New Points System For Gp 2007

[tomhaines 68]

I'm afraid not. Look at the facts - one GP final in the past three seasons. That tells the whole sorry story. Nicholls isn't half as good as some people make him out to be. I mean, come on, Steve Johnston finished higher than him in the Australian championship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Build a bridge and get over it. Its boring trying to read GP threads without the same thing over and over!

 

*YAWN*

[lucifer sam 3,953]

It's not April 1, is it? What have Olsen and John Poshbloke been putting in their teas recently??

 

The system clearly needed a little tinkering, i.e. an extra point for third-placed semi-finalists and 20,18,17,16 for the finalists to stop a runaway winner.

 

Instead they take a sledgehammer to the points scoring system and end up with something quite bizarre.

 

I can just see it now. Nicki Pedersen wins the first GP of the season. Then Sky show the GP standings after one round and Jason Crump, who finished third on the night, is in first place!!

 

Are you sure it's not April 1??

 

All the best

Rob

[Subedei 0]

he even did in Prague last season when he was the best rider in the meeting with 14pts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you sure about that? Could you swear to it? Think very carefully before answering.

 

Build a bridge and get over it. Its boring trying to read GP threads without the same thing over and over!

 

*YAWN*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just what would expect from an acolyte of BSI.

[Biddows 0]

Are you sure about that? Could you swear to it? Think very carefully before answering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK, I'll go and give it some careful thought. Yep, done now. At the Czech GP in 2005, Scott was the highest scoring rider during the qualifying heats with 14pts. Care to ask any more questions that highlight your ignorance?

[Subedei 0]

OK, I'll go and give it some careful thought. Yep, done now. At the Czech GP in 2005, Scott was the highest scoring rider during the qualifying heats with 14pts. Care to ask any more questions that highlight your ignorance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Problem is, dear fellow, that last year was 2006. And last season was the 2006 season. You see, you didn't think carefully enough.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Subedei

[KFCBaby 0]

It does seem pretty drastic...especially when the rider who wins the GP could receive less points than the guy in second place.

 

However...

 

Last year, a guy could qualify for the semis with 9 points, get a second in the semi, get through to the final and win it - therefore gaining 25 GP points.

 

Where another guy could have qualified for the semis with 15 points, then wins his semi but then comes second in the final - getting 20 points.

 

With last years system the rider who was the best overall didn't necessarily get the most points. Whereas with the new system, he will do.

[orion 7,615]

I'm afraid not. Look at the facts - one GP final in the past three seasons. That tells the whole sorry story. Nicholls isn't half as good as some people make him out to be. I mean, come on, Steve Johnston finished higher than him in the Australian championship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[heathen76 0]

So,"ANOther" scrapes thru to the semis on ,say 7pts(its happened before) finishes 2nd in his semi,& wins the final-7+2+6=15,whilst "ANOther 2 "goes thru the card with 5 wins,but finishes third in his semi-15+1=16,more GP points than the winner!! ludicrous if you ask me,we may as well go back to the old one off final scoring system with a run off if needed for a rostrum place,at least it would make sense to the average supporter,or more importantly the casual viewer on sky

on the long running nicholls debate,i dont see much wrong with his attitude(tho it is becoming a mental hurdle prob to get thru the semis by now),he just needs to learn to gate!!

actually re reading the above it seems unfair that the man on a 15pt max gets nowhere(even with big GP points),and equally unfair that the guy who was crap throughout the qualifiers gets all the plaudits for winning!!(but less GP points)

plain madness

[Biddows 0]

Then surely the only logical solution would be a fixed scoring system applying from 1st-16th place, with A-D finals. Then the top four riders on the night would be guaranteed the most points, thereby removing any inconsistencies. Is there actually any case against bringing back the A-D finals? I mean, would viewers look upon them as too drawn out and a waste of time?

[SteveEvans 248]

This system would be better IMO;

 

20 heats - 3,2,10

Top3 to Final

Next 4 to Last Chance

Winner only last Chance to Final

 

Riders not in final keep points from heats 1-20

 

Final scores 20, 17, 15, 14

 

Simple! I would also do away with the Wildcard, add 3 more riders (making 18) and bottom 4 riders race in 1st heat for last 2 places. Eliminated riders are reserves. If one of the 18 is injured, the allow a home country rider to fill in. Wild Card is waste of a place (that PK should have!). In F1, you don't see Hungarian, Chinese, Bahrainian, etc drivers in their home GP - the races sell because its the top riders in the World. This year only 4 of 11 GPs dont have a home riders (Latvia, Germant, Italy, Czech) and the Czechs may get a rider in if 3 more spots are added.

Edited January 16, 2007 by SteveEvans

[barrow boy 119]

Then surely the only logical solution would be a fixed scoring system applying from 1st-16th place, with A-D finals. Then the top four riders on the night would be guaranteed the most points, thereby removing any inconsistencies. Is there actually any case against bringing back the A-D finals? I mean, would viewers look upon them as too drawn out and a waste of time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't and I agree back to the original 4 finals it should be.

[SPEEDY69 1,260]

The new system does have its merits. All the GPs simply make up what is the World Championship and under the old system, doing well in just two meetings was pretty much enough to guarantee qualification for the next year (personally I think only the World Champ should automatically, but that's another issue).

 

The new system, whilst seemingly unjust in potentially awarding more points for someone who does not reach the main final than someone who does, it does recognise all the points scored on the track. i.e. under the old system someone could get 25 points but only win one race all evening and someone else could win 6 races and only get 16 points.

 

Another benefit from this system is that serial failures (to use a Sub expression) such as Gollob, may not do as well in that by simply doing well in a couple of GPs will not affect the overall scorechart as significantly as it does now.

 

I am prepared to keep an open mind and wait and see what actually happens - it would interesting if a comparison from previous seasons could be made using this years points system.

[Guest Schumi]

Another benefit from this system is that serial failures (to use a Sub expression) such as Gollob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, that'll go down well - quoting him then using it against his favourite rider. Can't wait for the reply

[Subedei 0]

Oh, that'll go down well - quoting him then using it against his favourite rider. Can't wait for the reply

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You seriously expect me to dignify such codswallop with a reply?

Tomasz Gollob, the winner of ten GPs, more than any other riders save Messrs Rickardsson and Crump, a serial failure? How many GP finals did young Gollob make last season? I'll give you a clue. It was two more than the pauper prince of British speedway.

[Rico 210]

Whilst I might not agree with your sentiments entirely on the Nicholl's front Subedei, I bow to your defence of the living legend that is Tomasz Gollob.

 

Serial failure my bottom.

 

Rico