szkocjasid

2 years ago, he was falling down the rankings, but last year was challenging for the title till he got injured. So can understand him thinking "what can I do with an injury free season" of course we'll never know now. If he can get fully fit & have a good last couple of rounds, may feel he's good enough to challenge for the podium / title again next year.

Mickie Simpson signed to replace Matt Marson (on official green sheets). But I haven't read anything about than on Plymouth's socials?

I agree Workington are poor, I agree Workington should look to strengthen up. But that doesn't mean sign a rider who's been going worse than your current 7.

The SCB usually announce any bans, so I wouldn't believe it unless they've posted about it.

I'm not saying he's a good replacement for MJJ, but if Birmingham aren't willing to look abroad, there ain't a lot of options. Barker? Batchelor?

I can't see any reason for signing Steve Worrall at all, apart from the "principle" of wanting a full team. Think Leicester would be stronger with r/r or Prem guests, there's always a chance Worrall may take a guest booking or two when every Prem club is riding (bar one) and options are limited, but when they have other options could pick a stronger guest than Worrall. I don't think the rules encourage teams to make changes, as in this case Leicester look stronger keeping Becker in the 1-7. If Becker drops down the teams averages, then guests will be more worthwhile, but at the moment r/r should work.

Just as long as it doesn't happen in the play-offs

His 2025 average is below every one of the Comets, can't see how he would strengthen the team.

I totally get your point, but I was thinking, what if after the GP he thought like you "that was a bad idea, I shouldn't have ridden" then pulled out of Monday's match. Then the aggro would've come. I think his biggest mistake was his first comeback for the Poland vs Rest of World match, that was the most unnecessary fixture he's ridden in imo. Then had he listened to his Polish club & not ridden for them that weekend (thus not suffered another crash), would he have been fully fit now?

When Tolley said it was a. 100% trier, Bachelor doesn't come to mind, that's why I went with Barker.

I'm gonna predict Ben Barker will be the replacement for MJJ. If so, team will be 7.12 below the points limit. Tobiasz Musielak 7.31 Matej Zagar 6.67 Keynan Rew 5.98 Paco Castagna 4.97 Jonas Jeppesen 4.30 Ben Barker 3.65 Sam Hagon RS Total 32.88

Yet he keeps getting heat 1 as the R/R option.

Can you imagine the grief Doyle would've gotten on here, had he come through the GPs unscathed & then not turned up tonight? Did he ride in Poland yesterday?

Thought Tolley's interview was pretty embarrassing, blaming the track & seems oblivious to the fact his team isn't good enough. When he said they couldn't water the track the previous day due to work on the start line (transponder cable) couldn't they have still watered the bends, back straight & part of the home straight. The MJJ replacement who will give 110%, doesn't excite me. Can only see it weakening Birmingham even further. Really feel for Brummies fans & hope Tolley doesn't bankrupt himself by seeing out the season.

When I look at the Birmingham scores, none of them look particularly bad, which I guess just goes to show how weak they are.

Hume's 2025 figures 5.39 (6.26) are better than his 20 match rolling ave 4.99 (5.55). I don't think Hume will ever be better than Champ second string level, but he's more than doing his job for Berwick this year imo. Although stats don't tell the whole story as Hagon's 2025 figures 3.85 (4.30) are actually higher than his 20 match rolling ave 3.63 (4.09), but that's due to him dropping his high scoring reserve points for Poole last year. He seems a rider who finds the jump from reserve to second string harder than most. Jack Smith is probably a similar rider in that respect, so if they swap places in the team Berwick will still struggle at second string level. Really should looks at using the spare points & strengthening up if they have any aspirations of a top 4 spot.

Four of the 6 have been riding for other clubs, so should be "match fit". With so few fixtures in the NT, maybe Plymouth are going about it the right way, racing in (hopefully) better weather & not having months between meetings?

I can't see any reason to make these changes. By all means allow rider(s) from the SGP2 (winner only imo) a spot in the GP Challenge, but not a straight spot in the GP series, just because you're the best U21 year old, doesn't mean you are GP standard. Think the U25 Extraliga idea is even worse, what if the top 30 riders are all 26 or older, you'd be seeding riders near the bottom of the Extraliga into the GP series! I don't think over 35s shouldn't be allowed wild cards, a rider could be challenging for the world title, like Doyle was last year but miss out because he's "too old". If the "same old" are qualifying from the GP challenge, then they deserve to be in there, but Huckenbeck (last year) and Kurtz (this year) were added to the series, so there was some new blood if you're looking for that. To me the best way to get different riders (if that what you desire) in the GPs is more qualify places & less wildcards. If the top 7 GP riders, SEC Champion & top 7 qualifiers make it through there's a chance of some different riders making it through, there's more chance the exciting young rider you'd like to make it in could finish in the top 7 of the qualifiers than the top 4. That may not guarantee the best riders make it, but if that guarantees riders can only qualify & not be seeded, I'm ok with that.

I don't like the current system, but the one thing which is better than the old semi finals is only the winner advancing. Stops riders settling for 2nd place. Having top 3 to the final and 3rd-7th in a semi final for the last place, would achieve the same thing.

I personally don't think it's confusing at all, every heat counts is a simple explanation. I think it's less confusing than when 5 riders tied on 6 points, one of them is guaranteed to finish 4 points better off than another! I just don't understand a single justification for doing this? What does it achieve? If they are desperate for the winner to receive the most points, make the final 20-18-17-16, everyone else takes home their score after 20 heats. I think that's much easier to understand.

Given that King's Lynn had already booked / announced a guest before Cook "re-injured" his wrist, the whole thing absolutely stinks! Also as Leszno won 60-30, if Cook was struggling with his wrist why did he go out in the nominated races?

They did that at Ipswich imo

The rules are there for a reason, if riders are allowed to miss matches in GB while riding in Poland without picking up a ban, they'll all start doing it. In this instance Cook may prefer a 28 day ban, allows Lynn a guest, while he can still ride in Poland while he's getting back to 100% fitness, in 28 days he may fancy a return! Not really a punishment for club or rider!

There is a very simple solution, if they are desperate for the winner to take home the most points. Final points are awarded as 20-18-17-16. Everyone else gets the points scored in their 5 qualifying heats. If Fricke scores 12 in his heats & misses out in the LCQ, he goes home with 12 points, what's so wrong with that?

5 riders tied on 6 points. One goes home with 4 GP points, another has a chance of 20 points! I don't get why they have to split their points, why can't the 3 non qualifiers go home with 6 points, why does one have to score 6, one 5 & one 4?