Should the points limit be set to the highest team average from the previous season?

[DC2 11,150]

 

“Unbeatable Swindon” is a joke.

We won only three away matches before the Play Offs and our reserves were generally pants.

If the other teams replaced their four point reserves with five or six pointers they’d all be near 46 points.

[Aces51 2,778]

6 minutes ago, Grachan said:

Team were never built to equal averages until the low points limits came in. They don't need to be equal in average.

Swindon have a high average because of a few big home wins, but other teams can still get decent sides together.

A low average encourages team changes, and also makes as side that can make a decent change almost unstoppaple.

Ipswich had to drop two good riders to bring Iversen in. They would have had a better chance in the final if they had been able to keep Kennett.

Teams have been built to a points limit for the last 40 years, long before lower limits were introduced and during that period most teams, have tried to get as close to the limit as they could.

Most years some supporters of whichever team wins the league and has a points total above the team limit argue the limit should be raised to allow them to keep their team. Perfectly understandable and a desirable objective if there are sufficient riders available to enable every team to build to that limit and if it is financially viable for them to do so.

Unfortunately, that isn't the current position. There are not the riders available and suggesting the likes of Vaculik and Zagar is unrealistic. Firstly, because it is very unlikely they or, other top riders, will ride here and secondly, because the league as a whole cannot afford to import the required number of riders of that quality.

[Grachan 7,362]

9 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

Teams have been built to a points limit for the last 40 years, long before lower limits were introduced and during that period most teams, have tried to get as close to the limit as they could.

Most years some supporters of whichever team wins the league and has a points total above the team limit argue the limit should be raised to allow them to keep their team. Perfectly understandable and a desirable objective if there are sufficient riders available to enable every team to build to that limit and if it is financially viable for them to do so.

Unfortunately, that isn't the current position. There are not the riders available and suggesting the likes of Vaculik and Zagar is unrealistic. Firstly, because it is very unlikely they or, other top riders, will ride here and secondly, because the league as a whole cannot afford to import the required number of riders of that quality.

The point was actually raised by Speedway Star as something that should be done, hence the topic.

The thing is, the last 40 years are the years that speedway began its slow, steady decline, and the top league was weakened deliberately a few years back, year after year, and costs were cut. The result was lower crowds.

I certainly feel there is a case for strengthening the league again. For example, Swindon and Ipswich had to bring in NL standard reserves in order to fit a rider of GP standard into the team.

I also feel that a team having to make major cuts after doing well suffers the following year as crowds fall away again, which, surely shouldn't be the objective.

Personally, I've always found the massive destruction of successful sides to be a bad thing. It was noticeable at Oxford, in the past, that crowds fell when the successful sides were dismantled.

I'm not saying I agree with teams having to build to the highest average, but something a simple as Troy Bachelor or going to Peterborough would bring a competitive league without having to work teams out to the nearest decimal point.

[DC2 11,150]

8 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

Teams have been built to a points limit for the last 40 years, long before lower limits were introduced and during that period most teams, have tried to get as close to the limit as they could.

Most years some supporters of whichever team wins the league and has a points total above the team limit argue the limit should be raised to allow them to keep their team. Perfectly understandable and a desirable objective if there are sufficient riders available to enable every team to build to that limit and if it is financially viable for them to do so.

Unfortunately, that isn't the current position. There are not the riders available and suggesting the likes of Vaculik and Zagar is unrealistic. Firstly, because it is very unlikely they or, other top riders, will ride here and secondly, because the league as a whole cannot afford to import the required number of riders of that quality.

 

But how can Swindon afford Doyle? Or indeed the rest of their top five? Terry Russell says we can.

How could Leicester afford Vaculik and Przedpelski?

And Zagar rode here for several years; how has he become impossible to afford?

Surely, if the PL is to be distinct from the CL it should aspire to have proper number one riders? Not Chris Harris and Charles Wright. 

There has to be some ambition.

If BV, Wolves or Sheffield signed Zagar or Vaculik or Chris Holder would their average crowd not increase by 100 people and would not that cover the additional cost?

 

 

[Aces51 2,778]

25 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

But how can Swindon afford Doyle? Or indeed the rest of their top five? Terry Russell says we can.

How could Leicester afford Vaculik and Przedpelski?

And Zagar rode here for several years; how has he become impossible to afford?

Surely, if the PL is to be distinct from the CL it should aspire to have proper number one riders? Not Chris Harris and Charles Wright. 

There has to be some ambition.

If BV, Wolves or Sheffield signed Zagar or Vaculik or Chris Holder would their average crowd not increase by 100 people and would not that cover the additional cost?

 

 

Crowds didn't drop by 100 when Zagar left.  However, 100 extra fans at a typical £15 ,after paying VAT, amounts to £1,500. That is going to have to pay the costs of the likes of Zagar for one home and one away meeting.  Riders of that calibre are not going to race for anything like as little as £750 a meeting. However,  the real point is that most top riders just will not race in the UK. 

I agree that the PL should aspire to improving the overall standard but it has to be done in a way that is achievable and affordable. We also need to increase the number of teams in the league and that means operating in a way that minimises the risk of losing existing teams.

[Bagpuss 10,781]

1 hour ago, DC2 said:

 

“Unbeatable Swindon” is a joke.

We won only three away matches before the Play Offs and our reserves were generally pants.

If the other teams replaced their four point reserves with five or six pointers they’d all be near 46 points.

Shovlar propaganda has wormed  its way into people’s minds unfortunately. 

[Grachan 7,362]

27 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

Crowds didn't drop by 100 when Zagar left.  However, 100 extra fans at a typical £15 ,after paying VAT, amounts to £1,500. That is going to have to pay the costs of the likes of Zagar for one home and one away meeting.  Riders of that calibre are not going to race for anything like as little as £750 a meeting. However,  the real point is that most top riders just will not race in the UK. 

I agree that the PL should aspire to improving the overall standard but it has to be done in a way that is achievable and affordable. We also need to increase the number of teams in the league and that means operating in a way that minimises the risk of losing existing teams.

I don't know how Swindon did financially this year, but last year they lost money and a big part of that was because of getting rid of Jason Doyle. They were very keen to bring him back this year, so it will be interesting to know how their finances were.

Stronger teams do bring in better crowds.

[DC2 11,150]

26 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

Crowds didn't drop by 100 when Zagar left.  However, 100 extra fans at a typical £15 ,after paying VAT, amounts to £1,500. That is going to have to pay the costs of the likes of Zagar for one home and one away meeting.  Riders of that calibre are not going to race for anything like as little as £750 a meeting. However,  the real point is that most top riders just will not race in the UK. 

I agree that the PL should aspire to improving the overall standard but it has to be done in a way that is achievable and affordable. We also need to increase the number of teams in the league and that means operating in a way that minimises the risk of losing existing teams.

 

The £750 per meeting would be in addition to the current pay of a number one.

If the standard of the PL does not improve and be clearly a level above the CL we might as well have one league.

It used to be the case that CL number ones were PL reserves, now some are PL number ones too (Wright, Harris). It’s stupid.

[mikebv 10,285]

4 hours ago, Aces51 said:

Even that team only adds up to 45.59 compared to Swindon who achieved 46.34.

As hyderoad has pointed out the problem is building 6 other teams that get close to 46.34, not just one team that gets close.

However, riders averages are massively impacted by any large home track advantage..

Therefore a team who were very dominant at home can have higher averages than a similar level of riders who don't have that home track benefit..

And, as always, the league starts off pretty level every year, then (it feels since time began), each year a month into the season at least one team is cut adrift, and by the end of the season the top to bottom gap is a chasm..

So much for the sport depending on averages to keep things close every year..

The evidence suggests it doesn't..

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by mikebv

[DC2 11,150]

1 hour ago, mikebv said:

However, riders averages are massively impacted by any large home track advantage..

Therefore a team who were very dominant at home can have higher averages than a similar level of riders who don't have that home track benefit..

And, as always, the league starts off pretty level every year, then (it feels since time began), each year a month into the season at least one team is cut adrift, and by the end of the season the top to bottom gap is a chasm..

So much for the sport depending on averages to keep things close every year..

The evidence suggests it doesn't..

 

Yes, but injuries and loss of form (Hans Andersen 5.79) or motivation and stepping up (Rasmus Jensen 7.86), make a big difference.

Who would have signed Rasmus over Hans at the start of the season?

And don’t forget, with six matches to go of the regular season, Kings Lynn and Belle Vue were still competing for the play offs, and even Swindon weren’t assured of a place. Only Boro were tailed off.

 

[Aces51 2,778]

5 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

The £750 per meeting would be in addition to the current pay of a number one.

If the standard of the PL does not improve and be clearly a level above the CL we might as well have one league.

It used to be the case that CL number ones were PL reserves, now some are PL number ones too (Wright, Harris). It’s stupid.

I thought your intention was not simply to replace an existing number one with a better rider. If we assume for the moment that there are enough of these better riders willing to ride in the UK surely the intention would be to still keep the existing number ones and to replace a lesser rider further down the pecking order. The existing number one is still going to want to be paid pretty much the same as previously. He might not be the number one but he is still an 8 point, or whatever average  he achieved, rider. Any saving will be for the rider lower down the pecking order and £750 is not likely to be close to covering the money saved compared to what is paid to the new number one. 

The standard of PL teams  is already clearly above that of CL teams. However,  I agree that it is ridiculous that someone can be a number one in both leagues, although Masters and Wright are the two lowest averaged number ones in the PL and Harris, who you mention, is not a number one in the PL. That is more a problem caused by doubling up/down.

5 hours ago, Grachan said:

I don't know how Swindon did financially this year, but last year they lost money and a big part of that was because of getting rid of Jason Doyle. They were very keen to bring him back this year, so it will be interesting to know how their finances were.

Stronger teams do bring in better crowds.

The main reason many Swindon supporters have given for the increased crowds is the better racing on the new track.  However,  I accept that a successful team brings in a better crowd but not that a stronger team finishing near the bottom end of a league of stronger teams will did so. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Aces51

[DC2 11,150]

23 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

 

The standard of PL teams  is already clearly above that of CL teams. However,  I agree that it is ridiculous that someone can be a number one in both leagues, although Masters and Wright are the two lowest averaged number ones in the PL and Harris, who you mention, is not a number one in the PL. That is more a problem caused by doubling up/down.

 

 

Chris Harris was Ipswich number one for a while and doubling up will always be necessary if there are two leagues with different standards due to the lack of quality British riders.

One big league would get rid of doubling up but riders’ averages would have to be reassessed and the best one might hope for would be something like

Doyle 11

Perks 6

Stefan Nielsen 4.5

Kasper Andersen 5

Musielak 9

Rowe 4.5

Gilkes 2

42

[Grachan 7,362]

2 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

Chris Harris was Ipswich number one for a while and doubling up will always be necessary if there are two leagues with different standards due to the lack of quality British riders.

One big league would get rid of doubling up but riders’ averages would have to be reassessed and the best one might hope for would be something like

Doyle 11

Perks 6

Stefan Nielsen 4.5

Kasper Andersen 5

Musielak 9

Rowe 4.5

Gilkes 2

42

If one big league, then the best way would be to use Championship averages. Riders without a CL average could then be assessed to CL standard, with a maximum of 12.00.

Pretty sure Jason would be a 12.

I don't agree with assessing above 12 though, as it is higher than any possible value to the side.

[DC2 11,150]

5 minutes ago, Grachan said:

If one big league, then the best way would be to use Championship averages. Riders without a CL average could then be assessed to CL standard, with a maximum of 12.00.

Pretty sure Jason would be a 12.

I don't agree with assessing above 12 though, as it is higher than any possible value to the side.

 

Yes, that was what I thought.

With 13 applications in for the CL and 7 for the PL we could have one big league with 20 teams, but we would have to accommodate the likes of Jason Doyle, because we’d need all the riders we could get, and not saddle him with a ridiculous average.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

1 hour ago, Grachan said:

If one big league, then the best way would be to use Championship averages. Riders without a CL average could then be assessed to CL standard, with a maximum of 12.00.

Pretty sure Jason would be a 12.

I don't agree with assessing above 12 though, as it is higher than any possible value to the side.

But then you would have the like of Doyle Fricke and Lambert all assessed at 12 for team building when quite obviously Doyle is head and shoulders above