Meeting Formula/Team Lineup

[old bob at herne bay 828]

Lack of team riding is because the riders aren't good enough to do it.

some still can .........

 

[old bob at herne bay 828]

Lack of team riding is because most of the current riders aren't good enough to do it.

some still can .........

 

 

[KIRKYLANE 537]

On 12/7/2021 at 6:56 PM, E I Addio said:

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 .

Peter Craven liked to ride at 5 and see how the track was riding…as did Peter Collins I think

[E I Addio 15,845]

3 minutes ago, KIRKYLANE said:

Peter Craven liked to ride at 5 and see how the track was riding…as did Peter Collins I think

I don’t know when they introduced the rule that the highest average was number 1. I am pretty sure it was long after Peter Cravens time. According to Malcolm Simmons DVD, if I remember rightly it was written into Terry Betts contract that he would ride No1. If that’s correct it would mean that No1 being dictated by averages came later than Terry Betts heyday.

It would be interesting to know if anyone can pinpoint the date, that the rule was introduced.

 

[enotian 562]

1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

It would be interesting to know if anyone can pinpoint the date, that the rule was introduced.

It's relatively recently isn't it.  Last 20 years or so. Done to appeal to the mass TV audiences. 

[mikebv 10,292]

6 hours ago, enotian said:

It's relatively recently isn't it.  Last 20 years or so. Done to appeal to the mass TV audiences. 

I think you are correct..,

I remember in the 90's Sam Ermolenko riding at 3 for Wolves when their "No1" rider...

Nicki P, Jason Crump and Leigh Adams were others I recall didn't ride as the No1 for their teams..

I would suggest it is circa the last 10 to15 years when an AGM decreed that the top two riders rode at one and five...

 

[RS50 359]

There was a time when your top 2 had to ride at 1 and 5 ( not necessarily the number 1 at one). Was then changed to top 2 riding at 1 and 3. Also recall that during the FTR era, heat leaders had to be 1, 3 and 5.

[E I Addio 15,845]

2 hours ago, RS50 said:

There was a time when your top 2 had to ride at 1 and 5 ( not necessarily the number 1 at one). Was then changed to top 2 riding at 1 and 3. Also recall that during the FTR era, heat leaders had to be 1, 3 and 5.

Yes, certainly in the 2008 season I recall the top two having to ride at 1 and 3 but I think not necessarily best at No 1 as there was one match where Jon Cook switched Andreas Jonsson and Adam Shields as an experiment to see how it worked but need week they were back to their old positions. I think 2009 was the first season the highest average rule only applied to No1.

Thanks for all your comments. I think between us we have more or less covered it.

[Najjer 2,890]

49 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Yes, certainly in the 2008 season I recall the top two having to ride at 1 and 3 but I think not necessarily best at No 1 as there was one match where Jon Cook switched Andreas Jonsson and Adam Shields as an experiment to see how it worked but need week they were back to their old positions. I think 2009 was the first season the highest average rule only applied to No1.

Thanks for all your comments. I think between us we have more or less covered it.

Pretty sure that is correct - in 2008 Somerset bad Jason Doyle and Emil Kramer at 1 and 3. Kramer was the highest averaged rider but didn’t ride at no.1 at all until the following season.

This is what takes me back to my point at the start of allowing managers the option of making different changes to their line up.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Najjer

[steve roberts 9,246]

Personally I think that you should be able to place your top five averaged riders in what order you wish and six and seventh at reserve (based on a seven man team) as it always used to be. Allow the Team Manager flexibilty allowing tactics to play a part.

[E I Addio 15,845]

55 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Personally I think that you should be able to place your top five averaged riders in what order you wish and six and seventh at reserve (based on a seven man team) as it always used to be. Allow the Team Manager flexibilty allowing tactics to play a part.

Well, for the sake of discussion, lets put it another way round . If the team manager could set the team in any order he liked what would do on the present programmed rides ? For my part I don’t see any  point in him putting his best rider at 2 or 4 for an easy win if it leaves a second string in a heat leader role. 1and 5 are likely to be out together 2 or three times anyway so it doesn’t make much difference where they ride. I can just see about see the argument that if 1and 5 both like the same part of the track they could be separated. 

However , from a fans perspective I , personally like to see the No1 race jacket as a coveted position that riders have to work to aspire to, and get paid accordingly.

[steve roberts 9,246]

4 hours ago, E I Addio said:

Well, for the sake of discussion, lets put it another way round . If the team manager could set the team in any order he liked what would do on the present programmed rides ? For my part I don’t see any  point in him putting his best rider at 2 or 4 for an easy win if it leaves a second string in a heat leader role. 1and 5 are likely to be out together 2 or three times anyway so it doesn’t make much difference where they ride. I can just see about see the argument that if 1and 5 both like the same part of the track they could be separated. 

However , from a fans perspective I , personally like to see the No1 race jacket as a coveted position that riders have to work to aspire to, and get paid accordingly.

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the present heat formula and pairings just basing my observation on the old 13/15 heat formula and I'm guessing that things are very different now which is what I guess this particular narrative is about? Under the previous system having a "Star" rider programmed at Number Four gave you a potentially strong pairing in the last heat away from home during the 13 heat formula. Ivan Mauger occasionally rode at Number Two at the County Ground to off-set any potential tactical move by the away team.

Edited December 11, 2021 by steve roberts

[enotian 562]

6 hours ago, E I Addio said:

If the team manager could set the team in any order he liked what would do on the present programmed rides ? For my part I don’t see any  point in him putting his best rider at 2 or 4 for an easy win if it leaves a second string in a heat leader role. 1and 5 are likely to be out together 2 or three times anyway so it doesn’t make much difference where they ride.

It's all relative to how the opposition lines up isn't it. Presuming that the away team gets to see how the home team has lined up. So if the home team line up with a 'traditional order' the comparison provided by Humphrey below is key. If the away team manager thinks his highest averaged rider is unlikely to defeat the home teams #1 (or their #5 as well) then you wouldn't select them in position #1 or #5, putting them up against the home #1 and #5 on 4 occasions, in the first 14 heats.

Presuming that the away highest average rider can beat all the other home riders (2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) then placing him in position 4 would yield 10 from 4.  Compared to 8 from 4 in the number 1 position. Of course that would mean lower averaged riders taking harder rides so their scores may drop by the equivalent or more so nothing is guaranteed. But if you knew that one of your lower averaged riders was going to struggle against any of the opposition you might as well put them up against the tougher opposition.

Of course it does rob the paying public of seeing the top riders from each team locking horns as often as they do with the fixed line ups.  Which is presumably why they're fixed. I'm not too fussed about seeing the opposing best riders up against each other three times during the meeting and would be more interested in the tactical nuances (I still wish every rider could take one TAC sub per meeting whenever a team is 6 down). However, there'll be others who want to see those top riders clashing more often.

On 12/8/2021 at 1:57 PM, Humphrey Appleby said:

Sort of...

1 meets 1 twice, 2, 3, 4, 5 twice and 6 (missing 7) 

2 meets 1, 2 twice, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3 home meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 5, 6 twice (missing 7) / 3 away meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 5, 6, 7

4 meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6, 7 / 4 away meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6 twice (missing 7)

5 meets 1 twice, 2 3, 4, 5 twice, 6, 7

6 home meets 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 6, 7 twice (missing 5) / 6 away meets 1, 2, 3 twice, 4, 6, 7 twice (missing 5)

7 home meets 2, 3, 5, 6 twice, 7 three times (missing 1 & 4) / 7 away meets 2, 4, 5, 6 twice, 7 three times (missing 1 & 3)

 

 

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

7 hours ago, steve roberts said:

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the present heat formula and pairings just basing my observation on the old 13/15 heat formula and I'm guessing that things are very different now which is what I guess this particular narrative is about? Under the previous system having a "Star" rider programmed at Number Four gave you a potentially strong pairing in the last heat away from home during the 13 heat formula. Ivan Mauger occasionally rode at Number Two at the County Ground to off-set any potential tactical move by the away team.

Under the 'old' 13-heat format, the order of 1, 3, 4, 5 probably didn't really matter so much provided a strong rider was paired with a weaker one in each heat. 

With the 'new' 15-heat format, putting your No.1 at 2 or 4 would unbalance what are intended to be heats for weaker riders, and then mean that Heat 13 wouldn't feature the strongest riders as intended. 

The issue of needing your best riders in the last heat doesn't really apply to the 15-heat format as the last 3 programmed heats are essentially the same riding positions pitted against each other, followed by the nominated which you can put your two preferred riders in anyway.

[enotian 562]

7 hours ago, E I Addio said:

However , from a fans perspective I , personally like to see the No1 race jacket as a coveted position that riders have to work to aspire to, and get paid accordingly.

In a world where merchandise can be a profitable income stream is it not only a matter of time that the riders insist on wearing their own 'unique' rider number? "And riding at number 1 it's number 505 Robert Lambert!!!".

No different to when squad numbers were introduced in football and it doesn't seem to matter in SGP.