Grachan

I'm not so sure. British Basketball, for example, has League Champions and then has play-off champions. The play-offs final is at the 02 and has crowds much bigger than any league match.

I do think that there should be some sort of recognition to finishing top of the league - perhaps a trophy of some sort. However, the play-offs need to remain the main prize.

He is clearly getting out while he is still ahead. Hopefully he will change his mind and stay as the sport needs successful promoters. I'm sure that Matt Ford sees what happens every year, with the sport getting weaker and weaker, and he can see that there is a risk of him losing out sooner rather than later if it continues down the current path. At least he is doing a better job of selling it than Peterborough, who are, effectively, saying that they are selling because they can't get crowds in. Hardly the way to encourage buyers. Yes, this is probably the weakest team to win the league. Last year was, also, until this year. And next year will probably be even weaker still.

Have they though? As Racers and Royals pointed out on the previous page, the only amendment seems to be that a rider cannot guest for both sides in the play offs. There's nothing about the 5% allowance being allowed for away fixtures.

I think Shawn McConnell still rides.

Would you have been happy with a 42.5 points limit if there were still 13 heats? With 39-39 being a draw it would then be more than half the points available to a team in a match.

A bit of a contradiction there. We don't need play-offs, yet injuries robbed Wolves, "undoubtedly" the best team in the league - even though they didn't finish top of the table.

Briggs would have probably won in 67 though.

There is a ridiculous claim going around social media that he should have been excluded for "riding across the infield" because he had both wheels over the white line at one point while preparing his gate.

Did the ref watch that replay? Palm-Toft was knocked off.

And Peter Collins might not have won in 1976 if he had had to do it over a whole season rather than on one night. But he didn't have to. So we'll never know.

I haven't stated anything as being fact. You can't make direct comparisons though. Different type of meeting. Different mindset. Different time of the season. Different track even, maybe. I have already stated previously that at the first GP in September - the one most likely to have been World Final night - Tai scored 4 points. FACT. It doesn't make his win any less valid than Ivan Mauger scraping through a qualifying round and then winning a one-off final. Both were valid ways of deciding the World Champion, and both systems gave valid World Champions. Most of the riders who won under the one-off system would have also won titles under a GP system, and vice versa.

Reading the statement on the BSPA website, the rules have been amended slightly to allow this (presumably with regard to the 5% only applying at home). Consequently, Poole's side is not illegal in the away leg anyway. It is within the rules and has been approved by the BSPA and the SCB. So... happy, no problem.

But we'll never know how Zmarzlik or Laguta would have coped once the Championship was on the line either. Neither could pull it off once they had a victory in their sights.

Whilst it would have made more sense if the guests were the other way round, surely Speedway has become too obsessed with averages in recent years, and if both teams agree on this then I don't see too much of a problem with it.

Ha ha. Well I wouldn't have even noticed if you hadn't posted that it was the case.

Or is he saying that the first GP in September (when the World Final was staged) should decide World Champion? Tai scored 4 points in that one.

But it wasn't a one-off World Final. What makes you think that a multi-World Champion would be able to, say, finish in the top 4 of the British Final. Or get through the European final which, if I recall correctly, used to have the top 12 riders qualifying? You can never know. Maybe, under the GP system, Mauger might not have won 5 titles. Maybe Hans Nielsen would have won more and Erik Gundersen less. You can only base riders' achievements using the system that they are using. Both systems are equally valid.

I don't understand why this agreement wasn't that the team with the higher average rider use the guest with the higher average.

Mine isn't, because, whatever happens, Swindon are still victorious. Win win

I think you only have to see what he did on Saturday when the real pressure was on to get the answer to that.

Actually, yes, you are right. Morris 6.91 Kurtz 6.75 Morris should be guesting for King's Lynn, surely? In the end, though, this is better than having a guest swap for each leg.

Blimey. Common sense prevails. Who'd'a thought it?

Oh God! That race! It nearly killed me, as a Swindon fan. I went to a Swindon v Ipswich meeting many years ago and there was a race between Jimmy Nilsen and Jeremy Doncaster that I thought was so good that I bought the video. I later put it on YouTube. This is it - back from the days when Swindon gave us great racing:

Probably true, but his win was more of a surprise. There is a big difference from doing well in qualifiers than there is in actually winning the title. Muller had already proved his championship mentality with Long Track wins. His win never surprised me one bit. What did surprise me, though, was the indignation from British fans afterwards as if a non-BL rider had no right to be World Champion.