Grand Central

The problem for the GP is that he might actually be the best rider in the world NEXT year and he's not in the World Championship. Surely BSI are concerned that any propective world champion would find a prefferable alternative to their series As someone else pointed out the Polish Gp rider policy for 2012 was known all this year. So I just don't understand why Darcy was going through the qualifying rounds if he was only only going to decline a place if he qualified, or had it offered gratis. And similarly, he took up GP wild card placings 'without a team' to do it and presumably not using that experiemnce to get that team in place for the following year. Has he just been a dirty big tease? I just wonder how keen Mr Bellamy will be to extend that meeting by meeting wildcard to Darcy once he has gone into this self imposed 2012 exile?

I'm not sure who should be given a wild card in his place ... but I have to say after all this talk we have had about GP qualification I don't feel to well disposed to any little mite who turns down a wild card. I just don't accept the explanations being given. Here is a rider who entered the qualificatiuon procedure to try and gain entry to the 2012 series ... but failed. He was quite happy to take every opportunity to have individual wild cards as they were presented ( with not a thought for others who may have relished the priviledge) ... but now finds he has overpowering reasons for not accepting a permanent wild card for 2012. What would have happened if he had actually qualified via the system in place. Would he have declined to take up his place if he had gained it through Vetlanda? Or is it only the wild card he feels so happy to decline? If I were BSI I would say 'Sod you, Darcy'.

I used the term BONKERS to describe YOUR view. And yours alone. It is hardly good form to present it as being used against others. Poor show.

I had one go at this discussion with you. I drop out straight away after this. If I went on I fear I would lose the will to live.

I really don't understand this. Back in June there were FIVE qualification meetings held at which EIGHTY riders who wanted to have access to participate in the World Championship and get to the 2012 GP all competed. They were whittled down by an open and fair on-track qualification procedure through three race-offs and then the Challenge Final in Vetlanda at which four riders of the original eighty gained qualification to the 2012 series. HOW MUCH FAIRER CAN A SYSTEM BE? The fact is that youngsters like Darcy and others tried and FAILED TO QUALIFY by exactly the same route as 'oldies' like Bjarne Pedersen actually did QUALIFY. Why has anyone got a problem with such a clear, simple qualification system that ANY aspiring rider in the world who has serious GP aspraritions could enter. Of course, they can only actually qualify if they are good enough. BSI's wildcards are just an added alternative that is their descrection but will people stop claiming that there isn't a fair qualification system in place for those who want to use it. There is.

I have to say that I don't think that SOME of your posts are as totally non-sensiscal as others seem to feel. BUT this one takes the biscuit for being the most deranged I have seen in a long time. It is your contention that the riders who stay in the series by finishing in the top eight of the GP "HAVE NOT HAD TO QUALIFY". That is bonkers. They have competed in 11 separate Grand Prix over 60 plus races in about eight countries over the course of a six month period against all the best riders in the world. And scored enough points over that time to be in the top eight so that they QUALIFY for the following year's series. How on earth do you make that 'NOT HAVING to QUALIFY', for good ness sake! No World Finalists of ANY past vintage have had to 'QUALIFY' by such rigorous means.

Trying to take the fractious childish element out of matters. Can we just establish where this thread has led us. Will Darcy Ward be World Champion in the future? ... A few people think he will, and a few people don't think that he will. No surprise there really as none of us are clairvoyant. Perhaps, a more productive topic of discussion might be on 'What would it take to improve Darcy's chance of becoming World Champion?'. Several people have pointed out the Grand Prix seemes to have increased the longevity of International Class Speedway riders. Some people seem to think this a bad thing; others do not. But why? Some people feel that the GP system has made it more difficult for new talent to jump to the top, whilst others have given arguments that the old one-off World Final was hardly much better. Is it just the same or is it for different reasons? I just wonder ... is a lot of this not down to the influence of the TEAM that surrounds riders in the GP today. Aren't Greg, Jason, Nicki and the like able to sustain the top class level of performance needed over the long series because of the team that does so much more of the work than in the past. It's my feeeling that the newcomers to the GP scene must be totally outclassed before they even reach the tapes with the GROSSLY different level of backroom that the best established men now have in place. The days of well-meaning Dads in the pits and mechanics that were schoolmates has no place in the GPs anymore, does it? Wouldn't the quickest and easiest way to get someone like Darcy to 'break through' be to get that TEAM in place as soon as possible ... and I don't mean a just a bunch of Aussies that he is friends with, or those that are totally good enough for Elite League ... I mean a really top professional team with years of GP experience who can do EVERYTHING else to a modern GP standard, at the track and away from it. Then Darcy could just do what he does best ... but with the right guidance.

Clearly, I didn't explain my self well enough. The point I was attempting to make was that in the 2000s only one World Champion actually entered the series as a newcomer during that same time frame. Every other champion had already first appeared prior; in fact as far back as 95, 96 and 97. Actually as your list of 1980s Champions shows perfectly how different that was in those days. ONLY Michael Lee and Egon Muller had appeared in a World Final before 1980. Every other Champion was a newcomer at some point in the eighties NOT before. Penhall, Gundersen, and Nielsen were all well outside the World Final envelope in the seventies but burst to greatness in the next decade. ONLY Nicki Pedersen has come in from outside the GP circus of the late nineties and achieved this. So perhaps Darcy will be that man for the 2010s.... we will have to wait and see But just going back to the eighties... Tommy Knudsen, Kenny Carter, Dennis Sigalos, Kelly Moran, Lance King, Simon Wigg, Shawn Moran and Jimmy Nilsen were all possible candidates for a similar thread on the BSF of the time (whatever that would be) and all without a Championship win to their name at the end ... So Darcy may turn out to be a Nicki, a Hans or and Erik ...or possibly a Tommy, a Dennis or a Lance ... as I say only time will tell.

Yes, what is the explanation of this? Can anyone advance a theory? The original question about Darcy becoming World champion made me do a little thinking back ... just who has come into the series and won? Much has been made about Greg Hancock winning his second championship some 14 years since his first but those years inbetween show a remarkable lack of 'new winners'. Only Mark Loram (2000), Nicki P (2003), Jason (2004) and, of course, Tomek (2010) have moved from the mortal ranks to be World Champion for the first time during those 14 years. And THREE of those four actually had already been in the series prior to 1997 anyway; they were hardly newbies. Actually, out of all the winners of the World Championship since 1997 only ONE single rider has entered the series and then won it IN ALL THOSE 14 YEARS. Nicki Pedersen entered the series for the first time in 2000 (ELEVEN years ago) and won it for the first time in 2003 (EIGHT years ago). If I were Darcy, or actually anyone entering the GP circus anytime soon, I wouldn't be too optimistic about breaking through ... would you?

Thank you, I was beginning to doubt my own sanity for a moment!

I am glad that in this much fuller description of Heat 15 you readily acknowledge that Carter was actually in SECOND place to Jessup when he was first 'visibly losing power' and it was at this point that Gundersen went passed. You're original post had stated that he was third. It is certainly true that Gundersen went like an express train once Carter was out of the race but it is pure conjecture as to whether he would have passed Carter had his bike not been failing. It has to also be remembered that Jessup himself also suffred an engine failure before the end of the race thereby giving both Gundersen and Olsen an extra point that significantly changed the pattern of the overall scorers at the end of the meeting. The well-known Penhall 14, Olsen 12, Knudsen 12 would be looking an awful lot different were it not for the randomness of engine troubles on that night. I have to say that if Kenny Carter had a 'Second to Penhall in 1981 at Wembley' tag rather than the no-where placing that fifth is; then quite a lot of retrospective pro-Carter arguments would carry a ton more weight. And, totally irrelevent to this debate, but Ivan Mauger was certainly renowned for 'strong engines' and not leaving things to chance but as his catastrophic break down when leading in 1976 showed ... even he, the greatest rider ever (my view) was actually fallible in this regard. But not actually mysterious, really, is it?

This is a rather strange representation of the events of Heat 15 at Wembley. Dave Jessup gated first (no surprise there) ahead of Carter and the other two. Carter got into a firm second - ahead of Gundersen and Olsen - as they were going down the back straight. But by the time they go around bends 3 and 4 Carter's bike is popping and banging so loud as to be audible above the Wembley crowd. He is clearly losing power and ground so first Gundersen goes past as they cross the start line at the end of lap one and then Olsen as they go down the back straight. I don't think any of this matters in terms of the debate raised by the original poster; but you're characterisation of that partcular race and the bizarre inference of his engine 'myseriously' dying certainly cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Please don't be! The video is around on You Tube so I encourage everyone to look at it and judge for themselves.