szkocjasid

Very useful racing in the NL as well or the fixture list would look very empty

I'd certainly have used Kemp ahead of Mulford at Belle Vue. While Mulford is promising he's still only a 2.00 Champ rider, compared to Kemp being 5+

The problem is what do you do with these riders the following season? I'll use Edinburgh for an example, in 2015 they signed Clegg & Branford on 3.00 aves (lowest available). They both upped to about 3.50. In 2016 each team had to sign a 3.00 rider, so Edinburgh had to drop one of the two riders who had just improved from 3 to 3.5!

The problem is Kemp has a higher average than the riders you mentioned. If he had a poorer season (as many think he had) he may have got their team spots!

I agree, I don't think Wolves are a bad side. I was replying to your first comment about Zach needing to hit the ground running this year. For me Wolves strength is their solid top 5 & RS

He could well be the weakest number 6 in the league (of signed riders) so don't think Wolves can expect much from him. If Cook can reach his 4.00 assessed ave, he'll have done well for me.

I'd say Jason Doyle, Jack Holder, Ipswich fans, Sheffield fans, Lublin fans, Krosno fans, Aussie fans, I could go on

Not sure I agree with that rule, as most of the Brits who are missing out all have averages above 4.00. I know there has to be a cut off somewhere, but you could get a 4.01 Brit getting dropped for a 3.99 Brit?

I'm previous years the Pairs (& fours) have been held as a one-off event, so unless it was held on a Championship track, 3 legs spreads out the home advantage. I probably would've suggested every track host a round, except clubs in the NL, as they already have more fixtures?

Bowtell at Plymouth 7.33 (8.83) was a heat leader. Bowtell away from home 2.43 (2.57) was a weak reserve. Hopefully for Birmingham's sake he can ride Perry Barr well.

Think you'll be surprised by Complin, I'm expecting him to up his average this year

You probably are lol!

FIVE year plans get dropped after one season, so there's no reason to believe a 2 year plan would be any different

Batchelor is better than Cook at the moment, so would strengthen Peterborough. I'm the future I'm sure Cook will improve but I'm not sure he'd overtake Batchelor in 2023.

Can't see that happening tbh. With rolling averages going back to 20 matches, it would take a while for Andersen's average to drop, I'd also say Cook could average about 4.7/4.8 (below Hans current ave).

Don't understand the anti James Shanes comments by many, anyway I can only see Redcar riders upping their averages, so can't imagine how they would be able to bring in Dan T for Shanes!

Someone obviously read my post about how confusing it looked & decided to fix it. Not sure how a "professional" sport would have proof read it first. I do notice in the Championship section it still mentions dropping the matches down to 10.

As RoundTheBoards says, if he's allowed to represent GB should be a 2.00 Champ or 3.00 NL rider, not sure how he gets a 4.50 average?

Roynon who had a 3.00 Champ average, dropped down to the NL & his average was doubled to 6.00. No idea why the same hasn't happened here?

I assumed allowing commonwealth riders into the NL was to ensure there was enough "quality" to fill 8 teams. But now I worry young Brits on 5+ averages could get left on the sidelines. No issue with Congreave, my issue is with his average.

Surprised to see him on a 4.50 average

There's a few comments about Glasgow looking the strongest and certainly if all goes to plan they look a good team. But I can also look at the team & see some issues: most expect Claus Vissing to perform closer to his previous Glasgow form, but what if his Birmingham form continues? What if Marcin Nowak can only score points at Ashfield? Complin has shown flashes of form, but not been consistent. Pijper is very promising, but the Champ is a far cry from the NL.

Interesting comments, personally I think Plymouth look strong & don't see Redcar having a long tail. Don't see Heeps scoring the points you suggest he may need to.

Just noticed you've already made a very similar point to me, great minds think alike lol!

Not sure it matters as Leicester, Oxford & Workington have all built fantastic teams & wouldn't want to change anything, while Kent have happily built a team 2.4 under the points limit, so not planning to build a title challenging team apparently? P.s that's not an insult to Kent, maybe that she team they can afford to keep the club going?