Grachan

I remember an uproar on here a few years back when Swindon brought in Damien Balinski on 5.00 during the few seasons when Swindon got all the stick that Poole now get. His average at the end of the year was exactly 5.00. It'll be interesting to see what Lindback does score from his matches.

A "select" side using rider replacement!

And what if they get injured? No replacement?

Baffling as it is that Lindback has been reassessed at 7, people need to keep some perspective here. Poole are bringing someone in to replace an injured rider. Full stop. No issue. I reckon Matt Ford might have used a bit of persuasion to get Lindback at 7, but so he should. He's trying to get someone into his side. He was probably as surprised as anyone else when whoever decides the averages actually agreed!

Would that not be the same if they had used a guest?

So according to Matt Ford he must be on as assessed 8.00 average. Hans is 7.71. How does that work? I guess he must be coming in on his old average, whateverthat was.

I don't understand the fixture list really. Here is a key play off meetng being staged right on cut off under risk from the weather. Swindon finished their home fixtures ages ago and have been putting on fillers and seemed to have barely any home matches over the summer holidays. Very odd

It used to be that the top 2 had home advantage in the semi finals, which I thought was better as it gave more credence to being first or second. I guess they changed it so 3 and 4 could get a good home crowd.

Those years when Cradley/Coventry/Oxford were winning it was clear from about 1 month into the season which side was going to win the league. I don't think play-offs would have made much difference either. Everyone would still have been clear who was going to win as all 3 teams had no realistic competition. That was, probably, down to the points limit being too high more than anything. If we had a points limit of about 45 nowadays I don't think anyone would get close to Poole in any season. When Swindon won the league in 67 they won it on the final match of the season with an away win at King's Lynn. I also remember being at an amazing night at Reading when Ipswich clinched the league title. Plays offs are good. I like them. Both methods of winning are eqully valid in my opinion, as long as the rules are clear from the start and stuck with all year so everyone knows them.

Oxford won the league by 10 points in 1985. That, in itself, is 5 matches. Cradley won by 7 points in 1983.

I remember in the 80s in particular, when we had a high points limit, one club would often run away with the title. Cradley, Oxford and Coventry all come to mind as winning pretty much unopposed in various years.

Been tried. Wasn't a success. Craven Shield was just a secondary competition that meant very little.

There is a shield already. The Craven Shield. Give them that if it actually exists. Plus everyone already knows that it comes second to the championship

Doyleyyyyyyy!!!!!! Wooohooo!!!! Why on Earth did he change his set up? He could have gone through the card tonight.

Come on Doyley! Definite changing of the guard in my support happening. I was all for Woffinden to win. I don't think it even crossed my mind that Jason Doyle could be World Champion. But now he could. He really could. I'm no rider so I'm not an authority on riding a bike, but those early falls looked like lay-downs to me. It's irrelevant if there is contact. What's relevant is if a rider is actually knocked off and I don't think they were.

In answer to your question, it can't be slander if it's written on here. Slander has to be spoken word.

It's funny. Even the payment issue seems to divide opinion. Some think being paid per point is fair. Some think expecting a larger percentage is greedy. Let's face it. No way is everybody going to agree.

Personally I'm not surprised that a rider scoring 16 out of 29 (excluding Joker points) would expect to receive 55% of the total. This is what, normally, we would call points money. Is that not how riders are normally paid? If the money is split 4 ways (assuming the reserve gets paid nothing - which wouldn't surprise me!) each rider is paid for 7.5 points. So they all got paid for more than they earned except for one. I bet the other riders were well pleased with the arrangement. Interesting, also, that Greg Hancock (the other rider who scored the vast majority of his team's points) opted out.

What a bizarre exclusion. Is the ref drunk?

Not with double uppers. It used to be a shared position where you used one or the other. There needs to be some sort of grading system with guests. Surely.

Nothing to do with how good Masters might be. A GP rider for a double upper makes no sense. A PL rider would, of course, include other double uppers also. Although I'd call Cook a double downer if there is such a thing.

Grand Prix rider guesting for a double-upper? Am I correct? The guest situation is getting ridiculous. Surely, at the very most, it should be a PL rider for a double upper?

You can have 2 passports. My own suspicion is that he just holds a British one but if he ever got Aussie citizenship through his parents applying for it for him then he could hold both. I've never seen it ever confirmed he holds Australian citizenship though.

So does Tai have an Australian passport then? If so, how does he qualify for one? Oh, and, by the way, if Tai does have an Aussie passport then Jason Doyle was correct. There were 3 Aussies on the podium because he would have 2 nationalities.

Suppose the governing bodies are paid for the number of points scored by the team, and they then distribute the money to the riders equally. Suppose the riders are asked and themselves decide how the money will be distributed. Taking away the joker points (presumably unpaid), GB scored 29 points. Each of the 5 riders gets paid for 6 points, so every rider bar one gets paid for more than they earned. It seems something of a coincidence that the two riders who pull out are the two who score a massive percentage of their teams' points.