Tactical Substitutes Question?

[crazyb 156]

Looks like you are wrong I'm pleased to say.

 

 

Well, if so, just forget it. Only one TS is as bad as the Joker, or Mickey Mouse TR. I thought next season I might just go more than a couple of times to see Panthers, but I'll now go less, even though they have a change of personnel, and not before time either

[The White Knight 9,039]

 

Well, if so, just forget it. Only one TS is as bad as the Joker, or Mickey Mouse TR. I thought next season I might just go more than a couple of times to see Panthers, but I'll now go less, even though they have a change of personnel, and not before time either

That is your decision - I respect that.

[Gemini 4,894]

Well, I'm glad it's only one as it's not fair for a team to build up a lead only to keep having it reduced. I'd prefer none at all but at least we've at last got rid of the double point thingy.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,935]

Even one tactical sub is better than the nonsense of double points. For one thing, a tactical sub can be used when it needs to be used, not having to wait until the 'right rider' is programmed which may be too late to be effective. And of course it doesn't muck up the scorecharts either.

 

I think it was pretty rare to use more than a couple of tactical subs in one meeting anyway, although it does restrict a team manager's replacement options if there's an injury during a meeting.

 

The one thing that should have been done, is only allow tactical subs when 8 or more points down (i.e. two 5-1s). I think 6 points gives too much of an advantage to a trailing side - tactical options should be allowed in more one-sided situations.

[Guest GiveusaB]

May be they should of sanctioned 2 T/S but had one from the starting gate and allowed another off a 10 Metre handicap ? Either that, or had 1 after 6 points behind and then another after 8 points down ?

[Humphrey Appleby 13,935]

May be they should of sanctioned 2 T/S but had one from the starting gate and allowed another off a 10 Metre handicap ? Either that, or had 1 after 6 points behind and then another after 8 points down ?

Why complicate things so much?

 

Just allow however many off scratch, if 6 or 8 points down. It worked perfectly well for years.

[moxey63 1,785]

Why complicate things so much?

 

Just allow however many off scratch, if 6 or 8 points down. It worked perfectly well for years.

It did indeed work well for years, but change for change sake took control.

 

To some, the tac sub is as unfair as the Double Bubble. But, at least it keeps with the long-established speedway scoring method of 3, 2 and a 1. A sport that wants to pride itself on a serious one should not rear into X-Factor territory.

Edited November 29, 2017 by moxey63

[brianbuck 928]

When I first began following speedway in the early 1950's, matches were over 14 heats with teams of 8 riders. Two of the riders were reserves, and the top six each took 4 rides and the reserves 2 each. The two reserves could each take an additional two rides as replacements for the top 6, but the crucial point was that a team manager could name any two of his riders who had scored less than 50% of possible points over the previous six matches, as his reserves.

 

This gave a Team Manager genuine scope to select his team tactically without being hidebound by averages or being forced to name his team in a particular sequence like they do today. Restricting the reserves to having no more than four rides (the same as their "upper" colleagues) meant that there was no way that an in-form reserve could unfairly influence a meeting like sometimes happens these days, and no nominated heat meant that top-heavy teams would get the advantage of a "free" 5-1 in the last race.

 

Time perhaps to look at bringing back something similar?

[Midland Red 2,383]

Too many meetings seem to have been decided by a 7 ride reserve score

[Guest GiveusaB]

I'm in big favour of any rule that gives us the chance to see the 'best' riders in as many heats as possible....or, put another way, keeping the racing as competitive as possible.

 

Without complicating things perhaps the away team should be allowed a T/S when 6 points down and the home team when 8 points down ?

Allow each team 2 throws of the dice.....give the team manager some responsibility!

Gives the 'know it all's' a chance, or more reason to claim that they can do better ? : )

[CUFC_Brummie 132]

Maybe I'm missing it as a relative young 'un and newbie in speedway terms, but the desire for more than one tactical substitute when the double points system was derided genuinely baffles me. I don't like either system, I haven't missed the double points in the NL this year in the slightest, but I think, having been proven on here numerous times, there is little difference in "fairness" between one double points ride and one tactical ride, the potential swing being bigger in the latter, and that the seemingly majority approval of this rule change (before getting into how many times) is 100% to do with nostalgia and nothing to do with the "integrity" of the sport. To then advocate there should be more than one of these a meeting if a team is far enough behind just seems utterly bemusing when you consider the (generally valid) arguments used against the double points system and the way it allowed meetings to become "artificially" closer.

 

One of the arguments against double points was "how do you explain it to a newcomer without it sounding ridiculous?", which again, I don't disagree with the premise of that at all, but how on earth is it any more legitimate to say you can just throw out your best rider instead of your worst ones two or three times because you're so far behind? It's inherently more unfair and even more ridiculous than what was there before.

 

It's a team event, I want to see the team, not just the best riders, that's what the GP is for. I would assume it's going to cost the clubs far more money too, AFAIK the "extra" points weren't paid to a rider on the double ride, but they sure as hell will be when they take this extra ride.

 

One is the absolute max it should be, and they should scrap it all together after this season, but let's not pretend this is any better than it was before, if this wasn't "how it had been" the reaction would be entirely different. I just hope they don't bring it into the NL as well.

[Guest GiveusaB]

Maybe I'm missing it as a relative young 'un and newbie in speedway terms, but the desire for more than one tactical substitute when the double points system was derided genuinely baffles me. I don't like either system, I haven't missed the double points in the NL this year in the slightest, but I think, having been proven on here numerous times, there is little difference in "fairness" between one double points ride and one tactical ride, the potential swing being bigger in the latter, and that the seemingly majority approval of this rule change (before getting into how many times) is 100% to do with nostalgia and nothing to do with the "integrity" of the sport. To then advocate there should be more than one of these a meeting if a team is far enough behind just seems utterly bemusing when you consider the (generally valid) arguments used against the double points system and the way it allowed meetings to become "artificially" closer.

 

One of the arguments against double points was "how do you explain it to a newcomer without it sounding ridiculous?", which again, I don't disagree with the premise of that at all, but how on earth is it any more legitimate to say you can just throw out your best rider instead of your worst ones two or three times because you're so far behind? It's inherently more unfair and even more ridiculous than what was there before.

 

It's a team event, I want to see the team, not just the best riders, that's what the GP is for. I would assume it's going to cost the clubs far more money too, AFAIK the "extra" points weren't paid to a rider on the double ride, but they sure as hell will be when they take this extra ride.

 

One is the absolute max it should be, and they should scrap it all together after this season, but let's not pretend this is any better than it was before, if this wasn't "how it had been" the reaction would be entirely different. I just hope they don't bring it into the NL as well.

Fair point !

However....imo....there is nothing worse than a boring one sided meeting? (especially if you're a neutral....)

Which is why I'm in favour of 'tactical' advantages to keep me interested.

BBuck's suggestion is most probably the best way forward......removing all the complicated nonsense in the process.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,935]

One of the arguments against double points was "how do you explain it to a newcomer without it sounding ridiculous?", which again, I don't disagree with the premise of that at all, but how on earth is it any more legitimate to say you can just throw out your best rider instead of your worst ones two or three times because you're so far behind? It's inherently more unfair and even more ridiculous than what was there before.

Double points is ridiculous because gives one team the opportunity to score more points than the other. With tactical subs, the same amount of points are still on offer to both sides, so even putting aside the 'unfairness' of allowing a better rider to score those points, happiness is still 40-38 and having the score add up to 84 (or 46-44 and 90 in new money).

 

Of course tactical subs are 'not fair' per se, but some tracks giving more advantage to the home team than others are also not fair, as are dubious assessed averages, along with all manner of other things in speedway. The problem with speedway though, is that it's basically 15 matches within a match, so if one team is dominant then that dominance tends to be magnified as the meeting progresses. Plus there's a fixed number of points available, so a meeting could potentially be decided by Heat 8 which would be pretty boring.

 

Hence why artificial mechanisms are needed to try to keep the match interesting for as long as possible.

 

I'd agree that tactical subs got taken to extremes in the past, especially with Heat 8 lending itself to double tactical subs, but with 3 minimum rides nowadays, you'd effectively be restricted to 3 tactical subs anyway.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Humphrey Appleby

[Ommer Mon 381]

Its all about making things happen for me and 6 points always seemed right in the past. If a Team Manager pulls a masterstroke and wins the match, well done to him! It makes Team Managers work harder (rather than being relative 'passengers') and creates some controversy for discussion after the match.

 

The problem with Tactical Rides is that it only happens once and by then the meeting is usually as good as over.

 

Let's inject a bit of excitement and controversy, even down to the old heat 8 trick (and I know I'm not a supporter of that particularly) but 'dirty tricks' can only raise the interest levels in the sport.

 

Its all about entertainment.

[Najjer 2,883]

It's a shame they didn't bring back the 'Golden Double Tac Sub' where riders could score double points, but had to work for it off 15 metres. Jason Doyle scoring a 21 point 6 ride maximum at Reading for Somerset in 2008 to send us through in the KO Cup is still one of my best memories of speedway when he came from last to first in heat 14.