it seems as though it takes longer for averages to change when big improvements in form or of course dips in form. Although I think it used to be in a new season the new GSA took effect based on was it first 6 matches so I guess that was maybe quicker to show up changes in form in a new season compared with now last 20 meetings and stretching back to matches in the previous season.

Re the above in answer to another poster saying Rory's average on the BSPA website is over 9. I should say straight off that I don't know. I used to understand the GSA averages and unless my memory is becoming even more fuzzy it used to be quite simple. However these days are the averages not on something like a 12 month rolling average (I don't know cos I lost interest in all that stuff when it became too complicated) which seems to partly account for disparities in a rider's actual scoring average for this season so far. Then there's whether it includes bonus points for team building, and reductions for this and that. And of course whether it includes only League matches or also including KO Cup and other matches. Apologies, I'm sure that was of absolutely no help whatsoever. I gave up trying to explain the averages system to friends and workmates a long time ago.

Not so. Many websites would use the word "they" or "the" (name of club) so as to maintain objectivity (if you check you will find that this is more often the case). Different if a person is being quoted within "inverted commas" and only then the word "we" will appear, but not in the words of the reporter which will be "they" or "the" (name of club). The point Bagpuss seemed to touch upon was that Mr Hunter tends to present an all too partisan and personalised approach. While in some ways there's not much wrong with being passionate etc and you know what you will get with Mike (I for one reckon he is an honest chap that tells it as he sees it), however it is also appropriate (many would say more appropriate) to present a less overtly partisan manner and instead a more objective and (some would say) a more professional manner. Part of it may also be who is the intended audience, it seems Mike is only speaking to the Monarchs faithful, while it appears other sites have a wider audience in mind, and yes on checking you will find that the latter approach is more common, including the website of a club further west and whether you love them or loathe them they are reckoned to be clued up on the media side of things.

It appears you did not read my post nor 'get' what I actually said. It appears to have sailed overhead. You answered a question I in fact did not ask. Lighthearted humour (my post) was met with misplaced seriousness (your "response") that had nothing to do with my post at all. Clue: think puns and what was actually quoted from your original post within my post. Tip for today, if you are going to respond to a post do actually read it first.

Redundancy? Retirement?

Hardly. Admission prices in speedway have been in the teens for donkey's years. A quid is worth about 30p these days. It aint the 1970's anymore y'know.

Half a dozen so that makes about 33%? Is that right?

Echoes of Redstripe v the Nigerian scammer

No we all were under the impression you were hoping for a Tigers win

You could write an encyclopedia on it

Shoe on the other foot more like. Gazc actually made a light hearted good humoured post and you come back with that sh*te jeez.

I think SarpenRake was joking mate