2005 Championship and Unjust Points

[mac]

Ok. This is the thread where I whinge about the points system. I have nothing against Russell Ingall and was overjoyed at the sheer pleasure and enthusiasm he had for winning the championship.

We all know Rusty is a racer - that he didn't win his championship racing as hard as he can is a travesty.

The current points system is totally ridiculous!!!

It does not reward excellence, it rewards "above-averageness".

I have applied the MotoGP points system - a much fairer and rewarding system - and it garnered the following final points standings:

1) C.Lowndes - 187 pts (+1)
2) M.Ambrose - 179 (+1)
3) M.Skaife - 155 (+2)
4) R.Ingall - 152 (-3)
5) T.Kelly - 151 (-1)
6) S.Richards - 129 (+1)
7) G.Tander - 128 (-1)
8) G.Murphy - 121 (+3)
9) R.Kelly - 79 (-1)
10) S.Ellery - 70 (+3)
11) P.Radisich - 67 (+3)
12) J.Bright - 63 (-3)
13) J.Richards - 59 (+4)
14) C.McConville - 57 (-4)
15) S.Johnson - 56 (-3)

Tell me this does not represent more fairly, a championship that included:
- Wins: Lowndes (4), Ambrose (3), Skaife (1), Ingall (1), T.Kelly (3), Tander (1), Murphy (1)
- Podiums: Lowndes (6), Ambrose (7), Skaife (6), INGALL (3), T.Kelly (5), S.Richards (3), Tander (4), Murphy (4), R. Kelly (1), Ellery (1), J.Richards (2)

The actual series champion has three podiums!!!!!!!!!

Something must be done - this is totally unjust.

I'm sorry, but as much as I respect Russell Ingall, I find it hard to take this "championship" seriously.

[thebandit]

i agree with you mate. first congratulations rusty for winning championship with the current rules.

but after seeing this year unfold and seeing when you win you don't get the advantage in points it seems silly you don't need to win races to take home the championship.

looks like the motogp system would work well in the v8 supercars. they should also adopt 10 points for getting pole. so 130 extra points through out the year could be earned for making pole pushing people more in qualifying.

[Uncle Cranker]

Agree 100 % Mac.

I too am a huge Ingall fan, & don't begrudge him the Championship win one bit.

The fact that the point system awards consistancy is just life in V8 SC 2005, next year they tinker away with a different points system with arze about grids.

Remember: Even F1 moved the goal posts more than once during the year.......


The points system should not reward mediocrity, but people have to live with the fact the TEGA, AVE$$CO & The Black Wiggle, all know exactly what the public want from Their series.

We can pizz & moan all day, the powers to be will keep doing what they like, with little, if any regard for the fans.

Here is the feedback link for the website.
https://www.v8supercar.com.au/conten...us/default.asp

If you disagree with them, PLEASE send an e-mail,

How else are we going to let these fools know that the Championship should belong to the people, not a group of Theatre Promoters from the Gold Coast..........


rant finished;
MMM coffee time.

[Kerri]

I personally don't think it matters which points system is used, (don't flame me) I have done pointscore for over 13 years and have seen some pretty unusual systems but at the end of the day there is always someone who isn't happy.
Maybe we should award a winner at least 50points more than the second place finisher, then maybe that would be reward enough, but if 10 different people won in ten races, what would be the difference?? The difference would be where the other 9 finished in each race.
Fact is people complain every year even when the system is changed, why? Because everyone has personal opinions.

[deejay]

I don't think we need a radical change, but a tweak would be in order. I quite like the idea of awarding points all the way down in such a large and competitive field. It gives those running in 26th something to fight for and the chance to get some result for their season.

However they simply need to space out the points at the top of the field more. Say, 80 for a race win, 70 for second, 65 third, then back to the 2 point difference; 60, 58, 56, 54, etc...

Not much of a change but a real incentive to go for that podium. If someone wanted to cruise around get 5th's they'd be giving up 22 to the race winner instead of just 10. That'd be 66 over the whole weekend.

... and of course discard that ridiculous reverse grid malarky.

[peckstar]

Lets compare driver to driver.

so ingall was able to beat lowndes 6 times to lowndes beating ingall 7 times. close slightly in favour of lowndes until you realize that on three of the occasions ingall more than doubled the point score of lowndes. ie smashed him. lowndes was not able to do this once to lowndes. so we end up with a very close championship, which is what happened.

now ingall to ambrose 7 to ingall 6 to ambrose close again, but marcos also coped that travisty of a 25 poiunt penalty.

ingall to skaife 8 to 5 no real contest there

ingall to todd 7 to 6.

so off the top 5 he beat 3 of them was one round down on the other but had smashed him in three of the races.

it looks like its the motogp system which is flawed.

if i win a race and come 32nd in the the second then i deserve to be 16th

if i come tenth in one race and tenth in the 2nd. then i deserve to be tenth.

enough of these crappy system that reward inconsistancy

[MRJUCY]

The same basic points structure has been in place for several years now & it's always stunk but looking back over the past few years I don't think anyone can deny the most deserving driver has won.
I hate this everyone wins a prize mentality, they award far to many points for going last & the gap between places should get larger towards the front but all the drivers knew what they had to do at the start of the year & drove accordingly, a few people have tried the accumulator way but this is the first time it has worked as no one was truely dominant. I'm very against bonus points for qualifying & fastest laps etc & fortunately they haven't gone down that route.
They need a sensible system & to stick with it.

[mac]

Originally Posted by MRJUCY

The same basic points structure has been in place for several years now & it's always stunk but looking back over the past few years I don't think anyone can deny the most deserving driver has won.

To a certain extent ......

You cannot argue that Ambrose was not the most deserving driver in 2004.

My problem there is that it was so ridiculously close at the end, despite his and SBR's sheer excellence.

[twinwebbers]

The moto GP points look fair to me....

Russell has done a great job under the system and congrats to him but a championship that rewards winners just makes a truck load more sense than rewarding finishing.

Plus...

I think the top 15 mac has calculated looks great all the way back too. If you look down the list at Jason Richards and Radisich it seems a better reflection on their year.

[rustyinsthoz]

I also agree that the Moto GP points system would be a lot more fair and be more representative of the drivers year . It has a much better balance in term of rewarding winning v finishing consistently . This years system had no reward for winning , only finishing .

[SSbaby]

Good post, mac.

Upon reflection, the MotoGP points system looks about right to me. I would definitely put Lowndes and Ambrose in front of Ingall without even thinking about points accumulated... rather performances over the course of the season.

[deejay]

It was Ambrose's result at Bathurst that really cost him the title... maybe Russ should send a little something extra in his Christmas card to Murph...

[William Dale Jr]

Just remember that the MotoGP system can work both ways; in 1999, Emilio Alzamora won the 125cc World Championship without winning a single race.


The other thing to remember is that the drivers would drive differently with different points systems in place. For example, had the MotoGP system been in place for this year, perhaps Ingall may have been more aggressive and won a few more races than he did. Perhaps everyone would have been more aggressive knowing that there was a larger point gain for each position gained, and this would have seen more cars being launched at the scenery?

All I'm saying is, applying a different points system at the end of the year will not necessarily give you a true indication of how the championship would have gone with that points system in place.

[deejay]

Originally Posted by William Dale Jr

For example, had the MotoGP system been in place for this year, perhaps Ingall may have been more aggressive and won a few more races than he did.

Which would be a good thing...

[deeks6]

Point 1 - Agree that the current system sucks (the NASCAR style). This is similar to the system that saw Ryan Newman win 12 of the 36 races and come 9th in the championship whilst Matt Kenseth won 1 and took the title. Come On !!!

Point 2 - I doubt if anyone can deny that Russ is one of the hardest chargers, one of the best drivers and one who thoroughly deserved a title. It is totally ironic that a bloke like Russ ends up winning a title by driving conservatively. I join those congratulating Russ and, if the system was different, we would see the old Enforcer again - I, for one, would like to.

Point 3 - I actually prefer the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system but the MotoGP system would be acceptable I guess. I just cannot why a bloke who finishes 27th 3 laps down deserves any points. It makes no sense at all. Reward winners and high finishers and there will be less pedestrian racing - and, at the same time have a liberal view of racing rules...nowadays, you can drive defensively, block the guy behind you and get away with it...this has to cease. The 2 most sensible decisions I have ever seen from the stewards were the Skaife/Radisich incident from quite a few years ago and the Toddler/Seton one form 2004? In those cases, Skaife and Seton were clearly blocking and got their just desserts.

Lets bring it back to 2nd place is FIRST LOSER.

[mac]

Ask Russell if he would rather race to the death, or tool around in sixth place trying to avoid other cars.

Have a guess what his answer would be.

[peckstar]

not everyone can tool around in 6th place.

Now i wonder what would have happened if craig hadnt have tried to win bathurst in the first driving stint, or if he hadn't tried to win the race in the first corner in NZ.

although it is slightly ironic that the championship may have been decided in one corner over in Darwin. russel wasn't it, fighting for postion with Craig

[mac]

Originally Posted by peckstar

not everyone can tool around in 6th place.

When equipped with one of the best cars on the grid, I would argue it is not too difficult.

As I said, I am not bagging Rusty - but I would have much rathered seeing him win a championship racing as hard as we know he can and will.

And I am sure he would have too.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Lets compare driver to driver.

so ingall was able to beat lowndes 6 times to lowndes beating ingall 7 times. close slightly in favour of lowndes until you realize that on three of the occasions ingall more than doubled the point score of lowndes. ie smashed him. lowndes was not able to do this once to lowndes. so we end up with a very close championship, which is what happened.

now ingall to ambrose 7 to ingall 6 to ambrose close again, but marcos also coped that travisty of a 25 poiunt penalty.

ingall to skaife 8 to 5 no real contest there

my memory is not good enough - but how would those figures work out if you take out the ones where either driver had a particular problem? e.g. speed cameras, mechanical probs, punted by someone etc.

did Russell ever beat them? ( I know, first you have to finish etc, but it would have been nice to see the new champion in front of his teammate occasionally!)

Well done to Russell tho' - he played the game.

[peckstar]

yes he did beat them. OP he drove down the inside of Marcos for the round win, fair and square on the track. Part of racing is making sure you get to the finish, as they have been saying since skaifey was in nappies "You cant win Bathurst on the first lap"

[Schrodes]

If I remember correctly the current "every finisher gets points" system was introduced in the mid 90's when grids were smaller and there were only about six cars that could win at any given round. This system helped the privateers find or hold onto sponsors because they could tell a sponsor that they won this many points during the season instead of none. The championship has grown since then and whilst I'm certain it is just as difficult as ever to find sponsors there are none of the old fashioned privateers like there used to be so awarding points to every classified finisher is not necessary.

[F J Nedos]

Good on Russell for winning the championship. At the end of the day, a driver can only win it in the circumstances placed upon him. He was the one who managed to do it and be No 1 at the end of the year. Some say he played it smart, so if finishing every race bar 1 is the way to do it, then good on him.

However I dont think its the right way for a sporting event to crown the best in the field.

Channel 10 worked it out that russell's average finishing position was 8.5 or something like that. Would someone who runs 8th and 9th consecutively in all of the rounds a marathon season be seen as the best? As I said before, Russell did it whereas others didnt so he played the smart game, good on him.

I think what has happened is that Avesco, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves these days, have manufactured the championship in such a way that the championship is decided at the last round. Even the last race of the last round - they got that this year, so I dont see any reason why the bean counters would want to change things. Its also a manufacturing of the championship which sees teams try their best to keep their cars on the track at all times. Maybe this is to give the impression that the field is massive, hence popularity and deemed success.

We have to ask ourselves, is this the right thing? Or the commercially strongest?

I am like most people here by thinking the moto gp points system is a better one. I dont think wins alone should be the defining criteria which determines the best in the field. I think the idea of a championship is to crown the person who excels the most during the year. The one who shows the most skill, pace and determination.

F1 proves that you dont need to give points to every car on the track in order to keep them out there. Running order in qualifying for the next round does that. It might not be as big a deal in V8's but I am sure it would work.

So combine moto gp points scoring, and elements of F1 qualifying. That'd be my recipie.

I think there would be quite a few drivers scratching their heads wondering why they didnt average 8th throughout the year to take the title...

[Mattracer]

Originally Posted by F J Nedos

Good on Russell for winning the championship. At the end of the day, a driver can only win it in the circumstances placed upon him. He was the one who managed to do it and be No 1 at the end of the year. Some say he played it smart, so if finishing every race bar 1 is the way to do it, then good on him.

You can only play the game to the rules that are set. The only race he didn't finish was one he didn't start due to starter motor problems at Hidden Valley and I can recall a dejected driver and engineer in Barry Hay sitting beside the stricken car in the garage consoling themselves that perhaps the Championship was slipping away at that very moment. Seems a long time ago.

[Mattracer]

Originally Posted by mac

Ask Russell if he would rather race to the death, or tool around in sixth place trying to avoid other cars.

Have a guess what his answer would be.

True but one has to be adaptable. That he has been this year.

I agree, the points system could do with a change and coupled with reverse grids to appease the crash/bash mentality, the DSO and IPO have a full plate next year methinks.

[peckstar]

Just examined the points from the last couple of years and Ingalls score for this year would have had him third in 2003 (last time there was a dropped round) I think what we have is the result of having six cars able to win in the last round. Because no one driver has truly dominated and we have had many different round winners the points have been well spread. plus a number of the top drivers have had some very poor rounds, where as ingall has not had a very poor round