The New Scoring System

[manchesterpaul 447]

You have to give an extra incentive to win or you will get riders, riding the percentages and taking the safe option rather than racing for the extra reward of a win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[stuart road 0]

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}>

 

 

 

i understand your point rob,but surely "your man" emerging from the twenty heats with 15 points every gp,and consistantly failing to make the final,could be considered to fold when the going gets tough,and clearly not world champion material.

this system rewards the man who wins the gp,and rewards,correctly,all points scored beforehand. seems the fairest method

[Subedei 0]

this system rewards the man who wins the gp,and rewards,correctly,all points scored beforehand.  seems the fairest method

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not necessarily. This system could, theoretically, see a rider win each and every single GP, but still not be world champion, while the rider who folds in each and every GP when it gets to the business end, could be champion.

[lucifer sam 3,953]

Not necessarily. This system could, theoretically, see a rider win each and every single GP, but still not be world champion, while the rider who folds in each and every GP when it gets to the business end, could be champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sub,

 

My argument exactly.

 

It should have just been one extra point for the third-place rider in the semi-final, that would have been fine.

 

All the best

Rob

[Steve Turner 0]

I like the scoring system, based on last night's GP alone ! My opinion may change over time...but I'll see.

 

Crump is on half the points that Nicki's on, even though BOTH made the Final.

But that's good, because Crump was only half as good as Nicki last night ! And I'm being generous to him !

 

[stuart road 0]

Not necessarily. This system could, theoretically, see a rider win each and every single GP, but still not be world champion, while the rider who folds in each and every GP when it gets to the business end, could be champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

i meant sube,that the man who wins the gp is rewarded by being hailed "the winner", and everyone is rewarded by the points they score

[manchesterpaul 447]

Not necessarily. This system could, theoretically, see a rider win each and every single GP, but still not be world champion, while the rider who folds in each and every GP when it gets to the business end, could be champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[Subedei 0]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously didn't notice the "theoretically" in my post. I agree that it's not going to happen, now do me the courtesy of agreeing that it is theoretically possible.

What is more likely to happen, in fact I would say it's inevitable, is that a GP winner will not come away from a GP they've won with the most points. Now, would you care to give me a million pounds if ever that happens?

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.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Subedei

[stuart road 0]

Obviously didn't notice the "theoretically" in my post. I agree that it's not going to happen, now do me the courtesy of agreeing that it is theoretically possible.

What is more likely to happen, in fact I would say it's inevitable, is that a GP winner will not come away from a GP they've won with the most points. Now, would you care to give me a million pounds if ever that happens?

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}>

 

 

of course its theoretically possible,as are many things,and someone winning a gp and not being the nights top scorer,is almost a certainty.

but your suggestion that the system has been brought in to benefit one certain rider,is too absurd to be true.

 

and you dont drink?

[manchesterpaul 447]

Crump is on half the points that Nicki's on, even though BOTH made the Final.

But that's good, because Crump was only half as good as Nicki last night ! And I'm being generous to him !

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A valid point.

 

Additionally a benefit of this new system is as follows. If Pedersen is truly twice as good as Crump, it will be proven by him scoring twice as many points in each meeting. If not, he will not and the system will allow this to be reflected in the final standings.

 

If two riders go into the final having scored the same amount of points, then one wins the race and the other comes third, and say by a bike length. There is only a two point gap. In the old system it would be seven. Multiplied over the season that equates to 77. Yet they might have raced each other closely. But looking at the old standings you would presume the riders are a class apart. I'm not even saying this extreme example needs to happen to show the benefit of the new system. Clearly, it does show a truer picture.

 

The margin of a riders superior quality is shown more accurately now. If in one season alternately rider X always scores '15' pts and rider 'Y' 14 pts, both go through to the final, in which rider X wins 7 of the finals and rider Y 6 of them. This is brilliantly reflected in rider A winning the title by one point. (before you get too pedantic, allow one meeting where they both score 14 in the initial part of the meeting).

 

Better still, again the above is an extreme example and in reality the effect of the new system really will reflect more accurately riders standings.

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[manchesterpaul 447]

Obviously didn't notice the "theoretically" in my post. I agree that it's not going to happen, now do me the courtesy of agreeing that it is theoretically possible.

 

If you agree it's not going to happen why put it forward as an argument to dispense with the new system?. I repeat;

 

'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'

 

Your local store or chemist makes provisions to allow for x number of bottles of cough medicine to be sold. Every year we all get what we need when we need it. If we, as theoretically could happen, all got a cough in the same week, the vast majority of us would not get any medicine.

 

However, it's only theoretically possible and is not going to happen in the real world. Therefore, unlike yourself, i will not be posting to medical forums asking for the health service or stores ordering systems to be dismantled.

 

What is more likely to happen, in fact I would say it's inevitable, is that a GP winner will not come away from a GP they've won with the most points. Now, would you care to give me a million pounds if ever that happens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've already said that could happen, but it is not a problem in any way. As i pointed out previously;

 

'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'

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[Guest Schumi]

If you agree it's not going to happen why put it forward as an argument to dispense with the new system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I can see it was a statement of fact, not an argument either way.

[Subedei 0]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it could happen. It's theoretically possible for it to happen. The rest of your pseudo-justification is twaddle. I said merely that it's theoretically possible for it to happen. What on earth you're bringing the FA cup into this for, I don't know? I said it was theoretically possible and it is theoretically possible.

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.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Subedei

[stuart road 0]

But it could happen. It's theoretically possible for it to happen. The rest of your pseudo-justification is twaddle. I said merely that it's theoretically possible for it to happen. What on earth you're bringing the FA cup into this for? I said it was theoretically possible and it is theoretically possible.

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}>

 

 

whilst i agree with you that any reference to other sports,and their competions,are totally invalid.we will have to agree to disagree over the new points system.

 

however if the majority of speedway supporters agreed with you,and the system,reverted back,you would hear no complaints from me

[manchesterpaul 447]

As far as I can see it was a statement of fact, not an argument either way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.