4thbender

Agree with this entirely. Lasse is no start-tart and tends to do things the hard way. This gives him loads of opportunities to demonstrate his dives around the air fence which by anyone's standards are a wonder to behold. No-one goes to the bar when Lasse's on track and we should keep him at all costs.

Can't help but think this is a knee-jerk reaction, and one which will bite them in the bum tomorrow night. Frankly I'd never even heard of Broc Nicol and from what I've read I can't imagine for one minute that he'll be scoring points at this level any time soon, let alone be an adequate replacement for the Bates boy. Really sorry for Jack, especially as he was just starting to get his act together. Whilst I'm glad to see Georgie back, I have to ask the question as to why they think he can do a job for us now when they didn't think so at the start of the season. The changes don't seem to follow any sensible policy.... unless the management have written off any hope of winning anything in 2018 and are experimenting for the future.

Yeah. Everyone suggests I ought to let it go but no-one seems able to actually give a logical response to my assertion that Sheffield have the better results and should be in the semis. Anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics can see that basing decisions on average league-points when the teams have differing numbers of fixtures is always going to give an unfair advantage to the team with fewer fixtures. Personally I would never be happy with my team qualifying for a semi-final if their performance didn't merit them being there. There's no joy in winning on a technicality. Just ask the guy who climbed two-thirds of the way up Everest but claimed that since he'd done it in half the time, his achievement was better than Edmund Hillary.

Charles Wright and Jonas Jeppesen released by Somerset today.

And had they done so I would have applauded their achievements and wished them well in the semis.... but of course they didn't. Which leaves the present conundrum of a team having been undeservedly awarded a place in the semis whilst the team with a better overall performance is excluded on a mathematical technicality.

Our promoter hasn't said anything... yet. I would also point out that as well as Sheffield having had one more chance for an away point, Peterborough have had one fewer chance of dropping a home point.

Consider this: Regardless of the teams involved or the competition, if two unequal groups are vying for the spoils, the one with the least involvement is always going to have an unfair advantage. This is due to the fact that whatever the results - good or bad - to work out performance averages the scores of the team with fewer results will be divisible by 4, whereas the scores of the team with the greater number of results will be divisible by 6. Hence the skewed 2.25 v 2.167. Take it from me - a maths genious! The ONLY fair way of making comparisons is to look at actual points difference which cannot be skewed regardless of how many matches each team has taken part in. In this case, one team has a points difference of +39 and the other +10. Which team deserves to qualify?

Already have.

Where?

This is precisely the point that proves my argument: the team taking part in fewer matches is always going to have an unfair mathematical advantage. Teams should be judged on the results of matches that HAVE taken place and NOT the averages skewed by the number of matches that HAVEN'T taken place!

Whichever way you cut it, Sheffield have the better results performance overall: Sheffield have 13 points compared to Peterborough's 9 Sheffield have +4 "away points won minus home points lost" compared to Peterborough's +3 Sheffield have +39 points difference compared to Peterborough's +10 How could anyone with any sense suggest that Peterborough's is the better performance?

Who says it's the one that matters? Have you just made that rule up?

When I went to school +4 would always trump +3, and +39 would always trump +10. Unless my maths teacher was a complete dumbo I don't believe my maths to be that bad actually!

Where is the rule which says that the second-placed team with an inferior record of performance will qualify? I haven't noticed any such rule, but if I had I would have mentioned it earlier.

Peterborough's qualification to the Championship Shield Semi-Finals on the basis of them being the "best second place" team is completely unfair. Their claim is based solely on their being part of a smaller group, which gives them a mathematical advantage: 9 points from 4 matches gives them an average points-per-match of 2.25. Sheffield, on the other hand, have 13 points from 6 matches, giving them a points per match average of 2.167, but this lower rating is simply because they have been part of a larger group and have ridden more matches. The second-placed team in the Southern Group - regardless of who it was - was always going to have a mathematical advantage over the second-placed teams in the Northern or Borders Groups. Peterborough have a 100% home record, plus a 3-point away victory, giving them a points difference of +10. Sheffield also have a 100% home record, plus a 4-point away win and a points difference of +39. This must surely mean that Sheffield have the better record in the competition. To give the semi-final to Peterborough, based solely on their intrinsic mathematical advantage, is a travesty. Sheffield have the better record and should qualify. The ruling is shambolic.

Hmmm, not sure. If 'Boro win you'll have a 100% home record plus a 3-point away win. Sheffield have a 100% home record plus a 4-point away win. Surely 4 points trumps 3 points????

Looks like Sheffield have tied with Glasgow as the best second place team in the Championship Shield (both on 13 points) but Sheffield have the better points difference of +39 compared to Glasgow's +6 over the six matches. Does this mean we go through to the semis? If so, that might fill up one of the blank Thursday nights in July!

I haven't seen the report in the Star yet, but there was always a possibility that the back injury was more serious than anyone anticipated. I hope the injury doesn't bring a premature end to a promising speedway career. JB was always a mercurial talent, so let's hope he bounces back next year and takes up where he left off.

Made that mistake once already. Never again.

…..I'll take that as a "no" then!

He's been off the bike so long that even if he comes back it's anyone's guess what sort of form he will be in. I think the best strategy is to make an alternative signing for the rest of the season or until such time as JB has proved his fitness. Can anyone suggest any available contenders?

Good signings - always liked Berge when he was at Owlerton and couldn't understand why we didn't make an effort to retain his services. Nathan is a much-improved rider since he was with us. Hope these two bring a change of fortunes at Teeside.

Drillerman gave heavy hints in last night's programme that team changes were imminent.

The way things are shaping up, our season will be over on 23 August (and STILL four blank Thursdays between now and then). I feel that the season has only just got underway, but actually (based on the number of fixtures) we're past the halfway point. This arrangement is a shambles and I hope the promoters are listening.

Hate to be critical of the Sheffield promotion, but the middle-order issue should have been addressed in January when JB injured his spine and there were still replacement riders available. Here we are with a third of the season gone and a black hole in the engine room of the team. Waiting on a recovery of a crocked JB has cost us a run at a title defence. Big mistake.