Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Flappy

Number 8 for each team and Junior League

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

 "Tom Brennan played his part in Great Britain’s stunning world title glory at the Monster Energy FIM Speedway of Nations"

As has been mentioned before if Kai Ward rode for GB & finished his two heats, GB still would have won!

And then Kai Ward would have played his part.  But Kai Ward didn't ride, Tom Brennan did.    So Tom brennan played his part.  I don't see the problem.

11 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

Interesting idea, not sure what Peterborough would've thought if they had to replace an injured Andersen / Harris / Pedersen with a junior though?

As long as the rules were known at the start of the season, what's the problem?    A team planning on a super-strong No.6 would know the risk they were taking if he got injured.  It would be up to each team to assess the risk and decide if they want to go down that route.

8 minutes ago, Flappy said:

It wouldn't be possible at the number 6 is part of the team building figure

Of course it would be possible.  The rule would say "facility for a missing reserve/rising star  =  No.8 only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PotteringAround said:

And then Kai Ward would have played his part.  But Kai Ward didn't ride, Tom Brennan did.    So Tom brennan played his part.  I don't see the problem.

As long as the rules were known at the start of the season, what's the problem?    A team planning on a super-strong No.6 would know the risk they were taking if he got injured.  It would be up to each team to assess the risk and decide if they want to go down that route.

Of course it would be possible.  The rule would say "facility for a missing reserve/rising star  =  No.8 only

Would only work if they stuck to their initial plan of 2 rising stars. No teams in their right mind would vote to replace a 6 pointer with a young wobbler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Flappy said:

Would only work if they stuck to their initial plan of 2 rising stars. No teams in their right mind would vote to replace a 6 pointer with a young wobbler. 

The No.8 is a second rising star.   That's the whole idea.  No one has suggested using "a young wobbler"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PotteringAround said:

It can only be a positive.

It was ridiculous last year that Sheffield could lose their Rising Star early in the season and then get an advantage by being able to handpick a No.7 guest for every match on a horses for courses basis.  At least Wolves re-declared a new Rising Star.

As well as having a No.8 to replace a missing RS rider, I'd like to also extend the rule so that the No.8 also has to be used if the No.6 is missing.  Should be no guests at reserve.

 

2 hours ago, Flappy said:

It wouldn't be possible as the number 6 is part of the team building figure

I was responding to the suggestion by Pottering Around that the number 8 should replace both reserves 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PotteringAround said:

And then Kai Ward would have played his part. But Kai Ward didn't ride, Tom Brennan did. So Tom Brennan played his part. I don't see the problem.

I agree that Tom Brennan "played his part" but also point out that "his part" had nothing to do with GB winning the meeting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan at the start of last season was to have two rising stars this season. That has been watered down to having a number eight who could never actually get to race. How is not having them race a way of helping "rising stars"?

BSPL are saying they want to help rising stars but dropped them from the Championship and halved them in the Premiership and now want to sideline six riders as number eights. 

What am I missing or have those in charge got it totally wrong, not for the first time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

The plan at the start of last season was to have two rising stars this season. That has been watered down to having a number eight who could never actually get to race. How is not having them race a way of helping "rising stars"?

BSPL are saying they want to help rising stars but dropped them from the Championship and halved them in the Premiership and now want to sideline six riders as number eights. 

What am I missing or have those in charge got it totally wrong, not for the first time.

Don't think you're missing anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

I agree that Tom Brennan "played his part" but also point out that "his part" had nothing to do with GB winning the meeting!

Don't be ridiculous. 

He had no part in the semi-final race and final race, but he scored 7 out of 8 points in his heats to help GB qualify for the semi-final race.

By your reckoning Bobby Charlton played no part in the 1966 World Cup Finals because it was Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters who scored the goals in the final!

Edited by PotteringAround

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PotteringAround said:

Don't be ridiculous. 

He had no part in the semi-final race and final race, but he scored 7 out of 8 points in his heats to help GB qualify for the semi-final race.

By your reckoning Bobby Charlton played no part in the 1966 World Cup Finals because it was Geogg Hurst and Martin Peters who scored the goals in the final!

GB finished more than 8 points ahead of Australia, so Brennan made no difference. He may have ride well, but it didn't help GB win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

The plan at the start of last season was to have two rising stars this season. That has been watered down to having a number eight who could never actually get to race. How is not having them race a way of helping "rising stars"?

BSPL are saying they want to help rising stars but dropped them from the Championship and halved them in the Premiership and now want to sideline six riders as number eights. 

What am I missing or have those in charge got it totally wrong, not for the first time.

There's enough 4* & 3* RS to have 2 per team in the Prem in my view, so they could have gone with 2 per team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PotteringAround said:

And then Kai Ward would have played his part.  But Kai Ward didn't ride, Tom Brennan did.    So Tom brennan played his part.  I don't see the problem.

As long as the rules were known at the start of the season, what's the problem?    A team planning on a super-strong No.6 would know the risk they were taking if he got injured.  It would be up to each team to assess the risk and decide if they want to go down that route.

Of course it would be possible.  The rule would say "facility for a missing reserve/rising star  =  No.8 only

Years ago it was r/r for heat leaders missing & using your own juniors for missing second strings & reserves. Not sure that would happen again as it's cheaper & easier to borrow an opposition "star" than to run a NDL team to build your own probably?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if Kyle Bickley is reconsidering signing for Berwick Bullets now? :blink: Or can he be a number 8 and still ride in the other 2 leagues... What does he do... Drop the NL in the slight off chance that he may or may not get a ride at some point during the season, or keep the NL and get track time... I hope the number 8s are eligible to ride in both other leagues...

Other than that... It's actually a good idea that has been implemented... Something long overdue... Now all they need to do is change to race format to have protected races for reserves so we don't have the number 5 vs the RS at number 7...

Edited by Diamonds85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Improving the lot of the NDL and making it easier to then move into a championship side seems more logical than this pointless announcement.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PotteringAround said:

It can only be a positive.

It was ridiculous last year that Sheffield could lose their Rising Star early in the season and then get an advantage by being able to handpick a No.7 guest for every match on a horses for courses basis.  At least Wolves redeclared a new Rising Star.

As well as having a No.8 to replace a missing RS rider, I'd like to also extend the rule so that the No.8 also has to be used if the No.6 is missing.  Shoudl be no guests at reserve.

 

Danyon Hume was signed after 2 match trial and rode 11 meetings  we had 6 guests for josh so it wasn’t horses for corses 

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