Leaderboard

You certainly sound bitter. The meeting that cost Glasgow top spot was a 37-53 home defeat to Scunthorpe. Paul Starke couldn't have saved Tigers from defeat that night, even if he had scored double figures. Both Leicester and Glasgow suffered injuries - Glasgow to Starke and Leicester to Worrall. In the end, Glasgow put in a great effort, but Leicester were deserving winners, as they were not only the best team across the season, but also won the play-off final.

AVERAGES are just numbers on a piece of paper. This isn't a computer game. Riders are human beings, averages go up and down. And if a team like Peterborough are 10 points adrift of the limit trying to sign one rider to fit that void isn't sensible, practical or even necessary. Their team building options increase not decrease and can enable them to work within a budget. At the very least the notion of being able to keep a team from one season to another should be elementary.

Just remind me again how many Glasgow matches did Jim appoint HIMSELF to over the season ??? I am informed it was nearing to half Glasgow’s league fixtures over the season home or away #friendsinhighplaces All the Glasgow fans that came to Leicester on Saturday & the ones that i met on Tuesday were very gracious in admitting the best team won but you my friend look like a lemon bitter. Next you will be telling me Cami Brown deserves the freedom of Glasgow for managing the team that nearly won the league again

Unpopular opinion. Leicester won the league. Well done them. But they cherry picked guests for each track most of season..... should they have been made to replace richie worrall????

nagy1 It has to be remembered that Sarj agreed to sign for Leicester in 2019 he was sent the contract, local sponsorship was renewed, the club chased him for two weeks to get the signed contract back and kept saying that he had forgotten and would do it. Then 3 weeks later Leicester found that Glasgow had come in and offered a deal that was too good to turn down and were offering him near heat leader money. So quite obviously the Leicester promotion were annoyed hence the stance of you want Sarj you have to buy him. It all ended well for Leicester they got a transfer fee and moved for Ellis Perks instead who has been brilliant all year and did a lot more than James would have done I feel.

But the current situation is set up to punish those teams that do well and riders that improve. Where is the sense in that? I have always been perplexed by this average thing - I get the premise, but it is flawed in practice. A level playing ground at the start of the year - lovely in a disney book, but in professional sport? Rediculous. Rugby, Football, Cricket - do any of those teams have to drop their star player at the end of the year because he has scored too many points for them and helped them win the league? No chance - that guy is now their star asset. Speedway? Nah that guy now gets kicked to touch... The deeper you look, the more of an issue it becomes. Why should riders have any loyalty to these clubs when they know that doing well could cost them a job next year? Do too well and no team will sign you... So when a rider knows that doing too well could cost him his team spot next year, why should be care about the team - they clearly dont have any loyalty to him. All the "new fans" that come into the sport, develop an affinity to their team and get a favourite rider, buy the tshirt / cap and a few photos - turn up next year to see that he has been dropped because he DID WELL and now he is riding for another team? Then the same again next year? "Why has my teams best rider been dropped?"... This system of punishing teams and riders for doing well creates a situation where there is no continuity from one year to the next and is rediculous for a professional sport - especially one that is loosing support rapidly. Raising the points limit to that of the highest team allows all teams to keep their current 1-7 if the supporters (paying customers) develop affinity towards them and allows all clubs to offer longer contracts to riders which then helps develop loyalty and respect between all 3 parties (riders, clubs, customers). There is no obligation to keep your 1-7, but it gives teams the opportunity to do so. Capping the limit at the highest team of last year also means that 1 club cannot buy up all the top riders and clearly dominate. Clearly speedway does not have the money to become a football situation where money makes a team, but some level of continuity must exist to retain customers interest. I personally have no idea what I support anymore, I go to my local track because I like speedway - I have lost all interest in the team itself because it changes all the damn time, I dont care to worry who is riding because its fundamentally irellivant.

The limit should be 45.00 points every year. That way you're not diluting the product and everyone has an equal and fair chance of competing.

And there lies the problem as to why folk love seeing Glasgow get done over , poaching clubs riders after they had agreed to sign , same as Workington with Rasmus last season , scopping crazy money at riders.....won them naff all over the last few seasons, still sat scratching their heads with an empty trophy cabinet, lets hope they sod off to the Premiership and do everyone a favour !! got to love that word Karma

I just happy to share this forum with a legend of the media world . What I like about you most is that you never go on about what you done in the past . Stay by the phone as I reckon Eurosport will be giving you a ring asap .

NO we are NOT all the same as the 'Poole mouth'

If there is any truth in this, then it clearly shows the unprofessionalism of CVS. The individual clubs should make the announcements when they feel it's appropriate. If he has leaked confidential information it shows a complete disregard to his fellow promoters.

IF'S, BUT's & MAYBE'S. It is a dangerous, high octane sport that has it's spills & thrills. Staying on the bike, engine failures are part of the sport. How many other teams can go back & count points dropped? Leicester used the guest option to have a 7 man team. Glasgow replaced Starke to have a 7 man team.

I had a horrible feeling somebody would say that.

I like the principle but the practicalities as others have pointed out are something different in terms of finding the additional star riders at an affordable cost I would say that it is fine to retain the same 7 but only so long as it is the same 7 that started the season So often teams are changed to take advantage of the cut off date average changes meaning teams are actually effectively over the limit which skews the figures

There is a half page obituary in the Daily Telegraph today of Split Waterman, who has died aged 96. His is a name I remember from my early days at Poole in the very late 40s and early 50s. I can remember him riding (in my memory, which might be faulty)with and against such names as Ken Middleditch, Jimmy Squibb and Cyril Quick. I always thought Split was Australian, but he turns out to have been born in the UK and after his speedway career had a varied career which included spells in jail in this country and in Europe. He was also mixed in with the Krays, apparently. I can't remember much about his riding, except that he was pretty quick and one of the left-foot trailers. I thought he'd popped off a long time ago. So RIP Split.

Of course. I stand corrected

Simple Maths After 14 heats 42 points from 28 rides combined team average 1.5 x 4 x 7 = 42 The four riders in heat 15 will be top scorers so typically scoring 8 from 4. In heat 15 their are only six points available but they would need to score 8 between them to maintain their averages. So the top two in each team would see their averages fall from 8.00 to 7.60, leaving a combined CMA of 41.20 for each team and a 45 all draw.

Because averages are based on 4 rides per rider. Even if Jason Doyle scored a 15 point max in every match he would average 12, not 15, because it’s worked out 15 divided by 5 rides multiplied by 4.

That is what happened a couple of times when eurosport was busy

Quite simple really: the dramatic uplift in his points average meant that almost as soon as the season started he went into the main body of the team, riding mainly at no. 2. In this position he was clearly out of his depth, picking up far too many fourth places and wrecking his confidence. Had the lad stayed at reserve I would predict he would have come much closer to maintaining his ridiculously overblown 4+ average. A classic case of a talented young rider being the victim of his own success. Nevertheless the promotion stuck with him and I don't think they can be accused of not giving the youngster a fair crack of the whip. Only when the position became dire and the team were struggling for a couple of match wins at the end of the season in the vain hope of reaching the top four did they dispense with his services. Even then I'm led to believe the parting was on the very best of terms.

You missed this thread then

More looking at events through red eyes through all the bleating & crying.

I half agree with you on the Scunny meeting. The more pivotal was getting beat at Leicester. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. (SJ fell at the last turn) I am ruing the injury to Starke. The difference is you can cherry pick guests for a rider 3rd in your averages. We had to replace Paul or go R/R. Most people prefer to see 7 man teams. Them are the rules and the breaks. Leicester were more fortunate than us. That again is not bitter it is fact

Do you know what Mr McGregor's nickname is? I am certainly not bitter. I have thoroughly enjoyed this season. My opinion is that if Glasgow had our full team we would of topped the league and won the playoffs. I do however appreciate that if,buts and maybes are part of sport, but If any Leicester fan seriously thinks they would of beaten Glasgow over two legs if Paul was fit they are delusional.

Exactly. that is caused by having a low limit. The teams that are able to make their changes at the right time and use the averages to their advantages can rise to the top, whilst, at the same time, other sides can find themselves restricted by the same averages. Once Jensen came in for Swindon and put 3 points on his starting average and rise to the fourth best rider in the league, the other sides were helpless because they couldn't bring in someone to match that as the averages topped them. Ipswich, for example, brought Iversen in, but had to bring Sergeant in at the bottom to allow it.

I think it's more important to sign the right riders, rather than whatever their average might be. If you sign seven riders who are on the up and they average 45, they'll beat seven riders who are on the way down or static and who can't be gelled with enthusiasm and unity but also average 45. The former generally costs more to assemble though.

Interesting point. Kepping the same riders for continuity and loyalty relies on the clubs wanting to do so. If a team could continually sign 7 new riders up to their previous years average and continue to improve exponentially - you could end up with a 1-7 of GP only riders in theory.

Is this perhaps not the main point? Swindon's team that finished the 2019 season was built within a 42.5 point limit, so why could they not be allowed continuity, even if the points limit remains at 42.5?

I believe there was a longer one once that read: "Why do some people always feel the need to go onto threads on this forum and, for some reason, post stuff that is totally irrelevant in order to side-track what would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable discussion in the scheme of things", although I think it got deleted by the mods.

Bloody hell , I didn't know you knew me that well

This assumes that these riders would be willing to ride in British speedway for the money available. To bring the other teams up to a strength near Swindon you have to find seven riders (two for P'boro and one each for the other five teams) at the Iversen/ Zagar level. And if you can't persuade all these riders to come over here then the league will be unbalanced and you will have teams wanting to drop down as a better alternative to being league whipping boys. It is a struggle to find seven teams that want to compete at the current points levels. With higher limits there would be even fewer. PS If Ipswich had won the league would next season's limit be 41.43?

The speedway star have been tweeting about this issue. They've made one very good point....If you up the limit you will then have more options available to you...the tweet says this ''The higher the points limit the more expanded the rider market becomes. Would you rather be one promoter with a choice of 10 riders or one of 10 promoters with a choice of one rider.''

FINALLY! An obituary for Split Waterman has been posted on The Telegraph website; it has been posted within the last few hours. You can find it at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/ Steve

Michael Collins ? Leader of the IRA. Not sure he ever rode a speedway bike

Add bonus points back in and he's nearly 10 so it proves he's still a ten pointer but far less selfish than he's ever been before

Top 5riders of the season, that would be: 1. Doyle (obviously) 2. Ellis (great season for him and more to come) 3. Rasser (obviously) 4. Musielak (great performer) 5. Batch (best season for several years) Its clear to see why Swindon won the league!

Well, it wouldn’t be an exception if it were the new rule! That’s the point of the thread. If Terry Russell can point to three or four eight pointers who want to come over from the continent at a reasonable price he might have a case. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be fair.

Hello Norbold, I think I've mentioned before that you beat me by a few months as my first meeting was in September 1960 when New Cross took on their South London neighbours, Wimbledon. I do remember it was raining quite heavily and records show that the meeting was abandoned but only after most of the heats had been completed. Not sure who was riding in that first heat but my guess would be Waterman, Gooch (Luckhurst?), Moore and Brine.

If a team can’t run a fixture because the other promotion refuse multiple dates then maybe the fine should be split 50/50.

Think most things in principle are decided long before AGM ,it’s mainly a rubber stamp job and deciding helmet colours for coming season.

There are no riders called Paul on the list

The Swindon team that finished 2019 wasnt built to the 42.50 limit It involved mid season changes bringing in perceived better riders at the right time to replace under performing riders before their averages dropped whilst the others were increasing their averages If EVERY declaration meant having to return to the 42.50 limit regardless of whether it was a single, double or more change switch then you point would ring true

I agree - I was just bringing up the debate because so many think gradings would be better IMO they would be much worse in terms of the aim for equalization

The final averages of the 7 Premiership teams is approx 42.5. Also the average of the top and bottom clubs is around 42points+. If the average of the top team is taken ie 46+ then its not simply a question of rider availability for the other 6 (or 7) teams building to that level. Its also about cost!! All clubs operate to their own individual and varied budget based on their very different fixed and variable costs as well as income. Comparisons with other sports are frankly ridiculous as there are many players of a similar standard around and plentiful monies around to be able to afford them. In order for the successful teams to not be penalised too much then maybe the points limit should be increased by 2.5% with the same 2.5% discount being for ALL British riders?

Are you alluding to the way Glasgow didn't allow Leicester to loan Victor? Glasgow would of been happy for your to buy him. If your promotion had played ball with Sarj at the start of the season there wouldn't of been a problem.

Weakening the product year on year just hasn’t worked, but at the same time every team has to be as competitive as possible for the league to work, particularly if it is a small one (ie less than ten teams).

I've never been bothered about calibre or ego. I just work when people ask me to and try to do my best for the sport I love. I wasn't that good or I'd still be doing it but for a while my whole life centred on helping speedway rather than myself. More fool me for trying since all you get is crap from time wasters like you and Orion. I put my love for the sport way above ego or money. You should try it instead of just being an online bore.

I agree,but surely the track would have to improve a lot for that to happen.

What I really don't get is that so many speedway are interested in just one thing - credibility. More than that, they try to use every possible situation and anomaly - however meaningless and insignificant - to shout to the just how flawed it is. When it isn't... Every sport and/or sporting event will throw up sone sort of anomaly. Nothing is perfect, but the thing these armchair critics forget (or more likely refuse to believe) is that the old world final system was far more flawed and less credible than the GP system we currently have. Guess what? Speedway is unique. Accept it and move on. Uniqueness and peculiarities litter every other sport too. How many football fans were complaining about Liverpool being the best in Europe last year - when they weren't even the best in England? Probably only those on the BSF... In a tennis match recently, one player lost despite having won several more games than his opponent. How appalling... In darts, a player can be crushed by an opponent without winning a leg, yet finish with a much higher average. Talk about a flawed system... In cricket, how disgusting that a team could be losing by a mountain of runs, yet they can still just play out for a draw. Talk about a lack of credibility...

does that mean we get sam ermolenko as well. I new there had to be a downside