Meeting Formula/Team Lineup

[Najjer 2,890]

An interesting thought after browsing various sections of the forum and seeing people suggest their potential line ups for their teams and riding order - Is it time for a change where other than the reserves, the top 5 can be placed in any order? 

Nowadays team managers seem to be restricted more than ever in their tactical play. Just why does the highest averaged rider need to ride at no.1? Why not have the home team declare their side and then the away team juggles their riders to the positions of their choice. Could make things abit more interesting - especially given the lack of actual star powered ‘number 1’ riders gracing our shores in both divisions.

[FromBendThree 145]

53 minutes ago, Najjer said:

An interesting thought after browsing various sections of the forum and seeing people suggest their potential line ups for their teams and riding order - Is it time for a change where other than the reserves, the top 5 can be placed in any order? 

Nowadays team managers seem to be restricted more than ever in their tactical play. Just why does the highest averaged rider need to ride at no.1? Why not have the home team declare their side and then the away team juggles their riders to the positions of their choice. Could make things abit more interesting - especially given the lack of actual star powered ‘number 1’ riders gracing our shores in both divisions.

I seem to remember a time when your No 1 by average did not have to ride in the number one position. There's a lot to like about the your idea of using the top five where a team manager wants.

[The Third Man 2,217]

4 minutes ago, FromBendThree said:

I seem to remember a time when your No 1 by average did not have to ride in the number one position. There's a lot to like about the your idea of using the top five where a team manager wants.

i agree, let a manager manage, put any of the top 5 in any order

Remember Mauger riding at 2 in many away matches for Exeter

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

34 minutes ago, The Third Man said:

i agree, let a manager manage, put any of the top 5 in any order

Remember Mauger riding at 2 in many away matches for Exeter

The 13-heat format was more balanced than the current 15-heat format for the top 5 riders, except ironically the No. 2 position. But I suspect the idea may have been to ensure a stronger Heat 8 in the obvious place to make a tactical substitution. 

[Najjer 2,890]

37 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

The 13-heat format was more balanced than the current 15-heat format for the top 5 riders, except ironically the No. 2 position. But I suspect the idea may have been to ensure a stronger Heat 8 in the obvious place to make a tactical substitution. 

Isn’t that part of the tactical knowledge the team managers would need though - you could put your stronger rider at no.2 but likely to leave you weaker in heat 12 or 13 potentially. 

[jenga 2,998]

and the number 2  is the first rider to do his full 4 rides . therefore making it easier for tho opposing team in the following races and not facing a number 1 swings n rundaboots 

[E I Addio 15,845]

4 hours ago, Najjer said:

An interesting thought after browsing various sections of the forum and seeing people suggest their potential line ups for their teams and riding order - Is it time for a change where other than the reserves, the top 5 can be placed in any order? 

Nowadays team managers seem to be restricted more than ever in their tactical play. Just why does the highest averaged rider need to ride at no.1? Why not have the home team declare their side and then the away team juggles their riders to the positions of their choice. Could make things abit more interesting - especially given the lack of actual star powered ‘number 1’ riders gracing our shores in both divisions.

Historically the  best ( and highest paid)  rider has ridden No1 . It’s only right from a riders perspective and from the point of view of the fans that the best rider earns his money by facing the opposition’s No1 two or three times rather than once as used to be the case years ago. It’s hardly fair that the best rider should be getting easy rides against second strings and second strings get less points, and therefore less money by facing Heatleaders every time out . Personally I think it’s fair that second strings and reserves get a chance with races against riders of similar. standard.

I don’t know if it’s still the case but until fairly recently at least it was the case that the home team had to declare their team first so apart from. No1 the away manager had a certain amount of latitude in his team order .

[Triple.H. 1,986]

Was it the late Jon Cook who suggested a team X points behind could choose gate positions, as in we'll go off 1 and 4 or 2 and 3 etc. I think thats worth a go, at the end of the day anything to shake up the same old familiar format must be worth a try.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

4 hours ago, Najjer said:

Isn’t that part of the tactical knowledge the team managers would need though - you could put your stronger rider at no.2 but likely to leave you weaker in heat 12 or 13 potentially. 

Under the old 13-heat format, the line-ups for Heats 12 and 13 were naturally more balanced even if you arranged Nos 1, 3, 5 and 4 in different way, based on how things would need to be for the initial heats - 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

With the 15-heat format, Heats 8 and 14 were designed to be weaker heats for the second strings and reserves, based on the fact that you'll usually want one of your strongest riders at No. 5 as that position is paired with a reserve three times. The 15-heat format is a bit of a kludge really, even though the traditional 13-heat format had its quirks. 

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

10 minutes ago, Triple.H. said:

Was it the late Jon Cook who suggested a team X points behind could choose gate positions, as in we'll go off 1 and 4 or 2 and 3 etc. I think thats worth a go, at the end of the day anything to shake up the same old familiar format must be worth a try.

As I remember, there was a similar rule before fixed gate positions were introduced around 1988 - albeit the choice was 1 and 3 or 2 and 4. A team 6 points behind could choose gate positions and/or bring in a tactical substitute. 

[old bob at herne bay 828]

One of the MANY reasons that the racing is so crap now  is that there are fixed gate positions for every race. We have riders that are useless using the best gate positions, and he top riders stuck on the rubbish gate positions.  Team pairs should be able to choose gate positions to suit their style of riding and the needs of their team.  Humphrey remembers correctly that teams 6 points in arrears could choose 1and 3 OR  2 and 4. This should be re introduced.

These rules would put an end to any advantage being gained by flooding of the away team starting grids by track officials, as used this season at Eastbourne.

[HenryW 1,178]

1 hour ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Under the old 13-heat format, the line-ups for Heats 12 and 13 were naturally more balanced even if you arranged Nos 1, 3, 5 and 4 in different way, based on how things would need to be for the initial heats - 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

With the 15-heat format, Heats 8 and 14 were designed to be weaker heats for the second strings and reserves, based on the fact that you'll usually want one of your strongest riders at No. 5 as that position is paired with a reserve three times. The 15-heat format is a bit of a kludge really, even though the traditional 13-heat format had its quirks. 

I've always found it strange that, in a league that has team building so tightly dictated by "averages", the race format gives such wildly different standards of opposition to riders based on which number they are racing at.

So many riders left with "unrealistic" (both too high and too low) averages based on them being essentially out of position in a team's line up.

Edited December 7, 2021 by HenryW

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

29 minutes ago, HenryW said:

I've always found it strange that, in a league that has team building so tightly dictated by "averages", the race format gives such wildly different standards of opposition to riders based on which number they are racing at.

It's not really possible to give a well balanced format with 7 rider teams over 15 heats. The 13-heat format was a bit better, although the No.2 position was a bit of quirk.

It can be done with 6 rider teams, but that causes issues with riders having too many rides too close together, especially if rider replacement and/or tactical substitutions are used. It can also be done with 7 rider teams over 18 heats, as with the old test match format, but that makes for too long a match and the format is a bit repetitive and boring.  

[enotian 562]

2 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

It's not really possible to give a well balanced format with 7 rider teams over 15 heats. The 13-heat format was a bit better, although the No.2 position was a bit of quirk.

It can be done with 6 rider teams, but that causes issues with riders having too many rides too close together, especially if rider replacement and/or tactical substitutions are used. It can also be done with 7 rider teams over 18 heats, as with the old test match format, but that makes for too long a match and the format is a bit repetitive and boring.  

The 15 heat format is pretty good in that it provides a min of 4 rides from 4 different programmed gates for each rider.  Not sure if each rider faces every opponent? But you're never going to get the perfect formula in that respect, apart from a 16 heat 4TT. What the 15 heat formula has done is given an advantage to teams with two strong heat leaders over teams with strength in depth.  Those teams have to be more than 8 ahead going into heat 13 to stand a chance of winning with heat 13 and 15 likely to yield an 8 point turnaround. It's all a bit predictable and stage managed

I kind of understand placing the highest averaged rider at number 1 what with the top averaged rider naturally being referred to as the teams No.1 but I don't think it is that difficult a concept to grasp for the general public. I like the idea of different types of team (strength in depth vs strong heat leaders carrying a tail) and I think allowing teams to line up tactically to counter the oppositions strength would only add to the unpredictability. I don't see why a rider can't occupy any of the 7 positions. The lowest two averaged riders will still be the reserves regardless of which position they line up in.

Whilst I like the idea of each rider having a start from each gate I think allowing a team that's trailing by 6 to choose the best gates is also a way of increasing the unpredictability of a match which has to be a good thing.

 

[ch958 2,395]

there was an idiot used to post on here a while back but one good idea he had was to have a 'super six' competition for the top league and let them sign who they want. This is in addition to the regular league.

Telly would love it and I would suggest the big names people seem to crave would be happy to sign up to 5 homes and 5 aways in a separate competition to the EL. Something along the lines of the Indian cricket thing.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by ch958