Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, jenga said:

 the F in P is the letter that has been pressed that is next to the G.  so should be G.P.  silly fingers . as you can see , its  t.i.c:D

The last bit in bold should be t.i.t.:D

Edited by Gazc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we start looking ahead to 2019 as we dont know the league structure or points limit we will be involved with , it's time to look back on what was a generally frustrating 2018 . 

Rightly or wrongly installed as title favourites , things didnt quite go to plan as well as we hoped . The championship shield section looked to be at our mercy after victory at Armadale , but the home thumping by Workington cost us qualification and served notice that we werent as good as we were beginning to think we were . 

We then contrived to throw away a KO Cup tie against Edinburgh which we were in complete control of , while the league campaign had it's ups and downs . Strong enough at home , but generally disappointing away from Ashfield . We did make it into the play offs only to come up just short against our Cumbrian nemesis . 

As for the riders - 

Craig Cook - easily the best rider in the league and a joy to watch . Would even say he's better round Ashfield than Shane Parker in his pomp . 

Chris Harris - much excitement at his signing last winter , but overall he has been a big disappointment . 

Claus Vissing - started the season well , but his form definitely dipped as the season progressed . 

Paul Starke - again started the season well before he got injured in the home meeting against Sheffield at the beginning of May , Took a long time to get over that and his scoring suffered , but he did return to sonething like his old self towards the end of the campaign . 

James Sarjeant - we hoped he would turn out to be the free scoring reserve every title challenger needs , but that never looked like happening . 

Jack Thomas - all riders stepping up from the NL can struggle , but there is definite potential there . 

Nathan Greaves - got injured too soon after signing to be judged fairly .

Ritchie Worrall - been fantastic for us since arriving from Somerset , but this season he just didnt look the same rider . 

Lewis Kerr - the shining light of early season meetings , unfortunate his season was cruelly brought to an early end . 

A season of just coming up short when it mattered , we shall see what 2019 brings . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of speedway's (many) faults, the one constant positive is that throwing money at riders is no guarantee of success.

Glasgow have proven that once again. There is no rule to say they are not allowed to do that, but a points limit of some sort remains vital to keep a relatively level playing field.

Edited by Thischarmingman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thischarmingman said:

For all of speedway's (many) faults, the one constant positive is that throwing money at riders is no guarantee of success.

Throwing money at the wrong riders even less so. I dont think the throwing money at riders really applies outside the top two. We allegedly said no to Lunna for this season as he asked for more money to cover his increased flight costs as we were changing race days to Fridays.

The problems for this season were there from day one when the manager chucked it after the first meeting. That unsettled Worrall who went on a woeful run of form, in part at being under constant pressure in 13 & 15 to make up for the shortfall in points from Harris. Lewis Kerr and Vissing thankfully covered our arse in the early meetings but both started to tail off in early June. As well as yielding little points at the top of the team, the same was true at the bottom as Jack Thomas struggled with the big step up from NL and Sarjeant often could have got the same points sitting in the house, particularly at home.

The home thrashing by Workington and unforgiveable defeat to an average Edinburgh in May underlined the fragility of the 1-7, but wasnt a surprise if you attended the home meetings to that point. It was widely speculated we tried to replace Harris in May and June to no avail. He was embarrassing at points, with unreliable machinery and perhaps worst of all, a lack of fight. 

An already poor season got worse when Paul Starke tried to ride through injury in May & June, and Kerr got injured at the end of June. It meant r/r required Sarjeant to take at least two of his rides, and he couldnt even cover his own rides. The team had no chance of making the playoffs until Kerr and Worrall made way for Cook and Nathan Greaves in mid July. Despite only riding 8 meetings Cook had an immediate impact and Harris finally started scoring. It was enough for us to scrape into the playoffs with that holy grail of away wins but ultimately not enough to make the final.

Stewart Dickson wont be there next year so the mental policy of having a stellar top five and whoever will fit for the reserves hopefully cant happen again. Its never worked for us previously. The marquee signing of Harris promised much but delivered little and can only be described a spectacular failure, as Sarjeant too.

Whatever the league structure for 2019, we know what hasnt worked, its time to learn from it and not make those same signing mistakes again. A bit of continuity may also serve us better than another sweep out.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MD said:

Throwing money at the wrong riders even less so. I dont think the throwing money at riders really applies outside the top two. We allegedly said no to Lunna for this season as he asked for more money to cover his increased flight costs as we were changing race days to Fridays.

The problems for this season were there from day one when the manager chucked it after the first meeting. That unsettled Worrall who went on a woeful run of form, in part at being under constant pressure in 13 & 15 to make up for the shortfall in points from Harris. Lewis Kerr and Vissing thankfully covered our arse in the early meetings but both started to tail off in early June. As well as yielding little points at the top of the team, the same was true at the bottom as Jack Thomas struggled with the big step up from NL and Sarjeant often could have got the same points sitting in the house, particularly at home.

The home thrashing by Workington and unforgiveable defeat to an average Edinburgh in May underlined the fragility of the 1-7, but wasnt a surprise if you attended the home meetings to that point. It was widely speculated we tried to replace Harris in May and June to no avail. He was embarrassing at points, with unreliable machinery and perhaps worst of all, a lack of fight. 

An already poor season got worse when Paul Starke tried to ride through injury in May & June, and Kerr got injured at the end of June. It meant r/r required Sarjeant to take at least two of his rides, and he couldnt even cover his own rides. The team had no chance of making the playoffs until Kerr and Worrall made way for Cook and Nathan Greaves in mid July. Despite only riding 8 meetings Cook had an immediate impact and Harris finally started scoring. It was enough for us to scrape into the playoffs with that holy grail of away wins but ultimately not enough to make the final.

Stewart Dickson wont be there next year so the mental policy of having a stellar top five and whoever will fit for the reserves hopefully cant happen again. Its never worked for us previously. The marquee signing of Harris promised much but delivered little and can only be described a spectacular failure, as Sarjeant too.

Whatever the league structure for 2019, we know what hasnt worked, its time to learn from it and not make those same signing mistakes again. A bit of continuity may also serve us better than another sweep out.

But who do you keep ? Cook yes , but then bang goes your well balanced team . Harris - no , Vissing probably not , Sarjeant - no , Starke - maybe , Thomas - worth preserving with , Kerr - yes if he has fully recovered . Greaves - probably not . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Paulco said:

But who do you keep ? Cook yes , but then bang goes your well balanced team . Harris - no , Vissing probably not , Sarjeant - no , Starke - maybe , Thomas - worth preserving with , Kerr - yes if he has fully recovered . Greaves - probably not . 

Depends on the league structure and points limit. If its one league Cook wont be back. If its a vastly reduced points limit in the Championship he also wont be back. No easy answers here.

I would already have asked Harris and Sarjeant for their Kevlars back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MD said:

the mental policy of having a stellar top five and whoever will fit for the reserves hopefully cant happen again. Its never worked for us previously.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BigBoaby said:

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.

The trouble nowadays is experienced riders are " looking after" their average these to keep them in a job the next season.That usually means an up and coming rider who has a good seaon can struggle to  find a Team because he will  value himself a bit more.Think we need grading system as opposed to strict average to help the situation.Anyone signing Cook on a10 + average will struggle to balance the Team,Although if Glasgow do they could probably keep the same Team if they want to( I doubt it though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

workington are only slightly over and could poss keep the 6 out of the 7.  big hitters are out of the reach of the promotion now. we , if we run would like the same type of build up with the team that has done so well in 2018 . we may never see this again, but a great season it has been . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MD said:

Depends on the league structure and points limit. If its one league Cook wont be back. If its a vastly reduced points limit in the Championship he also wont be back. No easy answers here.

I would already have asked Harris and Sarjeant for their Kevlars back.

Who is to say Cook won't be back if it is one league, he has been getting a lot of stick from Belle vue fans this year and most of them don't have him in their team plans for 2019. Craig improved greatly after joining Glasgow and is happy there. He also brought more than just his points, he galvanised and brought belief to the team. I would have him back regardless of what league we are in, although it would depend on what team average would be, it is ironic that we could keep our current team under the 42.5 rule, however that is unlikely to be the case. This year's drastic team change from 2017 was a bit too much, I do think we need to try and keep at least 3 for continuity. Goodness knows what gems the AGM will bring out, but we need more than just a tweak here and there.How many teams will survive to next season is also a major issue. It is going to be a long winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BigBoaby said:

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.

Im not sure what relevance teams from 30 odd years ago have to today. The bikes, acceleration, track prep etc are all markedly different. Arena Essex and Newcastle also dont (or didnt) ride at Ashfield. Each track shape will determine what type of team each team needs. My post referred to Glasgow and Glasgow alone that a strong top 5 has never worked for us, even going back to 2006 when we had Danny Bird, Shane Parker, Kauko Nieminen et al. I agree there is often another factor or factors which get in the way such as injuries or in our case Harris treating us as second class. For Glasgow our league success in 2011 came as a result of Joe Screen at the top and four different riders sharing the reserve berth over the season, as one found it heavy going at No2 , he would drop to reserve, rapidly find his confidence and bang in heavy points. The team was much better balanced with Nick Morris the serious improver that year. We need to find a Nick Morris again for 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fromafar said:

The trouble nowadays is experienced riders are " looking after" their average these to keep them in a job the next season.That usually means an up and coming rider who has a good seaon can struggle to  find a Team because he will  value himself a bit more.Think we need grading system as opposed to strict average to help the situation.Anyone signing Cook on a10 + average will struggle to balance the Team,Although if Glasgow do they could probably keep the same Team if they want to( I doubt it though).

Replace Harris with Kerr and replace Vissing with Summers and replace Sarjeant with Coty jobs a good un . Although based on this year would doubt Starke will be back.

 What make up the leagues and averages will be in who knows but I agree with getting rid of the average system it is far too easy to abuse grading is the way to go.

But regardless on structure averages etc if it is at all possible to get Craig Cook back next season then it is a no brainer for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grading would mean far more uneven teams

Instead of all teams around 42.5 you would end up with a few effectively nearer 50 and some not far above 35

Would be a disaster IMO

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

Grading would mean far more uneven teams

Instead of all teams around 42.5 you would end up with a few effectively nearer 50 and some not far above 35

Would be a disaster IMO

Don't disagree in the slightest, however and on a similar vain, it was mooted a few years back to retain the average system but also introduce a "Banding (variation on a grading theme) System" for the riders which would result in the clubs having to blend a team more carefully.

It was to give riders at the bottom end of the averages (allegedly) more of a chance to be picked up and to potentially save clubs on cost. So rather than the Danish Model that Grades riders for a season' the Average would dictate the Band' and the Club would be allowed to blend a team from the Bands with certain restrictions but also had to build a team to a fixed number of points as is now based on Averages. It was deemed to complicated by certain promoters (the ones who would struggle to manipulate the system probably I would suggest and therefore it was not progressed)

Cash is King especially when there isn't much of it and it was another attempt in trying to level the playing field, to allow those clubs less financially well off the chance to build a competitive team. It was ultimately binned and the 8 point rule i.e. one per club in the Premiership came in. (nothing for the Championship)

It was/is all about paying out less money and to even up the teams more (again allegedly) than anything else, which lets face it could be done by setting the team build figure to 32.5 rather than 42.5 which is something I don't personally agree with as we should be building to 42.5 or 45 to my mind?. However when this "Banding" was proposed and the fast track system on reserves went; one club mooted as these young reserve riders had been racing in protected races and had false averages everyone should be allowed to build to 55 points, they also said the same when the realignment of the riders averages came in a couple of years back as well. 

I suppose everyone has ideas with some possibly more rational than others, however what appears to happen on a regular basis with the BSPA is any idea that is produced gets kicked around  at a couple of meetings and when it doesn't suit one promotion or a small clique of promoters the resultant proposal goes in the bin "good or bad" however they never give anything radical (or what is perceived as radical) a chance so as someone recently said "a head in the sand approach will not make the BSPA ostrich fly" (which is topical for a Glasgow thread but will probably fly over the heads of many)

Regards
THJ

Edited by TotallyHonestJohn
missed out key word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy