szkocjasid

Not sure I can agree with all your points. When Stoney qualified for the GPs the top 10 from the meeting qualified (he finished 3rd) so it was easier to get in, plus the field was 24 riders, so the lower end of the GPs wasn't as strong. However I reckon both Stoney & Cook should be applauded for qualifying as Premier League / Championship riders. Also Cook would've qualified again if the qualifiers were as they were in Stoney's era (i.e no wild cards) as Cook finished 4th but was overlooked for those below him. It's tough to judge if the 2nd Division was stronger in Stoney's time or not. For example heat leaders in the 2000s would only be reserves / second strings in the Elite league. Whereas now Premiership heat leaders also race in the Championship. Does this mean the current period is stronger, or that the top division is now weaker? As there is no definitive answer, all I can go by is the stats! Even if people still feel Stoney / Wilson were better division 2 riders than Cook, they must admit there's not a lot in it, saying Cook "isn't fit to lace their boots" is far from the truth!

Gotta disagree with the last sentence, if it was a 5 point reserve like Jakobsen or Kerr then yes, the team has been built to score well at reserve. But you can't just pick a lower averaged reserve & expect him to score well just because he's stronger than the RS! Also Ipswich wouldn't have needed so much from Hume, if they gave him a stronger reserve partner!

Then Louis has to take the blame for Ipswich being weak at reserve! Rather than avoid stronger riders, why not work with them to improve their attitudes - if that's why they weren't signed?

Gotta disagree there, while I don't approve of Cook's recent actions, at his best he had far higher averages than Stonehewer or Wilson did.

I often wonder why team managers very rarely swap the riding order around based on the opposition or track they are racing on. The anti- Richie Worrall crowd are almost suggesting Richie only did well because he's a Leicester track expert. So why didn't Peterborough use that to their advantage by swapping riders around? If Peterborough's riding order is based on having the stronger second string (Basso) at 4, why not swap them around so the stronger second string at Leicester (Worrall) rode at 4? Or they could've put Richie at 2 so he'd get his r/r in heat 13 (or put NKI at 2 & RW at 5, so they'd both still be in heat 13?). I find it a tad dull that 90% of team managers make no changes match to match! Look at Wolves, Nicholls at Monmore Green vs away is a very different rider, but they've just stuck him in Luke Becker's team spot & as far as I can tell put no real thought into it?

Ipswich could have chosen from two 5 point Championship riders (Kemp or Rowe) but chose a 3.5 Champ rider in Joe T. I'm sure they had their reasons, but those reasons CANNOT be making the team as strong as possible! For the record, I don't blame Joe T for the loss, he did what I explain to do, beat anyone of equal or lower standard in the meeting, unfortunately for him, there were none in this meeting.

Well done KK

Well done to Richie Worrall, I'm glad the Panthers promotion didn't listen to some on here who were desperate to see him dropped after ONE match. Will we get an "I was wrong" post lol!

That would make sense, so naturally won't happen lol!

Do you have a link to the rule change, I'm sure I read the exact opposite.

Not sure i agree with Plymouth's riding order (Starke at 3, Barker at 4). With Oxford having weak second strings, Plymouth should have an advantage in that position. I'd fancy both Starke or Barker to win heat 14, but see little chance of Starke beating Nicholls in heat 12!

Totally agree, why would they try & hide something that's legal?

If Hume goes in heat 1 & beats Blodorn, then beats Mulford (or guest) in heat 2, I'd be putting him in heat 8. As much as a team has a plan, there's no reason for the TM to have to stick to it.

I think a lot of the fuss is because Wolves kept the whole thing secret, even after the 12 noon match was cancelled, they still posted a team with Nicholls in for the 8pm match. 1) to me keeping it a secret sound like they have something to hide (i.e breaking rules) 2) why not advertise Harris - might bring more fans through the gate!

If Leicester aren't offering a date, just have a one-off final at Poole. Home advantage cancelling out Leicester's stronger team? Joe T from the cubs can replace Lawson for Leicester!

Personally I find it hard to take the competition seriously, when one team is allowed to strengthen up to Premiership strength. As it is a "Championship" final would it not make sense for Leicester to include a couple of their NL side to compete at Championship strength?

Why no James Wright?

That doesn't sound like "struggling for a guest" all of those riders seem decent choices, even the lowest averaged (Kerr) on his former home track!

There's no reason to change the league date. I'm glad they are racing the cup tie sharpish, stops other teams having to wait ages to play the winners in the next round. If a league match is postponed, clubs will work very hard to find a date before the cut-off. Cup not so much!

Totally agree with you, can't believe anyone would suggest dropping a rider after one match!

Rowe was a better rider pre-season, there must have been another reason Aces chose Mulford over him?

He's bound to be a 5.00 rider (minimum)

1) Zagar is poor away, wouldn't have helped at Wolves, but might have got the win at home to Sheffield. 2) Aces can only drop Bewley or Kurtz to fit him in (unless they make multiple changes) 3) it's a bit early to think about changes imo, they've only ridden one home match!

After two tough meetings against Poole's reserves, this is a chance for the Oxford 2 pointers to show what they can do against other 2 pointers (on an assessed ave can't call Turner a 4 pointer yet)

Could mean a lot of bonus points too, even if they're not great away!