Should the points limit be set to the highest team average from the previous season?

[psycho3a 101]

Not sure if its been discussed so apologies if so...

Im all for letting teams keep the same team and a higher points limit but if you go for a winning teams points limit then each year you get riders improve averages and others stand still then year on year the points limit goes up and suddenly your over 50 points...

This is fine but comes with a cost and  then each year a younger rider gets less chance to come into the teams...

[DC2 11,150]

31 minutes ago, thecoombdog said:

 

Don't think that would be a bad thing if they were protected at 7.

 

Protection is bad. Look at Anders Rowe this year. 

He started on a 2 point average and went up to 4.38 despite going into the main body of the team.

Imagine the advantage Somerset would have had if he had been protected from moving up. He’d have beaten all of the other teams’ 2 point reserves home and away throughout the season.

I’d be happy for them to be given the first third of the season at reserve but no more.

[thecoombdog 2,367]

13 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

Protection is bad. Look at Anders Rowe this year. 

He started on a 2 point average and went up to 4.38 despite going into the main body of the team.

Imagine the advantage Somerset would have had if he had been protected from moving up. He’d have beaten all of the other teams’ 2 point reserves home and away throughout the season.

I’d be happy for them to be given the first third of the season at reserve but no more.

To be fair who is to say he would have improved so much if he wasn't forced up to number 2 mid season. Maybe he would have only improved a little if he was beating the same riders all season. So I guess I've just disagreed with myself!!!

[B.V 72 1,054]

3 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

You’re basing Fricke and Covatti leaving on rumour.

Just the same as the rumour that Nicki P might come back!

A couple of weeks ago Klindt was leaving too but now he’s being linked with Ipswich.

 

And you are just saying lets put the team average up to 46.34 just like that.Have you tried to put another six competitive teams together to see with the riders available its possible.If you can do that and prove to me its possible with realistic riders then you might change my mind.But just keep in mind last year Peterborough could not find one willing heat leader to replace Cook they ended up with Summers and left the team 3 points under the limit from the start of the season leaving themselves with no chance. If there are all these riders ready to ride for the money on offer to strengthen up the British league you would have thought that P/borough could have found at least one.

[DC2 11,150]

7 minutes ago, B.V 72 said:

And you are just saying lets put the team average up to 46.34 just like that.Have you tried to put another six competitive teams together to see with the riders available its possible.If you can do that and prove to me its possible with realistic riders then you might change my mind.But just keep in mind last year Peterborough could not find one willing heat leader to replace Cook they ended up with Summers and left the team 3 points under the limit from the start of the season leaving themselves with no chance. If there are all these riders ready to ride for the money on offer to strengthen up the British league you would have thought that P/borough could have found at least one.

 

I don’t know how hard Peterborough looked.

Ipswich persuaded NKI and it seems that Sheffield might have attracted Nicki P.

I bet you would have said those signings were impossible!

 

[B.V 72 1,054]

40 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

I don’t know how hard Peterborough looked.

Ipswich persuaded NKI and it seems that Sheffield might have attracted Nicki P.

I bet you would have said those signings were impossible!

 

You might not agree with my opinions.But I bet you I am right that a 46.34 team average has no chance.P/boroughs case shows to me that not all teams can afford to sign the better missing riders.Also could Ipswich have afforded NKI for a full season who knows and if he was up for a full season why did he not sign for Kings lynn at the start of the season

Edited November 12, 2019 by B.V 72

[DC2 11,150]

5 minutes ago, B.V 72 said:

You might not agree with my opinions.But I bet you I am right that a 46.34 team average has no chance.P/boroughs case shows to me that not all teams can afford to sign the better missing riders.Also could Ipswich have afforded NKI for a full season who knows and if he was up for a full season why did he not sign for Kings lynn at the start of the season

 

I agree that the AGM won’t agree a 46.34 limit, especially as they will be dictated to by the weakest and least ambitious clubs who have no intention of signing a big name rider.

That said, if Cook had stayed, they had kept their two 5 point reserves and Hans Andersen hadn’t been injured and had ridden to his starting average, Peterborough would have been in the play offs.

They were one of the fancied teams at the start of the season.

Indeed, even now, if they brought in Zagar for Ostergaard they would have an attractive team with potential, even if they were 4 points short of 46.34:

 

Zagar

Nicholls

Tungate

Hans Andersen

Wright

Garrity

Proctor

[g13webb 4,254]

I'm amazed the amount of people who talk the CMA as if is a fair way to evaluate team strength.   Them days are long gone.   Once, when the heat program was of  the original design all of the riders had equal difficulties and their CMA was comparison with each other.   Now depending whether your a heat leader (HL), a second string (2S) or a reserve (R)  the averages attained are a million miles apart.   A (HL) may score  say 6pts  riding against opposite (HL)  whereas a (R) could score 8pts against their opposite no  in the same meeting.    According to the averages the (R) rider achieved a better score than the (HL) but their performances are in a different league.     This is why the points limits are a waste of time.

For there to be any sort of equality within team strength all riders need to be graded.    Only then will there be true comparisons between the teams... 

[DC2 11,150]

9 minutes ago, g13webb said:

I'm amazed the amount of people who talk the CMA as if is a fair way to evaluate team strength.   Them days are long gone.   Once, when the heat program was of  the original design all of the riders had equal difficulties and their CMA was comparison with each other.   Now depending whether your a heat leader (HL), a second string (2S) or a reserve (R)  the averages attained are a million miles apart.   A (HL) may score  say 6pts  riding against opposite (HL)  whereas a (R) could score 8pts against their opposite no  in the same meeting.    According to the averages the (R) rider achieved a better score than the (HL) but their performances are in a different league.     This is why the points limits are a waste of time.

For there to be any sort of equality within team strength all riders need to be graded.    Only then will there be true comparisons between the teams... 

 

A little bit of what you’re saying is correct, but most of it isn’t.

Sure, the best two riders, by and large, ride at 1 and 5 and have tough heats 13 and 15 which can suppress their averages, although they are generally well matched.

The other team members have to ride against a mix of superior riders at number 1 and 5 and inferior riders at reserve.

No second string would expect to finish higher in the averages than the best two riders from other clubs.

Look at the top twos in the final averages this year: Fricke & Bjerre, Doyle & Batchelor, Masters & Thorsell, Kurtz & Holder, Lambert & Cook, NKI & King, Wright & Tungate.

Only the last two pairs were unexpected (instead of Chris Harris and Hans Andersen) and had disappointing averages.

The rest finished top two as expected and averaged more than every other second string/third heatleader, except for Rasmus Jensen and Nikolai Klindt who had exceptional seasons after a string of middling ones.

Grading is far more subjective and inaccurate than actual averages.

[g13webb 4,254]

19 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

A little bit of what you’re saying is correct, but most of it isn’t.

Sure, the best two riders, by and large, ride at 1 and 5 and have tough heats 13 and 15 which can suppress their averages, although they are generally well matched.

The other team members have to ride against a mix of superior riders at number 1 and 5 and inferior riders at reserve.

No second string would expect to finish higher in the averages than the best two riders from other clubs.

Look at the top twos in the final averages this year: Fricke & Bjerre, Doyle & Batchelor, Masters & Thorsell, Kurtz & Holder, Lambert & Cook, NKI & King, Wright & Tungate.

Only the last two pairs were unexpected (instead of Chris Harris and Hans Andersen) and had disappointing averages.

The rest finished top two as expected and averaged more than every other second string/third heatleader, except for Rasmus Jensen and Nikolai Klindt who had exceptional seasons after a string of middling ones.

Grading is far more subjective and inaccurate than actual averages.

Probably I didn't explain my point very clear.   I was not saying the top riders from each club would be any other than the respectable (HL),  merely to point out  their point rating,  can be far different from that of their ability.   The point I was trying to make was the degree of difficult for the (HL) in riding against opposite (HL) was far greater than riding against fellow Reserves.    

Probably it would be more accurate to categorise how the rider acquired his average.  ( Say HL 7-50, or 2S 7-00 and R 6-90).    From that example there are only 0.60pts between the riders and one might conceive they were of equal, but we all know the that if the (HL) rode at 7 he would score far more points..    At least if they were to be categorise,   you would be able to see a more accurate comparison of each rider's ability..   .

These points each rider acquires   is a good indication of how he is performing.  but when assembling a team to a said maximum,  the team Manager has to take into consideration how that rider  gained them points.     this is where the points rating falls down.   A Reserve with a 6 CMA  would not be a good choice when you can get a HL on the same CMA.       

[DC2 11,150]

3 minutes ago, g13webb said:

Probably I didn't explain my point very clear.   I was not saying the top riders from each club would be any other than the respectable (HL),  merely to point out  their point rating,  can be far different from that of their ability.   The point I was trying to make was the degree of difficult for the (HL) in riding against opposite (HL) was far greater than riding against fellow Reserves.    

Probably it would be more accurate to categorise how the rider acquired his average.  ( Say HL 7-50, or 2S 7-00 and R 6-90).    From that example there are only 0.60pts between the riders and one might conceive they were of equal, but we all know the that if the (HL) rode at 7 he would score far more points..    At least if they were to be categorise,   you would be able to see a more accurate comparison of each rider's ability..   .

These points each rider acquires   is a good indication of how he is performing.  but when assembling a team to a said maximum,  the team Manager has to take into consideration how that rider  gained them points.     this is where the points rating falls down.   A Reserve with a 6 CMA  would not be a good choice when you can get a HL on the same CMA.       

 

Why don’t you just look at the green sheet averages?

You can clearly see riders’ respective abilities reflected in their actual averages.

No need at all for an inferior system such as grading.

[Chris116 755]

On this thread and in others many posts have said that they want to see riders staying at clubs for longer and not having the annual 'all change' that we get at present. 

Maybe a way to encourage clubs and riders to stick with each other would be that for team building purposes riders who were at a club the previous season would get a 4% reduction with riders who had been at a club for two seasons getting a 6% reduction. 

I know there could problems with this idea that I have not thought of but hopefully something could come out of it for the 2021 season.

[arnieg 3,624]

5 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

On this thread and in others many posts have said that they want to see riders staying at clubs for longer and not having the annual 'all change' that we get at present. 

Maybe a way to encourage clubs and riders to stick with each other would be that for team building purposes riders who were at a club the previous season would get a 4% reduction with riders who had been at a club for two seasons getting a 6% reduction. 

I know there could problems with this idea that I have not thought of but hopefully something could come out of it for the 2021 season.

Something I have long advocated. Would require some special rules for clubs joining leagues, but those are not insurmountable.

[hobnob 24]

why not let teams stay the same but if they make any changes then they must  then adhere to a 45 point (or what ever its set at) limit

[Pirate Rich 40]

Personally I would like to see the league champions keep that line up for the next season, otherwise we never get to see that team defend their title.