BWitcher

Totally agree. Spot on Trees, that's why it was introduced.

I bet none of them had an issue with the tactical sub rule in years gone by.

Can you read? Can you count? It seems not from the post above. I have not questioned the fairness of Tac rides, tac subs, per se. It has simply been pointed out to you that you are WRONG in your assertion that the current double pt tac rule is more unfair than the old system. It isn't and that is a MATHEMATICAL FACT. Its not an opinion, its not something to debate. Its stone cold fact. I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees that any form of advantage given to the losing team is not fair on the team that is winning. That's a fair argument WK and one that can be debated.

MORE unfair Moxey.. all such rules as White Knight corretly says can be deemed as being unfair to the winning team. Its the misconception that some have that it is 'more' unfair that is wrong.

Nobody is arguing against more credible.. its when people say it is more unfair, it isn't. Wrong. With a tactical sub you were usually replacing a rider that was going to finish last.. Sometimes you'd do a double tac sub in a heat where you would be replacing two riders likely to get 5-1's. It doesn't matter how you spin it, the old tac sub rule was far more advantageous to the losing team than the current ruling. So many holes in your post, you seem to be desperately trying to link the gaps in the terraces to tactical rules. . We've also coverered the 'entertainment aspect' (which I assume you mean the standard of the racing) on numerous threads and most with any sense.. and indeed the available evidence shows there isn't much difference between the racing now to previous years. Facts are, a close meeting with poor racing will always seem better than a one sided hammering with poor racing. By the same token a close meeting with great racing will also seem a lot better than a one side hammering with great racing.

Bizarre post.. you start by asking how can the TR be 'fair', then make a long post showing it's a lot fairer than the previous system! For what it's worth, I preferred the old system.. as you say Moxey, it was great when your lesser riders beat the tac subs (the same can be said now to an extent though). I can also understand folk thinking its 'silly' that someone can score double points... these are valid points. Complaining the current system is unfair and the old one wasn't simply is NOT valid. Hmm.. Some good points in there, however there is a big correlation between the closeness of the score and the 'perceived' entertainment. A bog standard (racing wise) meeting that goes to a last heat decider will seem a better meeting than a similar one that resulted in a 20pt win. Where do you think the phrase 'Happiness is 40-38' came from?

Was it? More often than not a top rider was brought in against lesser riders.. so Heat 8 for example was turned from a race with very likely 4 fairly evenly matched riders (2nd string and reserves) to a race with a no 1 in it. Thus creating the situation you complain about. For all the talk and bluster from the usual suspects who try to justify their reasoning with it being 'unfair' and 'drives fans' away.. the FACTS remain, the old system was much more unfair AND it was in existence for a long time AND the sport had no problem with attendances for much of that time. Thus, there is no correlation between what folk think is 'fair' and attendances.

It's not a point of view. You are mathematically wrong. End of. Precisely, the old tac sub rule meant extra rides for the losing teams top riders, less riders for their weaker ones, meaning less opportunity for the winning team to build up a lead.

Yawn. The old tactical rule, that teams can nail you as soon as you were 6 up.. and then again.. and sometimes again.. There is no validity in your argument at all, as the 'old' rule was more 'unfair' than it is now.

Add Cricket in too.

They just had another chance to prove themselves. They failed.

Absolute rubbish. If your post had ANY credence, tell me, why when Tai Woffinden is already in the GP's did he:- a: Bother to ride and b: Be so passionate and eager to win the meeting. Likewise Scott Nicholls, absolutely determined to win it for an 8th time, Harris equally keen and eager to win. As for the lesser lights, what difference did it make to them? They weren't going to qualify for the GP anyway. All in all, despite the huff and the bluster from the whingers, the riders were all going for it and the attendance was up.

'Rubblish' says Starman. So you are claiming Cook, Warrell, Garrity etc are better riders at this point than Chris Harris?

The same way as Harris, Nicholls, Woffinden got better. That didn't happen from riding in the GP's, that happened from developing through league racing which Cook is doing. This time next year he may be ready.

As you and I both know SCB.. if the place had been given to Nicholls, the same folk would be moaning just as they did last year when he actually won the British Final.

Because said mediocre rider is still better than the other options. The more you argue against it, the more you argue for it.

Nicholls has had many chances to, so its no argument saying it should have gone to him. BSI make the decision, Harris as a former British GP winner was their pick. That's it, end of. It doesn't matter how many chances you've had if you're still better than the other options. Hopefully by this time next year Craig Cook will have progressed further and be a better rider than Harris on his own merits.

It is that simple. Beat him. The younger brigade had another chance last night to usurp Harris and Nicholls. They failed again. Until they can beat them in pressure meetings they haven't got an argument.

What was there to question? Harris was the 2nd highest scorer. If the younger riders want in the series, beat the older ones. Quite simple.

It never ceases to amuse me just how people change their alleged 'views' to suit their argument at a particular time. This time last year we had folk bitching and whining because Scott Nicholls had won the British Final and thus gained the Cardiff pick. Now many of the same faces are at it again because the pick is no longer decided from the British Final. This time last year and in many previous years we have folk bitching and whining that riders had scored highly in the 5 qualifying races only to lose out to a lower scorer in the one-off final... who was the 2nd highest scorer in the British Final behind Woffinden? Ah yes, Chris Harris. But wait, ignore that, we didn't mean it.. its all about the one off final!! (when it suits us). Thinking about it, many of those faces crying out on this thread for a Cook or a Worrall to have been the wildcard are the same faces who were bitching and moaning that Woffinden was given a place in the GP's this year. The reality is quite simple, Chris Harris IS the best chance of success out of the British riders at the moment. It may be a slim one, but at the current moment he is still above the rest of the pack. Cook, Worrall etc, their time will I am sure come and they will earn it.

Great ride from Emil in the final.... but.. Holder did give it him. As he did in the earlier race they had. All Holder had to do was keep it out wide (which he was doing) and Emil had no way by.. Stupidly Holder rode round the middle of the track in 1 & 2 on lap 4 and left the door wide open for Emil to sail by! Great entertainment in the latter stages of the meeting though.

Eh? I guess Football, Cricket, Rugby, NFL, MLB, NBA etc will never be more than a minority sport as most of their commentators and coverage could be deemed as 'jobs for the boys'.

As I said earlier, I don't even see it being outrage. You don't know Darcy Ward.. you say he hasn't a drink problem. Matt Ford DOES know Darcy Ward, he says he HAS a problem. This is the key here, many youngsters go out get drunk, have a good time as you quite rightly say. However 99.9% of them don't end up in the unsavory drink fuelled incidents Ward has been involved in. This one, I grant you, is fairly tame, but the point is he has put himself into the situation again. It could quite easily have turned into another major incident. You would think he would have learned a lesson, as most would, from his previous. Clearly not. However, it is his life, he can choose to lead it as he sees fit as you quite rightly say SCB.

Yes and kids go around saying such things don't they. Dear me. Just like they tell their parents when they have their first cigarette (if they do) or other 'firsts'. Its not something you 'announce', its just natural. Kids want to be and do what their heroes do.

No it isn't. If a kid wants to look up to someone, they will. Period. If you read what I said, I have said I don't believe Ward should 'have to' act like a role model, its his life. But the reality is, some kids will look up to him. Again as I said.. not many though! Some are asking "Why Darcy".. the reason is because he's been involved in high profile incidents, so he's made his bed so to speak. I don't think he's even been slated that much (maybe by a few), just most folk saying he hasn't learnt his lesson yet.