False dawn

I like the league points system. But I have always been uncomfortable with the TR idea. Preferring instead something akin to the old TR rule as well as choice of gate positions when you're behind. The choice of gate positions might get clubs to grade the gates more fairly. The advantage gained by being out of certain gates at some circuits is very noticeable.

Surely the difference is that if it's a question of interpretation, then the results stands. But if the rules were broken, black and white, the result should be subject to change.

You DO want a lot don't you?

Stox were / would be the primary source of income.

You could move the British GP back. Then have the play off final at Cardiff on Friday night followed by the GP on Saturday. That's what I call an event

Amen to that. When all hope has vanished, we can pack our bags (you can tell I'm a Bees supporter can't you? BTW one of those 10/12 in the league next year is Coventry, right?)

You don't want much, do you?

,,,,this place would be half empty !

Andreas Jonsson £100 more Vaclav Milik £200 more

That's exactly my point. Design a divisional system that doesn't result in an outright winner so that the play offs are the deciding factor. As to your point about the best two sides being in the same division. No problem. Again follow the NFL model whereby the 2 clubs (say) with the best losing record get wildcards into the playoffs and design the play offs so that clubs from the same division don't meet early on. This is possible. Once you abandon the idea that all clubs have to meet each other home and away you can make the play offs more meaningful and you can organise the fixture list to better suit the club's availability and rider availability etc.

Let's call the whole thing off

So 562 guests in 411 meetings or an average of 1.37 per meeting. Not that different from my sample (1.24) although a bit worse / bigger. Add in rider replacements and you're definitely over 2 riders "missing" on average every meeting or 1 per team. Can we agree that this is far too many?

You say potato and I say banana

Now I know you don't like American sport..... Just kidding, I know many of you love American sport. Maybe we can learn from the US. I don't know all the details of how games are organised in American Football but they basically organise the divisions on a roughly geographical basis. Games are played and teams are declared division champions. Each one of two conferences organise games at the end of the season to determine the conference champions and then they meet in the Super Bowl. My point is that the league structure means that they don't have this ambiguity between the team scoring the most team points and who wins the playoffs. Winning your division gets you to the next stage of being the champion. Let's have one big league. Split it into 4. Doesn't need to geographical, race night might be more logical. Organise the fixtures, which don't need to all within division but would be for the most part. Division leaders would race in semi finals and the winner of those meet in the final. Adopting this kind of idea has endless possibilities but we'd all know who the League Champions were at the end it all.

Hey, I didn't know I was one of them!

I also had a similar idea, a sort of Super Bowl (AFC va NFC). Unfortunately, to be all things to all men, they would allow doubling up between north and south divisions. This could be practical if it was arranged, as far as possible, to avoid clashes between north and south fixtures. The trouble is, Sod's Law would dictate that at least one rider (maybe as many as 7) would ride for both the North and South champions . Then what do you do? P.S. if you think our playoff system is daft, they said on the Swedish speedway TV programme a couple of weeks ago that the Swedish second division has a 4 team playoff at the end of the year. Why daft? I hear you say. Because there are only 4 clubs in the Swedish second division.

About 1.27 per meetingAlthough my analysis did not include the NL. I hope (please) that this brought the average down a bit.

That's his dribbling dog is it?

No. Don't feel hard done by. For my part, I just want clarity. If something is done that is clearly going to cause controversy, is it not simpler to communicate that it is happening, why it is happening and what rules are in place to cover the situation? Either that, or you have to accept the conspiracy theories, speculation and general anger from the paying public (of which I was one).

I agree. I think Jason was lucky since the ref had already decided it was an unsatisfactory start. Two things.... 1. Can anyone see why it was an unsatisfactory start? Hans came off gate 1 well, but this was made to look good by Jason coming out of that graveyard called gate 2 (stats available). 2. If it was an unsatisfactory start, why was no one warned?

I hope no one saw my analysis as a justification for moving to 6 man teams. If nothing else changes I think the percentage of guests and RR used would remain about the same meaning we would rhen move, effectively, to 5 man teams. Averages are, as I alluded to, a course measure. Can a rider with a 4 point average sometimes score 8 or 0? Well of course he can. But measure his performance over 10 matches or move and you would ecpect him to score about 4. This is the same. If there 2 riders "missing" on average per meeting do we expect a guest or rider replacement every time we turn up? Well there are more scientific answers to that question other than straight averages. But what is your experience? 19 meetings out 95 where both teams were fully manned with their own riders. Surely the most damning statistic of all. We all moan, yes. But we're almost conditioned to expecting the odd guest/RR or 2. These "facilities" should be the exception, not the norm. We have a rider injured or riding in the U21s tobnight, well okay. We have multiple riders riding for someone else. Excuse me, that cannot be right.

Surely the other 13 riders will have something to say about the final result?

No that's BWD on the golf course in North Dakota

Ooo I'm not sure about that. Let me think about it? Alright, I'll get my coat.

You choosed wrong, you loose (like what I would of done)