False dawn

It seems that people are saying that because the rules are the way they are, it is justifiable to have a team turn out with three guests. And I have to justify my objection to this by answering the comment that to prevent Wolverhampton having three guests would somehow short change the Somerset fans. Well forgive me, but I find this a slightly circular argument. We're only here because the rules permit it. It's the rules I object to, not Wolverhampton taking advantage off them. You have to examine the rules in light of what they lead to. Wolverhampton winning tonight only focused the attention on a set of rules that makes no sense. The team they fielded made no sense, win or lose. I look forward to reading the team statistics on the Wolverhampton website! A telling phrase. Period (again)

There ain't many that I would take that from. But you are one. Wolverhampton 3 Somerset 0 Okay? (but I ain't happy)

Fixtures, rules, I don't care. Wolverhampton did not beat Somerset tonight. You cut it anyway you like. Tell me I'm wrong,

i do. You can have double ups all you like. But if the fixtures play against you, that's your hard luck. Don't tell me my team is "my team" when it contains three guests. It ain't acceptable. Period.

No, they were sold short.

There should be a rule that for whatever reason a team cannot have more than two guests. To have half (well nearly) your side represented by other people's riders ain't good for your own pride. For the home side, well what do they think? Beaten by a group of riders that no way represent the team on the programme. Did Wolverhampton beat Somerset tonight? You tell me.

Do you know, I didn't know that. Tell me in advance next time!

Maybe talk to a few folks that have been doing this for years. It ain't rocket science.

It's early days. The competitors with staying power are those that win through in the end. You know, I might book that trip to Oz and watch the decider!

There is still a good grasstrack opportunity for youngsters to learn their trade. Low cost racing. And most grasstracks I raced on were far from level. Youngsters who can race that, don't complain at the odd bump or rut when they get on the speedways.

The powers that be cannot avoid the responsibility for this one, be it language or any other excuse. They have built a World Championship circus with all the TV and publicity spotlight that goes with it. And with that comes the weight of providing the very best racing facilities. If it rained and there was a doubt about safety that's one thing. To get the news that the organisers had over watered the track and we end up with one of the worse GP meetings for a long time is quite another. Don't make excuses, understand what happened and put in place procedures to avoid it in the future.

Surely we are all unhappy and disappointed when our stand out No.1 rider is at odds with the ruling body to the extent he chooses not to ride for Team GB. Time for reconciliation? Certainly the sport in this country needs all the help it can get. Be it on the World stage or helping to develop young riders for the future. Maybe Tai isn't the easiest guy to work with but is that a reason to walk away (by either party). As a fan and English, I follow Tai's riding with interest. As to the rest, I don't know the full facts and therefore don't pass judgement

I know I'm biased, but Danny's "quiet" start to the season is a bit of a mystery. I thought he had started to make the transition to being a top class rider last year, who can forget his performance at Cardiff? He'll come good. The sooner the better.

Is it true that the "KRSKO HIGHLIGHTS" on the speedwaygp website shows only the startline girls?

Nerd Alert! Gate Wins Points 1 7 34 2 8 40 3 8 46 4 0 18 I find that level of disadvantage for one gate to be unacceptable regardless of the processional racing beyond the first corner

Gate 4 - 13 points from 16 races (no wins need I say). A graveyard P.S. I don't think the riders need a spreadsheet to know not to pick that one!

Err, who is the author of these interesting sounding books?

Nerd alert!!! An unusual meeting statistically speaking. Edinburgh provided the minority of the race winnings. Edinburgh posted the majority of last places. Edinburgh had fewer race advantages. But Endinburgh won the meeting. Hmmm

This was a close one on paper but then what do I know? Not a lot, from the scoreline. And please tell, who was given the rider of the night award? To be paid for 17 from 6 from reserve and to be overlooked is astounding.

Some solid scoring from Ludvig, a late start by Ashley Morris and the odd flash by Steve Worrall. But 11 heat winners and 10 heat advantages by Redcar tells it's own story.

There are always lies, damn lies and statistics. Points scored and races won from each gate can only indicate a potential advantage. For example, when I look at a race and try to predict which of two riders will win, the gate stats can help. Of course there is nothing to say that one of the other two riders actually win as they do, quite often. Who'd be a pundit eh?

Jason Doyle £50 less Emil Sayfutdinov £50 more

You are quite right, of course. It can only be an indication of gate advantage. But I'd argue that if 9 races out of 15 were won by the rider in say gate 1, then this is a strong indication that it's a good pick given that you'd expect only a quarter of the races to be won from each gate if all other factors were equal (which, as you rightly say, they are not). But if I was a team manager (aren't we all?) and gates 1 and 3 had won 4 heats and 2 and 4, 10 heats, would I pick 1 and 3 in heat 15? You'd be surprised at the choices, given the stats, sometimes. Incidentally, the other thing that my analysis shows is that 1 and 3 are not the advantage you'd think. My conclusion from that is that if I won the toss, I would always elect to choose gates in heat 15. That way I would have the knowledge gained from the previous 14 heats rather than guessing before the meeting has started and handing the advantage to the opposition when it might really make a difference.

Somebody said something about choosing gates positions in all this banter..... I have for several seasons run a spreadsheet "programme" which amongst other things keeps track of the the number of races won from each gate and the number of points scored from each gate. Ok so it's a bit neardy but it makes for interesting reading quite often and shows it's not always the same gates that have the advantage at the same track. It can vary (a lot) from meeting to meeting and indicates to me, at least, that some sensible hand raking at the start line is needed. Anyway in the old days when we had tactical substitutions, the losing team also had choice of gates until the deficit was reduced, when the normal alternation of gate positions was resumed. Surely this is a small change in the regulations that could help to avoid the more one sided meetings we sometimes see but without the fans feeling it was mickey mouse. If tracks didn't like the advantage gained, sort out the start line. Give all 4 riders an even break, otherwise get eaten alive by the opposing teams picking the best gates. We could even go back to letting teams choose which rider starts from which of their two allocated gates. Oh, I know they stopped this because some top riders were always choosing the best gate to the detriment of their junior partner. But surely we have to give teams and team managers some freedom if they are to maximise their opportunities?

I think you spell Poole with an "e"