Team Riding Order

[enotian 562]

Does anyone agree that the rigid structure to team line ups and the demise of old style tac subs has resulted in matches becoming far too predictable or at least repetitive?

 

As it would appear that the BSPA prefer for all riders to have their 4 programmed rides (with fair justification) it would appear that the days of tac subs has gone.

 

And with the structured 1 to 7 I find little variety in how matches develop.

 

So it got me wondering if there was any merit in allowing any rider to ride at any position within the 1 to 7?

 

Obviously the two lowest riders would remain as the reserves but they wouldn't have to ride in positions 6 and 7.

 

On the downside it could mean that the top riders from each team never face each other but the flexibility should give team managers some way of affecting the result of a match and add some much needed variety, albeit before the match starts.

 

I feel that allowing such flexibility would introduce some additional debate as to the tactical merit or otherwise of a managers line up.

[TonyM 0]

You have to be clear about what results you want from the change, is it to provide 'closer' racing or closer scores (not the same thing) or to provide a 'fairer' assessment of a riders ability (average)

 

Currently the riders have the following matchups:

1 (HL) - 3 HL, 4 SS, 1 RES

2 (SS) - 2 HL, 4 SS, 2 RES

3 (HL) - 3 HL, 3 SS, 2 RES

4 (SS) - 2 HL, 4 SS, 2 RES

5 (SS) - 3 HL, 4 SS, 1 RES

6 (RES) - 2 HL, 3 SS, 3 RES

7 (RES) - 1 HL, 2 SS, 5 RES

 

So the problem in allowing a manager to select anywhere in the 1-7 for any rider would be if one side opted for the 'traditional' line up and the other side put their best HL at 7 he would only have one ride against an opposition heatleader but five against their reserves. There is some merit in allowing any rider in the top 5 to change position as the impact is nominal and may allow for better 'partnerships' to be tracked although that is usually overcome with the current system as you would be unlikely to pair you two heatleaders together

 

You would also have the problem of 'late' changes to riding orders affecting programmes, something that is far more of an issue in speedway than say a change in football / rugby

 

As regards tac subs the current tactical rules have shown any extra rides by the top riders in a side puts the emphasis of team building at the top end to the detrement of the lower order, perhaps a better tactical rule would be an extension of the reserve replacement rule to allow any higher average rider to be replaced by a lower average rider for one ride in a meeting, this would encourage a bit more diversity in team building, looking to balance second strings with big and small track experience, and provide fans with some closer racing with visiting riders who could ride the track getting an extra ride(s) - may also help matches with injured rider not just being replaced by reserves for their remaining rides

[Subedei 0]

Does anyone agree that the rigid structure to team line ups and the demise of old style tac subs has resulted in matches becoming far too predictable or at least repetitive?

 

As it would appear that the BSPA prefer for all riders to have their 4 programmed rides (with fair justification) it would appear that the days of tac subs has gone.

 

And with the structured 1 to 7 I find little variety in how matches develop.

 

So it got me wondering if there was any merit in allowing any rider to ride at any position within the 1 to 7?

 

Obviously the two lowest riders would remain as the reserves but they wouldn't have to ride in positions 6 and 7.

 

On the downside it could mean that the top riders from each team never face each other but the flexibility should give team managers some way of affecting the result of a match and add some much needed variety, albeit before the match starts.

 

I feel that allowing such flexibility would introduce some additional debate as to the tactical merit or otherwise of a managers line up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An interesting idea.

I just can't understand this latest rule regarding Nos 1 and 3 - what purpose does it serve? Okay, the merit of the rules regarding Nos 1 and 5 was that in Ht 13 you had the big guns of both teams in the race. But that's no longer the case and your third heat leader is faced with the prospect of riding with a reserve in his first three outings. It's crazy. Now, how about this for a crazy, ridiculous idea: why not let team managers pick the team? If Middlo wants to have his fifth best rider at No 1, why shouldn't he be allowed to?

[Highlander 0]

Now, how about this for a crazy, ridiculous idea: why not let team managers pick the team?

 

I would back that idea for the top 5 but would keep the reserves as they are.

 

Basically what does a team manager do now? A few years ago he had to pick the team, decide gate positions for his riders in every heat and decide when and where to use his old style tactical sub. In other words, had to use some skill.

 

Nowadays it's almost Team Manage by numbers.

[The Third Man 2,217]

Totally agree, the two lowest riders at 6 & 7, 1 - 5 in what ever order the team manager wants.

 

at least it would give the team manager something to think about, although in sheffields case it might not be a good thing

[AndyM 1]

Totally agree. No reason at all to apply strict and arbitrary legislation. Why not let riders appear in any order the team manager chooses to try and maximise any perceived tactical benefit? god knows, there's little enough scope for skilful use of fair and ethical tactics within the current rulebook...

[enotian 562]

You have to be clear about what results you want from the change, is it to provide 'closer' racing or closer scores (not the same thing) or to provide a 'fairer' assessment of a riders ability (average)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just think it would add some variety and possibly allow teams to be built in different ways.

 

Say that you're unable to acquire a genuine No1 so you go for strength in depth this flexibility would allow you to position your top man so that he wouldn't have to face the opponents genuine No1.

 

I think it would add some tactical thinking and possibly make things less predictable.

 

I think changing the 1 to 5 was allowed in the KOC a few years ago but invariably not many seemed to bother to swap pairings around for one or two matches.

[The Third Man 2,217]

I cant remember when the rules about the 1 to 5 came in, but i can remember exeter having Ivan Mauger at no 2 for some away matches many years ago

[Kevin Meynell 2]

I cant remember when the rules about the 1 to 5 came in

 

The original rule was that heat-leaders had to ride at Nos. 1, 3 and 5, and was introduced when the current heat format (pairing the 1 and 5 in Heat 13) was introduced in 1994. This restriction was relaxed to the top two riders at Nos. 1 and 5 from the 2004 season onwards. However, there were different rules for various editions of the KOC before that.