chunky

What about Todd Wiltshire, David Cheshire and Lee Derbyshire? Steve

Are my posts invisible to everyone? Arena Essex was the first team I mentioned yesterday, and I named several others. Now you are all coming up with the teams I said! Steve

Same with Anglian Angels and Southern Rovers. Steve

Arena Essex, and the Fife Lions, although the latter never competed in a league. There have been several second/junior teams, such as Devon Demons, Norfolk Braves, and Cleveland Bays. Steve

How about something like this? The Top 8 qualify for the following year. Positions 13-16 are totally out of the following year, EXCEPT if they missed out through injury (see below). Positions 9-12 meet the Top 10 from the GP Challenge (or what is now called the Challenge) in another meeting (possibly to become the "new" Challenge). This meeting takes place at the very beginning of the following year, and includes two wild cards. These wild cards can be any rider, but are primarily designed for any GP rider the previous year who missed out because of injury (missing GP's). Again, if a rider finished outside the Top 12 WITHOUT being injured, he is not eligible. That is why I suggest this is held in the new season, should any rider need to recover from injury. Steve

Exactly what I was getting at a few posts back! It is supposedly the Top 8 who qualify, but then it's like we have automatic wild cards for those who finish 9th and 10th! I'm not saying I agree or disagree with with the actual numbers of qualifiers, but it defeats the concept if they simply pick 9th and 10th too... Steve

This is what I don't really get. Of course, Doyle and Pedersen should be considered as strong contenders, but why then - as Philip says - should the FIM be so concerned about not getting new faces on board when they seemingly feel compelled to take what is effectively the top ten? This is the problem with wild cards; whoever you pick, there are other riders who are equally deserving, but miss out because of age, personality, or lack of past achievement. If a rider qualifies on his own merits, there can be no argument, although we all know that there are certain individuals on this forum who will find an argument! Injuries can be an issue, but who can honestly claim - certainly on the strength of his last couple of outings - that Vaculik doesn't deserve a spot? Even though I am not a Pedersen fan, on his day, he can obviously still compete with the best. Plus, he does add something. As waiheke1 says, Lambert has a strong case. It will be interesting to see just who finishes ninth and tenth this year... Steve

I tell you, Torun could be brutal; it is so tight for the top eight. I think everybody would like to see some new faces, but if riders qualify by right, what can you do? The sad thing is that, at the moment, it is difficult to see any newcomers really being able to break through into the top eight. Steve

I know this is weird, but... After looking at the standings after yesterday, I would not be totally shocked if Freddie doesn't qualify for 2019! He has struggled to recapture his early season form, and it certainly is not out of the question that he misses out on a Top 8 spot. He is currently 15 ahead of 9th placed Zagar. Just a thought... Steve

To be honest, I think we have enough t*ts in speedway already, most of them on the administrative side... Steve

Yeah, I often wonder what happened to Nick? Haven't heard anything from him in years; does anybody know? Steve

...as does repeatedly mis-spelling "Pedersen". Oh, and mis-spelling "intelligence"... Steve

Oh come on, Phil!!! Ronnie didn't come back until 1969!!! Steve

In an effort to attract the 96 year old speedway fans back to the sport, it might be better to go pre-decimal. If that is the case, Rob Godfrey and Buster Chapman would be replaced by Ivor Shilling and Arfur Crown. The BSPA would adopt the new war cry of: "Go on luv, show us your thrupennies!!!!!" Steve

Yeah, sounds good! All second-half points earned by non-Commonwealth riders with a CMA between 2.37 and 4.74 will be awarded either to Poole, or a team of your choice, based on another coin toss! Steve

I think the third meeting should be at a neutral track, perhaps in Poland to keep them happy? I think it would also help to use a three-team format for this meeting, so you could introduce a wild-card team of riders from 1975 to keep us old'uns interested... Steve

Absolutely. Every match means something. Sad that we have ended up like this.... Steve

Thank you so much! I was wondering the exact same thing! Is the quality of racing really that irrelevant now? Is the desire to follow your team through thick and thin irrelevant now? People still go and watch other sports because they enjoy "watching", and because they enjoy being a part of it. Are speedway fans now that shallow that the result - and the quest for a playoff spot - is the only thing that matters? If that really is the case, there is no hope for civilisation in Britain, let alone speedway... Steve

I definitely think that the circumstances have to be taken into account, and I agree with your views on Pedersen. The problem is that we see so many ridiculous posts on here! Wasn't it only a few weeks ago that people were saying that Pedersen and Hancock should "retire with dignity" (or words to that effect). Are the pair "past their best"? Of course they are. BUT, while they do not perform with the same consistency as they did a few years ago, they have proven that they can still compete at the highest level. As far as the "circumstances" I mentioned above... Let's just say that both Nicki and Greg get injured before the end of the GP season, and both fail to make the Top Eight. While we would never KNOW what MIGHT have happened, it is fair to say that without injury, both would have qualified for next year! Even if they finished outside the Top Ten, I think there would be a strong case for both to receive a Wild Card. Again, this is just to illustrate that the circumstances can make a difference... Thing is, nobody can deny that, even though they are not at their peak, both Pedersen and Hancock add to the SGP. Unfortunately, that cannot always be said about others who have qualified for the series by right, although if they are there on merit, good luck to them! Steve

Not sure I totally agree; I think Dudek was partly responsible for their demise with that move on Janowski! Steve

Had to shut off after Pedersen ran him out to the fence on the back straight. Never got back after that, Steve

I agree, and whatever way you look at it, you are effectively replacing a heat-leader with a junior. Heaven forbid you are two heat-leaders short... Not being negative, but adding to a point I made earlier regarding this situation, here are the likely scenarios: The loss of a star name (or names) can certainly cause spectators to stay away. Replacing a heat leader with a junior drastically weakens a team, so the resulting contest is likely to be "no contest". That can drive away spectators. With an uncompetitive junior (or juniors) on display, the quality of the racing will probably suffer. That can drive away spectators. The key to competitive sport is confidence. Particularly in a sport like speedway, where one is basically competing on a individual basis, throwing kids in at the deep end can destroy their career before it even begins. We have seen that all too often, and certainly back in the 80's when they introduced the compulsory junior in the BL. The vast majority of the kids never did anything in the sport, and it wasn't because they weren't good enough; it was because they had the stuffing knocked out of them, and they lost all confidence. I have seen that happen to many talented youngsters in my own sport of darts too, so I am very familiar with the problems it causes. So, loss of stars, one-sided match with crap racing, and irreparable damage to a youngster's confidence and career... Is that really a solution? Steve

I am totally okay with something like that! I believe that guests are a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean you should be replacing a bunch of lower average riders with guests. For those who continue to compare speedway and football, look at this; when Leicester City won the PL, they relied heavily on Mahrez and Vardy. Not heavily enough though, that should one (or both) be missing from the line-up, they get beaten out of sight. Take a speedway team like Coventry a few years back, who relied heavily on Hancock and Hamill. Take one or both out, and they were screwed. When I said this same thing previously on the BSF, I was told, "That's why teams should have a solid 1-7, with no stars!" Really? Okay, isn't the league watered down enough already? So, just get rid of the crowd-pullers, and worse still, just force them out of the league because they are too good... Steve

The disturbing thing is that while British speedway has been in decline for many years, it was still relatively successful, and largely self-sufficient. Suddenly, everyone is sitting up and realising that we have now reached the point of no return. There is no single reason for the sport's problems, and unfortunately, there is no single - or easy - fix. Of course, the biggest issue is the finances, and as much as I hate to say it, the riders have to shoulder much of the blame. Thing is, the promoters are equally at fault by spending more than they could afford. I accept that these days, everyone thinks they are special, and that they deserve to be treated as such. That applies to all sports, and as someone who has spent a lifetime in professional sport, I do think that many sports have been ruined by money. I don't have a problem with the top names earning more, but I also feel that their demands shouldn't exceed the supply. We all know that hasn't happened in speedway, and I honestly fear it is too late... Steve

Right! We already know that from comments from riders and ex-riders! So, what is the answer? As you say, if we stick with what we have, it will continue in a downward spiral... Looking at comments on here, we accept that there will always be conflicts, and as I said before, everyone is an "expert"! There are two choices, then: 1) Fix the tracks to suit the bikes. 2) Fix the bikes to suit the tracks. That leaves us with these questions: 1) Which will be more practical/viable? 2) Which is more likely to stop the rot? Steve