BWitcher

Based upon those I actually saw race for Wolves 1: Ronnie Correy 2: Mikael Max 3: Tai Woffinden 4: Peter Karlsson 5: Sam Ermolenko 6: Freddie Lindgren 7: Lars Munkedal My first ever favorite rider was Dennis Sigalos but he didn't race for Wolves long enough to get in this.

Also worked with numerous top riders over the years in their individual careers of course.

RIP John. Very sad news.

Lee wasn't injured. He hadn't got what it took. There's more to success than just ability. There are no excuses, he hadn't got the package to be the best over a consistent period of time.

It's a false argument though really. Once one incident/moment is changed, everything thereafter changes so there is no guarantee that he would have won the subsequent titles, likewise he may have won more. It's the same in football when a team wins 2-0 and people say it should have been more, for example if a penalty was given early on.. if that penalty was given, the rest of the game as you saw it doesn't happen. Different events unfold. Not having a pop at you, we all do it!

Ah Bless. You realise he flew out the gate in that race before losing concentration as his dream was already secured. It was actually his third bike on the night, also one of the engines that carried him to an 11+ average that season. Seems someone is harboring a grudge

The system was exciting but had flaws. Most systems are usually fair as it's the same for everyone, but that one certainly wasn't with someone like Rickardsson being able to take four gate 1's (or whatever was advantageous).

Like someone scoring 9-10 every qualifying round then 14/15 in the World Final and being World Champ. Another rider could have scored more in every other round. Who was the best rider that year? Another tick in favor of the current system.

And Tai has done that more often. Thanks for clarifying.

Spot on. He'd beaten Hancock and Hamill in his first two races I think? Morten Andersen was the rider in question.

You're correct. The GP fields are a lot tougher.

I agree with much of what you're saying, but not sure it applies quite as much in Sam's case (although perhaps a little). He still came 3rd in the world again, won BLRC's etc, averaged 10+. He just wasn't quite the same, primarily I think because his riding style changed after the 93 smash. Also quite a bit older too, harder to recover the older you get.

Agreed regarding Mildenhall. Wolves were already missing their two 'best' riders when they took that victory at Blunsdon. Nothing changed between that match and the 2nd leg. Were they unfortunate to have those two injuries? Yes they were. However, that is balanced out by them being extremely fortunate to even have made the final as most agreed at the time that Lindgren should have been excluded in his collision with Bjerre in the semi. That is why, in my opinion, that particular example doesn't come close to being in the frame.

No I haven't, the fact that you and Lucifer Sam have to fabricate things speaks volumes. I've simply dismissed your ridiculous pick. Wolves 2017 were extremely lucky to have even been in the final. They don't belong in this discussion.

Wrong again. The claim was that winning races has nothing to do with judging how GOOD a rider is. I correctly stated that is ridiculous. It was never about most memorable, nor most entertaining. They are completely different conversations as was explained to you, but rather than act like an adult and accept you got the wrong end of the stick you try to drag it on. Now as you say, most memorable riders and races IS completely different... One that stands out is a run off between Ryan Sullivan and Mikael Karlsson (Max) at Peterborough. Passing and repassing and very hard riding Another from the other end of the Spectrum was Hynek Stichauer winning his first race for Wolves, again at Peterborough, producing a great passing move and then hanging on to the end. I remember going crazy in the main stand much to the chagrin of the Boro fans. There are of course many, many races that could list, even more if you include those seen on TV. For sheer atmosphere alone (by modern standards), as well as a stunning finish, Chris Harris winning the British GP with his last bend pass on Hancock has to be up there.

It's a shame you can't post objectively regarding my posts. First of all you falsely accused me of having sour grapes., a claim easily dismissed. Now you're accusing me of being unable to accept 'alternate answers'. Again a claim easily dismissed. I've not questioned almost all of the alternate ones.. the only one I have questioned is the ridiculous one put forward of Wolves 2017. You will also note that Moxey has been very clear in not accepting it either. Oxford 1965 does indeed sound a very valid argument, as does Cradley 82.

Don't need to. If you cannot understand English, that is your problem. "MOST unfortunate team." The word ever isn't needed. The thread isn't asking for 'unfortunate teams'.. its asking for the MOST unfortunate team. So toddle on and start your own thread about teams who highly fortunate to reach a play off final and then had an injury.

Given as the 'bad luck' was after the regular standings ended. Play-offs is a completely different animal to the league based seasons. A team pretty much unaffected by injury but didn't top the regular standings and losing in the play offs isn't close to 'most unlucky team ever'. Had said team finished top by some distance and then injuries struck.. different story. Were they unlucky? Yes. Most unlucky ever.. not even close. As already stated, they were lucky to even be in the final.

So your opinion is a team that didn't even finish top of the regular standings is the most unlucky team ever? As nonsense goes.. that is up there.

Doesn't come remotely close to 1993. Not even in the same conversation. Indeed you could say Wolves were lucky to even be in the final, the Lindgren/Bjerre incident at Belle Vue could have gone either way exclusion wise. Wolves didn't finish top of the league either. The circumstances of 1993 will never be repeated.

Answer the question. We're not talking about 'favorite' riders. In your opinion was Tony Rickardsson better than Malcolm Holloway? If so, why?

You're still talking absolute nonsense. You haven't 'proved' anything about Rickardsson in the slightest. The only statement you have made is he isn't in your top three of all time! Now, you loved Malcolm Holloway, do you rate him as a better rider than Rickardsson?

Yes, very good point.

His away record was more difficult for sure.. but being World Champion is the Holy Grail. I know which one he'd lose if he had too!

I understand exactly what you are saying, but you are a: having to make something up that couldn't have happened and b: distorting the parameters. The names are irrelevant in reality, they were just given as examples to try and make it simple for Sidney. The way to look at it is simply the averages of the position. The averages of the 2nd and 3rd heat leaders across the league would shoot up in a 16 team format compared to an 8 team format. I agree, actual individuals, in extreme circumstances that you describe could be different. Anyway, all of this is simply getting away from the sheer nonsense claim that Sidney's judgement of riders is not effected by how many races he sees them win. Surely you can see the lunacy in that statement!