The New Scoring System

[Guest Schumi]

The 'statement of fact' wasn't just plonked into a thread titled 'New Scoring System' for the sake of it. There was an intention behind doing so. Which would be either expressing a point of view or, as in this case putting forward an argument against the new system.

 

Please note the difference between the word arguing and argument. One generally implies hostility, whilst the other (especially, as we are in a forum here) means putting forward a contrary view or an angle to be debated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph" (as you posted earlier) implies you're not up for a debate at all, and that others opinions do not matter.

 

And I used the word argument in the same sense that you did in your first paragraph above.

[manchesterpaul 447]

But it could happen. It's theoretically possible for it to happen.

 

I've just pointed out that billions of things are theoretically possible. However, nobody in their right mind would go posting to forums to debate things that are never going to happen.

 

The rest of your pseudo-justification is twaddle.

 

Where on earth does pseudo-justification come into it. Calm down please.

 

What on earth you're bringing the FA cup into this for, I don't know?

 

It's what's known as an analogy.

 

If i hadn't pointed out that every other sport in the world has similar aspects, all the moaners and whingers, who only ever speak when there is something negative to say would of had a field day decrying speedway.

 

 

I said it was theoretically possible and it is theoretically possible.

 

I didn't say it wasn't theoretically possible. Just so highly outside the bounds of reality for it to occur, that there is no point debating it or getting rid of a system that is as fair as possible in determining an overall winner.

 

You say it's no problem that the winner of a GP does not necessarily get the most points, but I say it is a problem. The GP winner should get the most points, it's just nonsense if they don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no point in going round in circles. I've already explained why this isn't such a great crime. Both our reasons and reasoning are there to see.

[manchesterpaul 447]

"Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph" (as you posted earlier) implies you're not up for a debate at all, and that others opinions do not matter.

 

It was meant in a jocular manner.

 

And I used the word argument in the same sense that you did in your first paragraph above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Subedei 0]

I've just pointed out that billions of things are theoretically possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose it's theoretically possible you'll post something worthwhile. But, I tell you what, we'll not bother debating it, since it's just one of those billions of things that are theoretically possible.

[From PC to KC. 25]

 

This new system was brought in for one reason and one reason only. And that was to improve the chances of a certain serial failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats a bit harsh on Leigh Adams.

[manchesterpaul 447]

I suppose it's theoretically possible you'll post something worthwhile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dear, oh, dear! Yet another who has to resort to personal attacks having been brought to task on points and failing to address them.

[Subedei 0]

You're points didn't merit addressing, since they consisted largely of balderdash.

[lucifer sam 3,953]

The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible.

 

Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph. If you do, i challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. I promise you that the first time your scenario occurs i will give to you ONE MILLION POUNDS. Until that happens, as forfeit you can give me just £100 at the end of each series. I'll forward you my details for the cheque at the end of this season.

 

The outcome you refer to is so statistically remote it will not come to pass. It's like during the football season, Manchester United and Chelsea drawing one match with Chelsea winning the other 1-0. In addition, in their other 40 matches United winning every game 20-0, whilst Chelsea only win their games 1-0. Chelsea would be crowned the champions and best in the sport. When clearly, as is the case now, Manchester United would be the best team in reality.

 

I reiterate a couple of points i made earlier;

 

With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be none of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall.

 

As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Manchester Paul,

 

Putting things in bold, red and capitals doesn't make your points any more valid. You're still talking rubbish and the new points scoring system is still a sham - how can the winner of the meeting not end up as the top points scorer.

 

All the best

Rob

[manchesterpaul 447]

I quite liked the system in a way as it made each race seem more important throughout the match. It's certainly fair way to decide the points.

 

It definitely becomes fairer the further along the length of the series it is.

 

 

Slight negatives though. The final didn't seem to be quite so important as it did in the past, and Nicki's celebrations seemed slightly muted as he must have already known that he had the meeting in the bag.

 

Overall, though, I think it's a pretty good system, but my guess is it won't last long as the final isn't quite so dramatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A possible angle to look into is a 'winner takes all' final race. In that only the winner of the race receives points. Whether that should be three or two would have to be worked out. As one wouldn't wish to create big gaps again. Although it would be a solid reward for the winner and winner alone on the night. It would also go some way to solving the problem of the 'chokers' by rewarding those who can pull it off on the night.

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[manchesterpaul 447]

All the best

Rob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks

[manchesterpaul 447]

You're points didn't merit addressing, since they consisted largely of balderdash.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again;

 

There is no point in going round in circles. Both our reasons and reasoning are there to see.

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[Pollyanna 1]

The new points system is b*ll*cks.  Why they didn't just give the third-placed man in the semis one extra point, I'll never know.

 

It's just as easy for a rider to walk away with the championship now, as the standings after one round show.

 

Not only that, but consider this scenario.

 

Rider A scores 7 + 2 + 6 = 15 in each GP.  Rider B scores 15 + 1 = 16 in each GP.  It's possible for a rider to win every GP, but for the World Champion to be a rider who never reached a single final!

 

Utter tripe.  Get rid of it now.

 

All the best

Rob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My feelings about the new scoring system exactly!

[Subedei 0]

I actually preferred the original GP format/scoring

I agree but Gollob (and Adams for that matter) will need more than a new points scoring system to have any chance this season I’m afraid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh dear, how the terminally deluded cling to their illusions. Gollob is currently sitting on, from memory, 10 points from a GP circuit where he traditionally struggles.

[Subedei 0]

Well you could possibly be proved wright

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean like James and Charles?

[Subedei 0]

There is significantly more chance of you actually being wright rather than right.

 

A Freudian slip of sorts I believe?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, just the nonsense you usually post.

You call Gollob "never quite good enough", but he always seems good enough to qualify, unlike ANY British rider for how long? None qualified by right for 2006, none qualified by right for 2007. Furthermore, "never quite good enough" Gollob has won more than three times as many GPs as British riders have. In fact, only Messrs Rickardsson and Crump have won more GPs than Gollob.

Do you actually know anything about speedway?