News For Twk

[steve roberts 9,247]

Somebody said something about choosing gates positions in all this banter.....

I have for several seasons run a spreadsheet "programme" which amongst other things keeps track of the the number of races won from each gate and the number of points scored from each gate. Ok so it's a bit neardy but it makes for interesting reading quite often and shows it's not always the same gates that have the advantage at the same track. It can vary (a lot) from meeting to meeting and indicates to me, at least, that some sensible hand raking at the start line is needed.

Anyway in the old days when we had tactical substitutions, the losing team also had choice of gates until the deficit was reduced, when the normal alternation of gate positions was resumed. Surely this is a small change in the regulations that could help to avoid the more one sided meetings we sometimes see but without the fans feeling it was mickey mouse. If tracks didn't like the advantage gained, sort out the start line. Give all 4 riders an even break, otherwise get eaten alive by the opposing teams picking the best gates.

We could even go back to letting teams choose which rider starts from which of their two allocated gates. Oh, I know they stopped this because some top riders were always choosing the best gate to the detriment of their junior partner. But surely we have to give teams and team managers some freedom if they are to maximise their opportunities?

Never liked the fix gate ruling...on occasions it gave a team (or rider) an advantage when they had a run early on with inside gates and then vice versa (as the dirt began to move out) The outside gate at Oxford early on was often a killer (Simon Wigg on at least one occasion confirmed) what with there being a short run up to the first bend. If fixed gates meant alternate gates then it would even things out somewhat but the formula wouldn't obviously allow for that with every rider requiring a share of the gates throughout the meeting.

 

Choice of gates also allowed some tactical play which I was always in favour of and unfortunately, in my opinion, the role of the Team Manager and tactical awareness had become restricted over successive years during my time going to speedway.

 

Of course the argument for introducing fixed gates was to stop the 'star' riders from picking the best gate, which of course often happened, but wasn't always the case and it's interesting when reading articles how common it was that riders of a lesser ability were offered the better choice on occasions in the hope to gain some advantage for the benefit of the team. I recall when England won the World Pairs in 1980 Dave Jessup was instructed to take the more difficult gate and Peter Collins the more advantageous so as the get the desired result which in this case obviously worked.

 

I do remember some years ago Ole Olsen coming up with a theory of riders starting slightly staggered so as to give everyone one a fair chance but can't recall the detail.

Edited April 26, 2017 by steve roberts

[ruffdiamond 6,115]

Just let riders pick the gates, on a first come, first served basis,

it could speed things up a bit, instead of them messing about for a whole 2 minutes

 

also, if a rider turns round and tootles off to the 4th bend it gives the others a chance to steal that gate, if they wish,,,

Edited April 26, 2017 by ruffdiamond

[steve roberts 9,247]

Just let riders pick the gates, on a first come, first served basis,

it could speed things up a bit, instead of them messing about for a whole 2 minutes

I like that! It would save all that messing about at the pits gate...imagine the rush to be first at the starting line!

[ruffdiamond 6,115]

I like that! It would save all that messing about at the pits gate...imagine the rush to be first at the starting line!

and barring accidents or maybe some fights, a meeting could be done and dusted in an hour or so.

[False dawn 2,307]

 

As someone who is not at all technically minded I've never really understood this because surely the results can be false owing to the fact that not all races are won from the gate (thank goodness!). So if you have the rider in gate 1 winning 9 out of the 15 races your records presumably indicate that this is the best gate on the night but he may not necessarily have lead from start to finish and could have beaten the rider in first place on the last lap. Hope you can understand my logic as I'm not very good at explaining things, especially when I don't know what I'm talking about.

You are quite right, of course. It can only be an indication of gate advantage. But I'd argue that if 9 races out of 15 were won by the rider in say gate 1, then this is a strong indication that it's a good pick given that you'd expect only a quarter of the races to be won from each gate if all other factors were equal (which, as you rightly say, they are not). But if I was a team manager (aren't we all?) and gates 1 and 3 had won 4 heats and 2 and 4, 10 heats, would I pick 1 and 3 in heat 15? You'd be surprised at the choices, given the stats, sometimes.

Incidentally, the other thing that my analysis shows is that 1 and 3 are not the advantage you'd think. My conclusion from that is that if I won the toss, I would always elect to choose gates in heat 15. That way I would have the knowledge gained from the previous 14 heats rather than guessing before the meeting has started and handing the advantage to the opposition when it might really make a difference.

[Gemini 4,894]

I don't have Sky now but when I used to watch the G.P's and they'd come up with the statistics on the gate positions I know it used to slightly irritate me to state that gate 3 (for instance) had the most first places when in fact there had been some great on track battles and although their statistics may say there were more wins from gate 3 it wasn't necessarily the case that the rider starting from that gate actually won the race. At least you seem to be understanding where I'm coming from so thanks for the reply.

[False dawn 2,307]

There are always lies, damn lies and statistics. Points scored and races won from each gate can only indicate a potential advantage. For example, when I look at a race and try to predict which of two riders will win, the gate stats can help. Of course there is nothing to say that one of the other two riders actually win as they do, quite often. Who'd be a pundit eh?

[The White Knight 9,039]

Whether we agree about t/r's , tacky subs or whatever , they do have the potential to give good speedway , which is something we all want . They really don't change that many meetings , but when they do it generally results in a classic . Peterborough v Reading in 2006 is generally accepted to be the best play off final there's been , the t/r's played a part in ensuring that .

Very good word that, where Tactical Substitutes or Tactical Rides are concerned.

 

Tacky!! I wish I had thought of that Paulco. :approve:

[Tsunami 10,219]

Just let riders pick the gates, on a first come, first served basis,

it could speed things up a bit, instead of them messing about for a whole 2 minutes

 

also, if a rider turns round and tootles off to the 4th bend it gives the others a chance to steal that gate, if they wish,,,

German riders would be putting towels on their gate.

[ruffdiamond 6,115]

German riders would be putting towels on their gate.

they might do it, once

[Gemini 4,894]

There are always lies, damn lies and statistics. Points scored and races won from each gate can only indicate a potential advantage. For example, when I look at a race and try to predict which of two riders will win, the gate stats can help. Of course there is nothing to say that one of the other two riders actually win as they do, quite often. Who'd be a pundit eh?

Glad you didn't sit with us when Kath, Graham and I used to do 'Predictaheat' as you would have wiped the floor with us.