chunky

Again, you can only make comparisons between riders who rode against each other, and not somebody from different eras who were both No.4 in their respective teams. One comment has always stuck with me... Back in the 70's, I had someone complaining that Larry Ross was the "worst No. 1 in the league". Really? Is that HIS fault that nobody else in the team was riding better? Had he been fourth in the Wimbledon averages, they would have been celebrating the fact that he was the "best No. 4 in the league"! You get my point? It is all relative... Steve

Because they don't want to... Steve

Of course, we know that the BL has been watered down, but when you try to judge someone's ability, can we actually PROVE the standard was higher back then? We all like to think so, but that is based on what? Just because the "Big Five" stood out against the rest doesn't mean that the rest were poor. Just because riders like Betts and Ashby struggled to get past the British final on a consistent basis doesn't actually mean it was "stronger". You can only compare riders against the others they actually rode against. Could it be that the standard modern speedway is actually BETTER than it has ever been? It certainly seems a more level playing field, but that doesn't mean that riders aren't as good these days. I know many will hate me for this, but could Woffinden, Zmarzlik, Janowski, Lindgren, Doyle etc be true equivalents of Briggs, Moore, Craven, Fundin, Knutson etc? Could they actually be better? Nobody can answer that with any certainty, however much you think you can. All we know is that there were more riders back then, but you simply cannot say who were better. Steve

Been done - on several occasions... Steve

Look at Nielsen. A giant in the BL but he couldn't compete with his World Final opponents for several years... And what did a superb string of BL averages do at world level for Eric Boocock? Steve

There is certainly some merit to winning the pairs - although nobody seems to give Szczakiel any credit for him winning the pairs - with a maximum. Regarding Collins in the WTC, it was an achievement, but the ONLY true superstar he beat was Michanek. You could perhaps add Sjosten in 74, but realistically, he shouldn't have been too troubled against the others. Steve

You don't have any mirrors in your house? Steve

I have no idea why, do you??? Steve

Actually, you are giving him too much credit. He said "at least 12 British riders who were NEVER world champion", so by including those as well as all British world champs, Tai is now struggling to make the Top 20... Steve

It was never applied consistently, but it did happen on occasion. Steve

I think you are misunderstanding things a little; there is no "Grand Prix" system. There is a single knockout tournament called the "World Grand Prix" that is a PDC major alongside the World Championship and the World Matchplay. Steve

You are forgetting one other thing - SPEEDWAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK!!! Steve

You may be right, but obviously the GP system has changed so much since it was introduced. We know that BSI want certain riders from certain nations, and while I think the GP system is very good, I think that the qualification process for the series could be vastly improved. Sad thing is that in the 70's and '80's, British fans wanted world speedway to revolve around British speedway, because it was the best, but it has really deteriorated into Tai being the ONLY true world-class rider. Everyone was horrified when Trevor Hedge was the only Brit to qualify for the 1970 World Final, but there were still many world-class riders (the Boococks, Betts, Ashby, McMillan etc). Steve

Americans generally aren't interested in complicated league scenarios or closely contested matches. They only things that mean anything are wins and losses, and lots of goals/runs! Take snooker against pool. Americans don't like snooker because it is harder to pocket the balls, and it involves scorekeeping. Pool, they just have to pocket a few balls, and then the 8-ball. Steve

Some of what you say is true, but some isn't... I understand the concept - particularly as far as injuries are concerned - but I am not totally convinced with wild cards. However, there were always limits (certainly in mainland Europe) where countries were allotted a certain number of places in the FIM events based on the quantity and level of their riders. However, a system like that is never going to be fair or equitable, and some riders were always going to penalised because of their nationality. Steve

Surely that has little or nothing to do with playoffs? We watch sports because we enjoy WATCHING the sport, regardless of formats and rules. Steve

The thing to remember is that in the US, playoffs are a little different, with the leagues not giving teams an equal number of games against the other teams. Rather than having divisions based on current ability/results, divisions are geographical, with all team supposedly at the same level. Steve

Like I said, I preferred the atmosphere, and the spontaneity of the old system, but in fairness to the riders, I totally support the idea of a GP system. The problem is that most who liked the old World Finals have probably not been involved in serious competitive sport. As someone who has been involved in such sport for some 40 years, I appreciate the value of fairness to the competitors. Steve

A league/GP/round robin format is designed to find the best - and most consistent - over the period of that system. A knockout system is designed to find the best on each individual occasion. People keep on about, "But they have playoffs in football!" Yes, they do, but NOT for a league title... Steve

No, and that is why I don't like them! Steve

I'm not worried about your preference. You stated that, "If we want the BEST rider to win what would be the point?" What is the point of having sporting competitions and contest if they are NOT designed to find the BEST competitor? If an individual or team is the BEST over a contest (or series of contests), why should they not be rewarded for that? If we want "winners" at random, based on luck rather than skill, then why do we put in the effort to be better, faster, more accurate, than everybody else? If that doesn't merit rewards, then everything is worthless... Steve

That's fine, but the World Speedway Championship is designed to find the best speedway rider in the world, not to please Colin Mills... I preferred the World Finals, but I am perfectly okay with a GP system that generally provides a much stronger competition overall, and reduces the luck factor. Steve

If you don't want a fair system, that is up to you. I just find it sad when people want ability and and success to count for nothing. Just do a series of coin flips; at least nobody will get injured, and they could save money on an air fence! Steve

Doesn't matter. ALL riders have the same opportunity to score the points. Trouble is, these days people think that doing exactly what the supporters want is more important than being fair to the riders. Do we want the BEST rider to win, or do we prefer a lottery? Steve

Yes and no. Maybe you would lose a World Final because of a fall, and e/f, or one poor gate - but that is hardly fair either. Look at PC in 1975, or Jessup in 78, for example. However, as far as qualifying rounds, things like the Commonwealth, Overseas, and Inter-Continental finals were the complete opposite. The top 9, 10, or even 11 would qualify for the next round. So, there are flaws whichever way you look at it, but a GP system is much fairer for EVERYONE, and reduces the chances of one small thing costing you a title that you have worked hard all year for. That cannot be a bad thing... Steve