szkocjasid

I'm not so sure Klindt would be a good signing, feel sure he'd drop his average, plus doesn't leave a lot for a second reserve, Adam Roynon? I'd suggest MPT & a 6.00 rider would be the better option. Means Cluff starting at reserve (with Fredriksen).

Anyone notice that the Scunthorpe fb page has all the news about the signings for the combined NDL team, but there's nothing on the Sheffield fb page?

In my plan of standalone clubs being in both NL & NT, this would be known at the AGM. Riders would have the choice of 20 matches riding for Kent in both competitions or 10 for a NL club & 10 for a NT club, Eli Meadows at Leicester & Birmingham for example? If Kent finish with Warren & Naylor for example, they'd have 6 riders not racing in the NL (currently), they'd just have to find an alternative to Etherington, who has another league club. Kinda veering away from a Plymouth NT conversation now unfortunately.

I think Bowes has an important part to play for Workington. If he can just keep his assessed average, not easy for a first season in GB, then that keeps Hook & Foord at reserve for longer. As that could be the strongest (if not one of the strongest) reserve pairing in the league. Gives Workington real strength at the bottom end.

There's no incentive for them to race in the development leagues only, as there's so few fixtures, seems a lot of work to run a stadium for only 4 or 5 home fixtures. I'd suggest the correct league is the one in which the promoters can make the most / lose the least money in.

Unfortunately when it comes to the last part, these young riders may choose to go elsewhere (Zach Cook, Dan Thompson).

I'd have to disagree with the first part, if the fans know the team, then it's their choice to attend or not, they ain't getting ripped off, as if they don't think it's value for money can simply choose not to go.

As much criticism as Plymouth get for not replacing missing heat leaders (Kennett & Covatti) how many other Championship clubs have been able to replace injured heat leaders in recent years? While there haven't been a great many long term injuries, clubs have struggled to even sign riders willing to ride on a temporary basis: Berwick (Schlein), Birmingham (Auty), Edinburgh (Pickering), Redcar (Riss / King) & Workington (Zischke) have all ran with guests & r/r in the last few of years rather than finding a temporary or permanent replacement. Berwick couldn't even find a replacement for a reserve, happy to run with guests for Borke. Only heat leader I can remember being replaced is Steve Worrall & that was by someone with a second string average. So while it's certainly not ideal Plymouth running two out of the last three seasons missing a number one, before people keep criticising them, think to yourself - would other clubs have done any different?

Probably because they wanted to get stronger in heats 2,8,12,&14? As much as I want Cook as part of a strong top 4, I would not have let go of Zischke or Vuolas, so could've ended up with a team like: Troy Batchelor 8.46 Craig Cook 8.42 Tate Zischke 6.96 Annti Vuolas 6.40 Vinnie Foord 3.90 Jack Smith 3.64 Sam McGurk 2.00 Total 39.78 So would Cook / Smith / McGurk score more than Bowes / Etheridge / Hook? I definitely wouldn't want a team with Foord starting in the top 5, I would not drop Zischke or Vuolas under any circumstances, so to create the strongest Workington team, it means either Cook or Batchelor had to go!

I'm just going by what I read on Twitter, which said they had 6.18 available. But as he has a NL average from 2023, assumed they'll use that?

Adam Roynon 8.84 Luke Harrison 7.66 Remaining 6.18 Luke Muff 4.83 Mickie Simpson 4.49 Jamie Etherington 3.00 Harrison Rogers 3.00 Total 38.00 Options for the last spot? Luke Crang, Sam McGurk, Alex Spooner, Elliott Kelly or maybe bring back Kean Dicken?

I guess I don't see the need for an average reduction whatsoever, if he can't reach his old 6.59 average in a far weaker league, why bring him back? Apart from attempting to win the trophy that is. If he's a potential future Championship rider, good for Birmingham & Oxford giving him a team berth, just don't understand the reason for giving him a new average.

I do have to wonder why the need to change his average? Normally you want riders average to be realistic to be fair to all teams, but as it's a development league, does it matter? Let's say Birmingham feels his average was too high & makes it harder for them to win, so what? Obviously you should try & win the league / trophy but should clubs have riders averages reassessed on order to do this?

I think Max is the best 2.00 rider signed so far (who will start the season). There is certainly potential to have a decent season for this team.

If they did that the fans would be having the exact same conversation about Batchelor. Saying "they could've still had a stronger reserve pairing with Batchelor. They could have had the exact same team with Batchelor" Once they decided to drop a top man to have strong reserves, it was Cook or Batchelor. I'm sure fans will have their own preferences about who should have been kept. I can understand arguments either way, but I don't think there's a big enough difference between the riders to categorically state they've got it right or wrong.

Yeah, I have to agree that was a painful read.

I actually think they've got this one almost spot on. Most of the NDL/NDT clubs only want 5 home fixtures, but most of the development riders want more than 10 meetings. So doubling up in a separate league & trophy is the only way to allow both to happen. The only thing I would have done differently would be to allow stand alone clubs (Kent) to race in both.

Blame the rule makers rather than Plymouth or Joe imo. I'm not sure why they made a "if you rode this year, you can ride next year rule"?

There's a few ways to look at it, now I'd agree Joe T should be too good for the NDT, but as he has so few Championship fixtures, can understand wanting to get extra rides. Also Plymouth are probably keen for him to ride, they could end up losing 60-30 every home match if they replaced him with a NDL second string. If that happens, crowds drop & they lose lots of money, they likely won't enter the competition next year, then the other 6 riders in the team won't get the same opportunities next season. Is it such a big deal that Joe rides for Plymouth, when they are giving SIX other "genuine" NDL riders matches? Compare that to the likes of Ipswich, Berwick, Glasgow & Poole who haven't entered a development league. I'd also disagree that the development leagues should be for "NDL second strings, reserves and newbies" the weaker you make the development leagues the harder it is for them to make the step up to the Championship.

I thought Andrew Bain explained the Cook situation well, commenting that they wanted a stronger reserve pairing, certainly after last year can't disagree with that policy. Doesn't change the Cook vs Batchelor debate, come October we can judge if they got it right.

Interestingly Kai Ward is the lowest averaged rider in the Middlesbrough side, but 4th highest for Plymouth.

I would expect one wildcard to race in both meetings. That's what happened with the double headers in the 2020 season. Has the British final date been announced? I'd assume they'd want it before the Belle Vue GP to decide the wildcard?

Nearly every promoter says it's the "numbers game" to give them an excuse when dropping a rider / deflect from any criticism the move has made. Poole did the same when dropping Foord, he would've fitted instead of Starke.

My first instinct is it looks a pretty poor team aside from the top 2, but as it's a development league - that's no reason not to support the team. With quite a few new 3.00 riders, the league & trophy should be interesting.

Honestly, if Edinburgh could get Wolbert in a 5.00, would be fighting for the title. If he doesn't want to race here regularly, could Monarchs convince him to race 6 meetings (till he gets a new average) the replace him on his new (presumably) higher average?