More On The Decline Of British Speedway

[moxey63 1,785]

All we seemed to be learning is that some want the tactical ride, some want the tactical substitute and some want nothing at all.Put yourself in the promoters shoes ! What are they to do? , they can't please everyone.Whatever the outcome of the AGM. lets hope that all those who didn't get their wish will not simply just choose to walk away from the sport

 

So true. One particular substitute rule doesn't get a complete thumbs up from the forum and therefore, if us experts don't know what we want, how on earth can we criticise promoters?

Edited November 13, 2014 by moxey63

[daveallan81 330]

By using a TS, a team had the chance to replace an under-performing rider with one who could be better.

The complaint that a TS was always used in Heat 8 is valid (e.g. Steve Lawson would only take a TS in Heat 8, from Gate 1), but that could be prevented/adapted. Indeed, the new EL heat format lends itself more readily to the TS rule.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your comments regarding Lawson and assume that they are just poorly worded as the inference that Lawson wouldn't take a TS under any other circumstances is total and unequivocable garbage.

[strife 153]

<snip>

 

I certainly don't agree that there is no skill in using a tactical ride and I could argue that there's more ability needed for that than just changing a rider in heat 8,which was the most common use for a TS. I think you'd find that team managers would also object to a statement that using a TR requires 'virtually no tactical thought' and you only have to read the pages of this forum to see the criticism meted out by fans who (on occasion, rightly) thought that a mistake had been made in its use.

 

What those who argue for TS overlook is the cost. To my knowledge there are few (if any) riders who get paid double money for double points rides, so it costs nothing. If your two top riders earn twice as much per point as reserves and second strings, a double change in heat 8 could cost in the region of £450 for just one race. There are 21 tracks in the EL and PL, so one change of that nature (and there could of course be more) per meeting would cost almost £10,000 pw or around £250k per season.

 

My figures are rough, but that's an awful lot of money that speedway doesn't have.

I agreed that the Heat 8 problem with the TS was a valid point, and it could have been dealt with. I also pointed out that the new EL format lends itself to a TS rule - it would be easier to prevent #1/2/3 riders replacing replacing or being pitched against #6/7.

 

The financial argument is a red herring - guessing the "savings" based on an archaic payment system is false. You can't seriously believe that riders (top men especially) are paid purely on ride & points money? I know of riders who, quite a few years ago, were on a guaranteed basic - it assumed they achieved an expected level, and they then had incentives based on improved performance, e.g. if they reached or scored over a certain number of points, and so on.

 

The TR is potentially dangerous, i.e. riders having to slow on the last lap/bend to let another past to score an extra point - even though the TR rider has already defeated at least one opponent. In a team sport, why does he *have* to beat his team-mate to score extra points? That's a joke in itself.

I have never liked the idea of simply adding artificial points - teams can (and have) won matches even though overall their riders have been defeated in the majority of the races - that's also a joke. With a TS, you could still only score the actual points available.

The constant complaints about Team Managers use of the TR are because it is limited - most of the time the manager simply nominates a rider immediately after going 10 points behind - it's knee-jerk and requires little thought. The fact it has been limited to just two uses, and only when 12 points behind for the second nomination, also proves the rule has failed and had to be fiddled with in typical BSPA sticking-plaster style.

 

I partly agree with a The White Knight that there shouldn't be any tactical replacements, but the introduction of the TR was based on a financial fallacy, and has added nothing at all to the sport.

[orion 7,615]

 

 

People may argue that the old TS was better than the current GD, but I put forward the 2006 farce - the Grand Final Play-Off, in which Reading, much the ebtter team over two legs, were leapfrogged by Peterborough and the false extra points the Golden Double handed them.

 

 

And ? the old rule as has proved change more match results than double points ...it one thing saying that the old rule was better more fun etc ...but fairer it was never was . Of course that brings in the double standards of that everything was better in the old days gang who after saying they like the old tac rule also say the play offs are unfair .

[Shadders 4,135]

People won't go because the facilities are poor and the stadiums are shabby? What a load of crap.

Arena Essex attracts thousands for stock car racing in the same stadium that hosts speedway. Lakeside crowds are far less than stocks attendances

Edited November 13, 2014 by Shads

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

 

 

I personally know two people who say they won't go again while the TR rule but frankly I don't believe that is the reason because they never were regular and still watch it on Sky sometimes so the real reason is that they can't be bothered, just as there are many people on the forum who constantly moan about things but haven't been for years and are never likely to go again. . I find it very difficult to believe that people stop going simply because of the TR rule and nothing else. That said , it is generally an unpopular rule and one of a number of things when put together detract rather than enhance the entertainment value in the eyes of many.

 

I have never described the sport as micky Mouse, and I agree with you it is frustrating when people use that expression as a substitute for rational argument, but the fact remains that there are valid reasons why people don't like the TR rule

 

Why do we need either rule ? One of the anomalies of the points limit is that in the nature of things some teams are built with a strong top two and weak tail. Th eTR rule favours those teams by giving them extra points when they have the big heats, 13 and 15 to pull, up anyway. The other point is that the 4-3-2-1 league points system add snterest to the match that wasn't there in the pold days of straight win or lose when arguably the TS or TR rule added interest to a match.

 

So why exactly does speedway have it ?

 

The only reason I get when speaking to anyone in any sort of official capacity is that Sky want it, although I hear that Rosco also likes it . I can understand the argument that Sky money is important and it is a necessary evil to keep the Sky money coming in but in reality how often does the TR rule enhance a meeting ? Not very often in my experience. In what ways would the sport suffer or lose fans if the TR rule were abolished ? You can't please all the people all the time, that is accepted but it does seem to me that getting rid of the rule would please a lot of people and not really upset very mant, at least not in a serious way.

 

 

I only know TWK who won't go because of the TR rule, and with respect to him (because I have a lot of time for him) we'll see if that's the case come March.I just can't grasp why it affects someone's enjoyment of speedway to the extent that they will not attend.

 

The rule is there to ensure that meetings are closer and therefore more entertaining. The scoring system has added to that, but in many ways it merely enhances the case for tactical changes. If it was just about 2 points only, then the chances of using it are less if a team is 10 or 12 points behind going into heat 12 as the meeting has completely gone.

 

I am genuinely surprised that it is stated here that 'a tactical rule has indeed been around in speedway for a while with the express purpose of allowing close scores.

One rule allows a team to take advantage of this and the other doesn't'. I would have thought that the PL Grand Final this season, when a tactical ride turned a meeting on its head completely, would be more than adequate evidence of that. Many point to the 2006 Peterborough-Reading EL grand final as being one of the best ever, and that too was radically affected by a TR. Its absolutely true to suggest that it is only in a minority of meetings that a TR has significant effect, but its existence allows at least some meetings to be enhanced. Take it away, and they would have been dead.

 

I think Vince (as usual) is right. He hates the rule, but accepts that the number of people affected is minimal.

 

The fact that tactical changes have been in existence for 50 years is of itself evidence that speedway needs it - or at least, that it is desirable. I think you are right when you say that many would be pleased if TR's were scrapped, but I reiterate that I wonder whether they would be saying the same thing 2 or 3 seasons from now.

The financial argument is a red herring - guessing the "savings" based on an archaic payment system is false. You can't seriously believe that riders (top men especially) are paid purely on ride & points money? I know of riders who, quite a few years ago, were on a guaranteed basic - it assumed they achieved an expected level, and they then had incentives based on improved performance, e.g. if they reached or scored over a certain number of points, and so on.

 

 

 

I do know of one top EL rider who is on a guarantee but he's the only one. Word I got was that Ward & Holder, for example, were both paid per point (albeit with sponsorship, flights etc thrown in). I'd say riders on large guarantees are very rare exceptions, and its more likely that it is those at the bottom end who have some sort of fixed amount agreed before hand.

 

Whenever I get into a discussion about riders wages, the amount per point comes up (albeit that they may get other funding as above). From that, I would say that the overwhelming number of those competing in the three leagues are paid that way. If that's the case, then my position regarding the cost of reverting to the TS is fully valid.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[Guest]

People won't go because the facilities are poor and the stadiums are shabby? What a load of crap.

Arena Essex attracts thousands for stock car racing in the same stadium that hosts speedway. Lakeside crowds are far less than stocks attendances

 

This popularity for 'small oval' car racing in preference to speedway is not just a factor at Arena Essex (home of Lakeside Hammers) it happens in many other 'sharing stadia- in the UK (I think other prime examples include Arlington (aka Eastbourne), Ipswich, Coventry, Belle Vue and Sheffield among them.

It's also the case worldwide in USA, New Zealand (where speedway has virtually vanished), South Africa and Australia. I can put no finger on this - but sadly that is the case from a speedway supporter viewpoint.

[strife 153]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your comments regarding Lawson and assume that they are just poorly worded as the inference that Lawson wouldn't take a TS under any other circumstances is total and unequivocable garbage.

Maybe it was said in jest by Glasgow fans at Mildenhall when Lawson lined-up in gate 1 in heat 8, but that's what they said. I don't blame him for taking the easier option when he could, considering his years of dedication to a team that was generally uncompetitive.

 

I only know TWK who won't go because of the TR rule, and with respect to him (because I have a lot of time for him) we'll see if that's the case come March.I just can't grasp why it affects someone's enjoyment of speedway to the extent that they will not attend.

 

The rule is there to ensure that meetings are closer and therefore more entertaining. The scoring system has added to that, but in many ways it merely enhances the case for tactical changes. If it was just about 2 points only, then the chances of using it are less if a team is 10 or 12 points behind going into heat 12 as the meeting has completely gone.

 

I am genuinely surprised that it is stated here that 'a tactical rule has indeed been around in speedway for a while with the express purpose of allowing close scores.

One rule allows a team to take advantage of this and the other doesn't'. I would have thought that the PL Grand Final this season, when a tactical ride turned a meeting on its head completely, would be more than adequate evidence of that. Many point to the 2006 Peterborough-Reading EL grand final as being one of the best ever, and that too was radically affected by a TR. Its absolutely true to suggest that it is only in a minority of meetings that a TR has significant effect, but its existence allows at least some meetings to be enhanced. Take it away, and they would have been dead.

 

I think Vince (as usual) is right. He hates the rule, but accepts that the number of people affected is minimal.

 

The fact that tactical changes have been in existence for 50 years is of itself evidence that speedway needs it - or at least, that it is desirable. I think you are right when you say that many would be pleased if TR's were scrapped, but I reiterate that I wonder whether they would be saying the same thing 2 or 3 seasons from now.

 

I do know of one top EL rider who is on a guarantee but he's the only one. Word I got was that Ward & Holder, for example, were both paid per point (albeit with sponsorship, flights etc thrown in). I'd say riders on large guarantees are very rare exceptions, and its more likely that it is those at the bottom end who have some sort of fixed amount agreed before hand.

 

Whenever I get into a discussion about riders wages, the amount per point comes up (albeit that they may get other funding as above). From that, I would say that the overwhelming number of those competing in the three leagues are paid that way. If that's the case, then my position regarding the cost of reverting to the TS is fully valid.

I still think the pay per ride/point system is archaic and institutionalised. The successful businessmen (LOL at standard phrase) who ru(i)n this sport could easily set up different contracts.

 

I didn't stop going because of the TR - the general malaise affecting the sport is my dislike. The TR has thrown-up the occasional thriller, but the TS would too - I've seen teams make superb comebacks with skilful use of the TS, so there's no difference in that respect. The major difference is that the P'boro-Reading final was won by a team who were beaten on the night, but the artificial points ensured victory - and that scoreline resulted in the BSPA changing the TR rule to try to stop it happening again - absolute proof of the joke nature of the rule.

[E I Addio 15,845]

The rule is there to ensure that meetings are closer and therefore more entertaining.

 

 

That doesn't follow. . For one thing 48-42 on a slick track with most races won from the gate is never as entertaining as 55-35 with plenty of passing. The TR rule does not automatically make a meeting more entertaining. It can make the scores but as said before it gives an advantage to top-heavy teams who get an advantage by having a TR mid-match when they still have their strongest heats to come ie heats 13 and 15. It works against teams built with strength in depth who need to build an advantage in the early heats before facing the big hitters in 13 &15. Its not more entertaining to fans who have seen their side as the better team on the track but drop league points to a team that gains on the rule book.

 

The fact that tactical changes have been in existence for 50 years is of itself evidence that speedway needs it - or at least, that it is desirable.

 

 

Times move on. To say we need it simply because it has been around for 50 years is like saying we need the One-off World Final because that was around for years or we ought to have a straight league with no play-offs because that arrangement worked for years. The fact that something has been around for years does not automatically justify it.

 

 

. I think you are right when you say that many would be pleased if TR's were scrapped, but I reiterate that I wonder whether they would be saying the same thing 2 or 3 seasons from now.

 

 

The only way to test that theory would be to scrap it and see. Speedway is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to willingness to change to rules so the TR rule could always be re-introduced if it was felt necessary but unless we try a season or two without it we'll never know.

Edited November 13, 2014 by E I Addio

[moxey63 1,785]

And ? the old rule as has proved change more match results than double points ...it one thing saying that the old rule was better more fun etc ...but fairer it was never was . Of course that brings in the double standards of that everything was better in the old days gang who after saying they like the old tac rule also say the play offs are unfair .

 

The ethics of speedway - the 3, 2, 1, 0 scoring - the tradition that goes right back before any of us were thought of... that's what the Golden Double has done. It has altered the basics of what speedway has been built.

 

When the normal scoring system gets altered so a match can artificially remain interesting, it does any credibility the sport strives for no good.

 

We can argue the plus and minuses of the old Tact Sub, as we can the Golden Double, but I for one still cannot see why the old Tac Sub was ditched. If, as they say, it was to save money, surely it could have been altered... instead of doubling the points and making it pantomime speedway.

 

That's all it's done in my opinion.

Edited November 13, 2014 by moxey63

[arnieg 3,649]

The funny thing is, while I have always argued this, I prefer the old tac sub. Totally irrational but it seems fairer - it's not really but it seems it. It's also far more tactical, I could teach my 6 year old niece, "10 down so put the better of our two riders on a TR in the race" but would take a while to teach her the oddities of the tac sub, when to use 2, when to use 1. Which rider to put in, put a poorer second strings into heat 13 to get his ride out of the way but then put your top 2 in heat 14 in place of him and a reserve.... All sorts to think about.

I suspect that like me it is your statistical bent. One of the effects of the TR is that the points scored in a set of team averages no longer equal the points scored by the team, thus depriving us of a straight forward check mechanism. (And as for the final season of the EL knockout cup - well how do you cope with that:?)

[SCB 0]

I suspect that like me it is your statistical bent. One of the effects of the TR is that the points scored in a set of team averages no longer equal the points scored by the team, thus depriving us of a straight forward check mechanism. (And as for the final season of the EL knockout cup - well how do you cope with that:?)

Possibly. As for the KOC farce the season before last, I pretty much chose to pretend it never happened. In 10 years time nobody will believe we had a genuine tactical play called a "man on man heat" so it shouldn't be hard to pretend it never happened

[Shale Searcher 1,264]

Possibly. As for the KOC farce the season before last, I pretty much chose to pretend it never happened. In 10 years time nobody will believe we had a genuine tactical play called a "man on man heat" so it shouldn't be hard to pretend it never happened

Man on man heat?

Please expand........

Possibly. As for the KOC farce the season before last, I pretty much chose to pretend it never happened. In 10 years time nobody will believe we had a genuine tactical play called a "man on man heat" so it shouldn't be hard to pretend it never happened

Man on man heat?

Please expand........

[Leicester Hunter 381]

Man on man heat?

Please expand........

 

Well, you did ask.

 

If a team was 6 (or was it 8?) points behind after heat 4 and before heat - well, that bit was open to a fair amount of interpretation, their team manager could nominate (a maximum of two times) a rider, but not the same one twice, to challenge a member of the opposition. A match race. Clear so far? But only one rider could score points, and that one was from the losing team. If the rider from the team that was ahead won, the heat was classified as a 0-0. With this 'facility' being used at any stage, the two boxes set aside for it in the programme were completely separate from the scorecard, so if it was used successfully, the scorecard didn't make any sense at all.

 

In all my years of following speedway, that has to be the daftest 'rule' ever....

Edited November 13, 2014 by Leicester Hunter

[Mike.Butler 601]

i made a point of not attending any match containing this enhancement to the night's entertainment..