Ipswich 2015

[ColinMills 1,728]

plus a pen with plenty of ink for the rider changes!!

[Travertine 34]

There's alot of talk on here that Ipswich failed to make the play-offs because of their dismal home form, but I think that's a bit of a misnomer if you look closely at the full table.

 

Every team failed to win at least two of their home matches in the Premier League except Workington, whose woeful away form ensured that they weren't close to a play-off sport either.

 

If you look at Peterborough's home record, they only dropped one less home point than the Witches, but ended up comfortably in a play-off position. The reason for that was their far superior away record, and this is the real reason why Ipswich didn't qualify.

 

The Witches failed to turn any of their away victories into four-pointers, and that was subsequently their downfall - all the other play-off qualifiers notched up some big wins on the road, and made up enough points to push them out of the play-offs.

[MrMungo 708]

There's alot of talk on here that Ipswich failed to make the play-offs because of their dismal home form, but I think that's a bit of a misnomer if you look closely at the full table.

 

Every team failed to win at least two of their home matches in the Premier League except Workington, whose woeful away form ensured that they weren't close to a play-off sport either.

 

If you look at Peterborough's home record, they only dropped one less home point than the Witches, but ended up comfortably in a play-off position. The reason for that was their far superior away record, and this is the real reason why Ipswich didn't qualify.

 

The Witches failed to turn any of their away victories into four-pointers, and that was subsequently their downfall - all the other play-off qualifiers notched up some big wins on the road, and made up enough points to push them out of the play-offs.

 

An interesting unique viewpoint, Travertine.

Personally I don't think that dropping points at home 5 times (out of 12) is play-off material, and that is where the downfall was.

Although there were other times when an extra point or 2 could have been gained here and there which in hindsight would have the difference, that period in May when the track was not well prepared (due to new shale?) ultimately cost the side dearly.

[Travertine 34]

 

An interesting unique viewpoint, Travertine.

Personally I don't think that dropping points at home 5 times (out of 12) is play-off material, and that is where the downfall was.

Although there were other times when an extra point or 2 could have been gained here and there which in hindsight would have the difference, that period in May when the track was not well prepared (due to new shale?) ultimately cost the side dearly.

 

The point I was trying to make MrM was that everybody had their dismal home performances more than once, even the once invincible Monarchs - Peterborughs home record was almsot the same as the Witches, but they comfortably qualified.

 

However, on the road, all the play-off qualfiers went above and beyond their usual performance, again on more than one occasion. This is what the Witches signally failed to do, turn their away victories into four-pointers - just one of them would have been enough for the Witches to qualify.

 

I'd agree though the dismal spell in May certainly didn't help - half the riders were there in body but not in mind, and it was the same for the track! This spell is exagerrated by one of the poor performances being in the KO Cup, which wouldn't show up in the league table.

 

To sum up - Yes, we were poor at home, but so was everyone else at times (Bar the Comets!), it was on the road that I believe we ultimately let it slip away.

[Bash 496]

Have to agree with MrMungo on this, it was our home form that cost us a place in the play-offs. Out of the play-off qualifiers Edinburgh, Somerset, Glasgow & Plymouth lost 6 points at home. Sheffield only lost 5. Yes, Peterborough lost 12 and we lost 13. Away from home we scored 19 points, more than Plymouth 13 and Sheffield 18 the two teams just above us, so it's the lost points at home which ultimately cost us.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,695]

 

The point I was trying to make MrM was that everybody had their dismal home performances more than once, even the once invincible Monarchs - Peterborughs home record was almsot the same as the Witches, but they comfortably qualified.

 

However, on the road, all the play-off qualfiers went above and beyond their usual performance, again on more than one occasion. This is what the Witches signally failed to do, turn their away victories into four-pointers - just one of them would have been enough for the Witches to qualify.

 

I'd agree though the dismal spell in May certainly didn't help - half the riders were there in body but not in mind, and it was the same for the track! This spell is exagerrated by one of the poor performances being in the KO Cup, which wouldn't show up in the league table.

 

To sum up - Yes, we were poor at home, but so was everyone else at times (Bar the Comets!), it was on the road that I believe we ultimately let it slip away.

well one person that certainly does agree with you is Phil Hilton. His assessment closely matches yours.

He too believes failing to turn any away performance into 4 points was as much a problem as the home form.

[Baldyman 6,243]

Basically it was a combination of both home and away. Whatever way you look at it, at times riders underperformed and couldn't ride a grippy home track.

[MrMungo 708]

It's strange to see Heeps getting some criticism. He's not developed as expected, definitely, but did increase his average, which is the name of the game, despite taking some hefty knocks along the way.

I think the latest averages comparison shows where the side lost out.

 

King: 8.84 -> 9.39 9.54

Hawkins: 5.27 -> 3.35

Manzares: 6.02 -> 5.41 5.43

Heeps: 5.38 -> 6.15 5.87

Tungate 8.36 -> 7.29 7.74

Nielsen 4.23 -> 4.68 4.74

Covatti 4.19 -> 7.55 7.55

Morris 4.00 -> 4.53

Updated for final averages.

[Travertine 34]

King: 8.84 -> 9.39 9.54

Hawkins: 5.27 -> 3.35

Manzares: 6.02 -> 5.41 5.43

Heeps: 5.38 -> 6.15 5.87

Tungate 8.36 -> 7.29 7.74

Nielsen 4.23 -> 4.68 4.74

Covatti 4.19 -> 7.55 7.55

Morris 4.00 -> 4.53

 

Updated for final averages.

 

That's over 2 and a half points across the team (mainly due to Nico), the sort of increase that sees teams winning things - clearly didn't work for us though!

[ZODIAK 304]

Strikes me as the same sort of rider. relies heavily on gating so on his day can make 5 good gates and beta anyone but on a bad say can be outgated by NL riders 4 times and score 2 or 3. He's a bit more exciting to watch than Tomicek but he doesn't actually do a lot of passing from what I've seen. He won't do any worse than his current average but I'm not convinced he's going to hit the heights some people think he's capable of. A very good rider to have a number 7 though for sure and will get 6 if he stays in reserve all year.

Agree with that, did have some moments at Sheffield but overall was very disapointing considering he nearly got into the GPs and his 4 point average didn't lie. If he didn't gate was often left far behind. Must say I'm surprised the Witches have dropped Adam Ellis and brought Covatti in, as from what I've seen Ellis was much more promising.

Covatti and Tomicek is possibly the best comparison in the history of comparing things. Both are foreign and on low averages thus they will easily add 4 or 5 points, truth is they're pretty garbage and will add a point maximum. Poor Ellis.

LOL - OK then Gavan. I am quite aware of the fact Ellis missed more than enough meetings, it's more the fact he's been shunted for some sh*te Iti, poor lad.

At a loose end so thought I'd have a read of the 2015 thread. Crikey some shockers here LOL particularly from SCB "relies heavily on gating" and "doesn't actually do a lot of passing"!

 

The 6 point prediction if he "stays at reserve all season" proved a little off too

 

Put nearly 3 and a half points on his average whilst being one of the most entertaining riders we've seen at Foxhall for years.

 

Not bad for "some shi te Italian"

Edited December 21, 2015 by Hong Kong Phooey

[Super Blue 616]

Yes, there were some seriously negative predictions about Nico, I said he was an absolute bargain on his starting average and was proved totally correct.

 

He was certainly the most entertaining rider we had this year if not the highest scorer, an absolute pleasure to watch him!

 

Shame most of the rest let us down badly.

[Tsunami 10,219]

Yes, there were some seriously negative predictions about Nico, I said he was an absolute bargain on his starting average and was proved totally correct.

 

He was certainly the most entertaining rider we had this year if not the highest scorer, an absolute pleasure to watch him!

 

Shame most of the rest let us down badly.

Was impressed with him at the 4's till Ulrich did him.

[Pob 545]

Was impressed with him at the 4's till Ulrich did him.

The pass he did on the outside in his previous heat that day we saw every week at foxhall . Was a joy to watch last season.

[Cupidstunt 92]

Paco is in the Star today saying he can't wait and looking forward to riding at ipswich, he needs to be excited now because come May he will be out of the door cos he is shat, he seems to talk a good race but on his displays last year especially in the 16 lapper he needs to do it on track not just spouting bullshat

[Baldyman 6,243]

Oh don't worry, over the years we have had a few riders that spout it but don't deliver it.