The Semis And Final In A Gp

[Parsloes 1928 nearly 495]

Now I've long been a critic of the GP system (the decision to abandon the greatest event in world sport, the one-off World Speedway Final was a literal crime..) but I have to say that having watched on Sky this year far more of the series than previously, there's no question that the sheer quality of the Speedway is absolutely outstanding.

 

Now I understand that the winner these days of the World individual championship is decided over the aggregate of all the rounds. What I don't get at all is what's actually the point of having the semis and finals... After all, gone arethe days when big points bunce were given to the winner of the Grand Final - so all it is, is giving an extra ride to the top eight and then an extra ride (with dounble points for three of them) to four of these..

 

Why bother..? Surely if there's an argument that the World Champ is the one who scores the most points over, what is ten or so rounds, then just stick with that...

I honestly can't see the logic behind the S/Fs and Final, other than to produce a sudden death way of deciding the winner of that Round. But as that winner is rewarded with only scant extra points where's the logic in that..??

[Mateusz 0]

It's all about excitement and drama - first, if you score enough to qualify for the semi, then if you are 1st/2nd and qualify for the final. Both semis and the final are the most exciting heats of the night and all in all I think it's a good combination - every point matters but there's also some luck (and lots of nerves) needed when it comes to the semis & final.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Mateusz

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

I honestly can't see the logic behind the S/Fs and Final, other than to produce a sudden death way of deciding the winner of that Round.

 

I think that's the point. It's guaranteed that the last race will decide the winner, but it also reduces the number of dead races during the first 20 heats as most riders will still have a chance of qualifying for the Semi-Finals.

 

I don't see it as being a particular issue if you look upon the 20 heats as 'qualification' for the knockout part of the competition, but I would re-jig the knockout heats to give more advantage to those riders finishing higher. For example...

 

Heat 21: 1st to 4th placed riders

Heat 22: 5th to 8th placed riders (last 2 eliminated)

Heat 23: 3rd & 4th in Heat 21, 1st & 2nd in Heat 22 (last 2 eliminated)

Heat 24: 1st & 2nd in Heat 21, 1st & 2nd in Heat 23

 

So the 5th to 8th placed riders only have a single chance to reach the Final and have to negotiate an extra heat, whilst the 1st to 4th placed riders get two chances to reach the Final.

[Parsloes 1928 nearly 495]

I think that's the point. It's guaranteed that the last race will decide the winner, but it also reduces the number of dead races during the first 20 heats as most riders will still have a chance of qualifying for the Semi-Finals.

 

I don't see it as being a particular issue if you look upon the 20 heats as 'qualification' for the knockout part of the competition, but I would re-jig the knockout heats to give more advantage to those riders finishing higher. For example...

 

Heat 21: 1st to 4th placed riders

Heat 22: 5th to 8th placed riders (last 2 eliminated)

Heat 23: 3rd & 4th in Heat 21, 1st & 2nd in Heat 22 (last 2 eliminated)

Heat 24: 1st & 2nd in Heat 21, 1st & 2nd in Heat 23

 

So the 5th to 8th placed riders only have a single chance to reach the Final and have to negotiate an extra heat, whilst the 1st to 4th placed riders get two chances to reach the Final.

 

No, I still don't really "get it" and your proposed formula only makes it even more illogical.

 

The idea of the GP series is that the best (and most consistently good...) rider ends up World Champ. So have ten (or whatever...) 20 heat indiv. meetings add all the points up and hey presto, you have a winner.

Yet for some reason each round (even though the actual purpose of that round is for riders to accrue points towards their final and decisive total) has to have a 'winner' Well that's okay, it DOES... The rider finishing with the most points in that meeting, as in Speedway individual meetings since time immemorial is the meeting winner!

 

As these are styled as GPs then sure, if there's a tie for first (or second or third too..) why, of course,, have a run-off: but that run-off would not accrue extra points..

Yet we have this S/F and Final process and actually award extra points for the global total within them..

It's this I don't get - surely that process is illogical, allowing some riders extra points-scoring rides ahead of others..? And how would your system work...? Those with two chances get even more opportunity to score points...

 

The GP system I can live with if it adopts a sensible format OR if it was merely stand-alone each time but it's a strange hybrid ATM which at its top end loses the plot...

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

No, I still don't really "get it" and your proposed formula only makes it even more illogical.

 

I don't see what's illogical about it, and it's based on the playoff system used in Rugby League amongst other competitions.

 

The idea of the GP series is that the best (and most consistently good...) rider ends up World Champ.

 

The idea of the SGP series is to make for good television, nothing more, nothing less. Whether that's right can be debated, but there's absolutely no way the promoter of any competition made for television will allow the result to be decided before the last event. What can be made 'fairer' though, is giving some advantage to those competitors who perform better leading up to the finale, which is not really the case now.

 

Yet we have this S/F and Final process and actually award extra points for the global total within them..

 

I might not particularly agree with the implementation, but I don't see what's illogical about giving better performing riders the opportunity to score more points. It's no different to winning tennis players getting more matches to score more points during tournaments, or golf players getting two extra rounds if they make the cut.

 

And how would your system work...? Those with two chances get even more opportunity to score points...

 

You obviously wouldn't award race points in the same way as now. You'd have to award a fixed number of points based on finishing order, but that to me would be better than the current system whereby the winning rider can score less points than a lower placed rider.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Humphrey Appleby

[Parsloes 1928 nearly 495]

 

The idea of the SGP series is to make for good television, nothing more, nothing less. Whether that's right can be debated, but there's absolutely no way the promoter of any competition made for television will allow the result to be decided before the last event. What can be made 'fairer' though, is giving some advantage to those competitors who perform better leading up to the finale, which is not really the case now.

 

I might not particularly agree with the implementation, but I don't see what's illogical about giving better performing riders the opportunity to score more points. It's no different to winning tennis players getting more matches to score more points during tournaments, or golf players getting two extra rounds if they make the cut.

 

 

But that's NOT the case is it.. Won't be happening THIS year but in other GP series the overall World Champ has been decided a couple of rounds from the end making those last rounds meaningless in terms of the big prize.

 

If I was promoting (for the sake of argument!!) a final GP at Wembley or the Olympic Stadium (both of which would be big crowd pullers IF the world championship depended on them..) and the title was decided before that meeting I'd be well hacked off. Of course in such a format that happening is possible even likely...: hence why you'll never get better box office than a proper World Final..

 

The tennis argument doesn't hold up... Each tournament in tennis is a stand-alone and it's in any case a knock-out sport..

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

Won't be happening THIS year but in other GP series the overall World Champ has been decided a couple of rounds from the end making those last rounds meaningless in terms of the big prize.

 

I was specifically referring to events on the night, for which it's more important to have a meaningful finale to keep people watching. Yes, in any Grand Prix system the result can be decided before the last round, but that's undoubtedly what the Superprix was about, and why NASCAR has a contrived finish. However, if you market each GP as a specific event as they do in F1 for example, then the overall championship can still be incidental to the popularity of the event.

 

The tennis argument doesn't hold up... Each tournament in tennis is a stand-alone and it's in any case a knock-out sport..

 

Tennis is only a knockout sport because it developed that way; probably because tournaments were originally the preserve of amateurs with limited time (professionals tended to play exhibition matches in the early days). However, there are some tennis tournaments with round robin play, and the various tournaments do contribute to overall standings akin to a GP system.

 

In the early days of speedway, individual racing was a match racing contest and the four rider formula was undoubtedly introduced to make things more exciting. Nevertheless, some of the riders of the time apparently considered the 20-heat format to be mickey mouse and nothing but a lottery, which shows there's nothing new under the sun...

[ladyluck 1]

The addition of semi-finals and finals sorts the men from the boys. If you look at this season's GPs Jaroslaw Hampel has consistently got the job done in the twenty qualifying heats and then stuttered, especially at the final stage. Hampel should really have walked away the winner in more than just one GP this season, but he failed to produce the goods in the heat of a final, except for Copenhagen.

[21st century heathen 220]

I hard to argue that the system is anything other than ridiculous. We've seen on more than one occasion that a rider can qualify for the semi on 6 points. He could then finish second to make the final with just 8 points. He could win the final to take a total of 14 points from the GP. Another rider could win his five rides for 15 points, take the semi too for 18 points and finish second in the final for a total of 22. The 'winner' takes 14 points toward the championship race and the first loser takes 22 points. Hmmmm... 5 rides each multiplied by 'x' number of rounds would be my preference too.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

The 'winner' takes 14 points toward the championship race and the first loser takes 22 points. Hmmmm... 5 rides each multiplied by 'x' number of rounds would be my preference too.

 

Yes it is ridiculous, but championship points don't have to be awarded in this manner. There are all kinds of ways of ensuring the winning rider gets the most points (and 2nd placed the second highest numbers), whilst still making the points scored during the 20 heats meaningful.

[ladyluck 1]

Hmmmm... 5 rides each multiplied by 'x' number of rounds would be my preference too.

 

The standings so far under your preference would be:

 

1 T Gollob (POL) 72

2 J Hampel (POL) 71

3 J Crump (AUS) 66

4 K Bjerre (DEN) 64

5 R Holta (POL) 58

6 C Holder (AUS) 56

7 H Andersen (DEN) 54

8= G Hancock (USA) 51

8= F Lindgren (SWE) 51

8= A Jonsson (SWE) 51

11 C Harris (GBR) 46

12 N Pedersen (DEN) 43

13 M Zetterstrom (SWE) 42

14 T Woffinden (GBR) 31

15 E Sayfutdinov (RUS) 29

16 J Kolodziej (POL) 10

17 T H Jonasson (SWE) 8

18= A Miedzinski (POL) 6

18= A Lindback (SWE) 6

18= D Watt (AUS) 6

21 P Protasiewicz (POL) 5

22 S Nicholls (GBR) 4

23= M Kus (CZR) 3

23= L Madsen (DEN) 3

 

Bjerre leapfrogs Holta and it gets even tighter in the battle for the top eight.

[AFCB Wildcat 1,362]

Can I ask what was wrong with the old format with the eliminators and with the ‘A’ & ‘B’ scoring points in order of finish?

To me it was much more exciting and it was more in the spirit of a ‘grand prix’ event.

Sure there are pros and cons to any system but the fact that the rider on the top of the rostrum can have come away with significantly less points than the riders below him is surely a major flaw to the current system. Who has actually won?

I still think the grand prix series is much better than the old one of final though what ever format has been used.

[mickthemuppet 976]

So what wrong with having GP like we have at present and a world individual champion like we had under the old system. After all other sport have two champions

[mothorsen 39]

Personally I think the GP format is great. 11 championships to determine an overall winner, instead of deciding everything on one night.

As far as the semis and final goes, I think it provides exitement to each race, even though you can win on less points. A fluke winner will never win the overall championship, but if he makes it for one night, I think that's great.

Anyway, I like it how it is, and you don't. However, they should bring back world pairs...

[waiheke 0]

Personally I think the GP format is great. 11 championships to determine an overall winner, instead of deciding everything on one night.

As far as the semis and final goes, I think it provides exitement to each race, even though you can win on less points. A fluke winner will never win the overall championship, but if he makes it for one night, I think that's great.

Anyway, I like it how it is, and you don't. However, they should bring back world pairs...

 

I have to agreee, think the present points format is spot on. The best rider on the night will get the most points, the rider who can handle the pressure best in the Final wins that GP. Every race counts towards overall points, means every rider has something to race for in every heat.

And don't know why they ever stopped with the paid comp, three extra meetings a season (two semis and a final) for a genuinely meaningful world title, the only one which allowed for team riding.