Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 19:12:50 GMT
I just think Peter Oakes got it wrong. The Speedway Star of the day shows them as having 34. So I guess it lists them as one place (and one point) above Berwick in the final table? Sure does |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 20:29:30 GMT
So I guess it lists them as one place (and one point) above Berwick in the final table? Sure does OK, thanks for clearing that one up, looks like Oakes did get it wrong, but more tellingly, who's copied his work in their own publications!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 20:34:05 GMT
Hold on, it still doesn't add up because if you total all the matches ridden, you get 680, and if you total the match points, you get 682.
Where am I wrong?
Birmingham 35 17 1 0 9 2 6 1628 1096 - - - 55
Eastbourne 36 17 0 1 7 3 8 1636.5 1166.5 - - - 51
Boston 36 18 0 0 5 2 11 1508.5 1294.5 - - - 48
Workington 36 17 1 0 5 2 11 1482 1324 - - - 47
Crewe 36 17 0 1 5 0 13 1535.5 1266.5 - - - 44
Teesside 36 15 1 2 4 0 14 1448 1356 - - - 39
Bradford 36 17 0 1 2 1 15 1339 1463 - - - 39
Peterborough 34 14 0 2 4 1 13 1319 1329 - - - 37
Coatbridge 36 17 0 1 1 0 17 1438 1335 - - - 36
Canterbury 36 14 0 4 4 0 14 1402 1372 - - - 36
Barrow 36 12 2 4 3 0 15 1402.5 1396.5 - - - 34
Berwick 36 14 1 3 2 0 16 1284 1519 - - - 33
Stoke 36 15 0 3 1 0 17 1389 1418 - - - 32
Ellesmere Port 35 13 2 3 1 1 15 1331 1394 - - - 31
Long Eaton 36 14 2 2 0 0 18 1302 1502 - - - 30
Rye House 36 12 0 6 1 0 17 1229 1566 - - - 26
Scunthorpe 36 9 2 7 1 0 17 1333 1467 - - - 22
Sunderland 36 10 0 8 1 0 17 1231 1570 - - - 22
Weymouth 36 10 0 8 0 0 18 1198 1601 - - - 20
|
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 5, 2009 20:44:47 GMT
Hold on, it still doesn't add up because if you total all the matches ridden, you get 680, and if you total the match points, you get 682. Where am I wrong? Your maths.  17 x 36 = 612 2 x 35 = 70 Total = 682 meetings |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 21:45:01 GMT
Hold on, it still doesn't add up because if you total all the matches ridden, you get 680, and if you total the match points, you get 682. Where am I wrong? Your maths. 17 x 36 = 612 2 x 35 = 70 Total = 682 meetings Ah, but Peterborough v Birmingham and Peterborough v Ellesmere Port weren't staged that year, so the maths are as follows:- 16 x 36 = 576 2 x 35 = 70 1 x 34 = 34 Total 680 meetings. My maths aren't that bad Schumi.........give me a percentage.  |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2009 22:12:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2009 22:16:07 GMT
Your maths. 17 x 36 = 612 2 x 35 = 70 Total = 682 meetings Ah, but Peterborough v Birmingham and Peterborough v Ellesmere Port weren't staged that year, so the maths are as follows:- 16 x 36 = 576 2 x 35 = 70 1 x 34 = 34 Total 680 meetings. My maths aren't that bad Schumi.........give me a percentage. Your maths ARE that bad - surely it's 340 meetings.  19 teams x 18 home matches each = 342. 342 - 2 matches not staged = 340. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 22:18:30 GMT
Kev, if Barrow did have 32 points, then the number of points would equal the number of matches... or it could be somewhere else. Yes I realise that Genghis, that's why I was getting clarification they had 34 and were above Berwick.This probably requires somewhere to go through the whole results grid, plus that year's Speedway Stars and match the two sets of results to find the discrepancy. Did I hear Kev volunteering. I'd do it if I had those Speedway Stars, Genghis, but I don't.......don't suppose you know anyone who does do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2009 22:21:25 GMT
I'd do it if I had those Speedway Stars, Genghis, but I don't.......don't suppose you know anyone who does do you? Oh bugger.   It will have to wait to the weekend if I'm to that though, Kev. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 22:27:10 GMT
Ah, but Peterborough v Birmingham and Peterborough v Ellesmere Port weren't staged that year, so the maths are as follows:- 16 x 36 = 576 2 x 35 = 70 1 x 34 = 34 Total 680 meetings. My maths aren't that bad Schumi.........give me a percentage. Your maths ARE that bad - surely it's 340 meetings. 19 teams x 18 home matches each = 342. 342 - 2 matches not staged = 340. Oh ffs Here's the table with totals at the bottom of each column.........the matches ridden column should equal the total of match points......it doesn't work. Birmingham 35 17 1 0 9 2 6 1628 1096 - - - 55 Eastbourne 36 17 0 1 7 3 8 1636.5 1166.5 - - - 51 Boston 36 18 0 0 5 2 11 1508.5 1294.5 - - - 48 Workington 36 17 1 0 5 2 11 1482 1324 - - - 47 Crewe 36 17 0 1 5 0 13 1535.5 1266.5 - - - 44 Teesside 36 15 1 2 4 0 14 1448 1356 - - - 39 Bradford 36 17 0 1 2 1 15 1339 1463 - - - 39 Peterborough 34 14 0 2 4 1 13 1319 1329 - - - 37 Coatbridge 36 17 0 1 1 0 17 1438 1335 - - - 36 Canterbury 36 14 0 4 4 0 14 1402 1372 - - - 36 Barrow 36 12 2 4 3 0 15 1402.5 1396.5 - - - 34 Berwick 36 14 1 3 2 0 16 1284 1519 - - - 33 Stoke 36 15 0 3 1 0 17 1389 1418 - - - 32 Ellesmere Port 35 13 2 3 1 1 15 1331 1394 - - - 31 Long Eaton 36 14 2 2 0 0 18 1302 1502 - - - 30 Rye House 36 12 0 6 1 0 17 1229 1566 - - - 26 Scunthorpe 36 9 2 7 1 0 17 1333 1467 - - - 22 Sunderland 36 10 0 8 1 0 17 1231 1570 - - - 22 Weymouth 36 10 0 8 0 0 18 1198 1601 - - - 20 680 272 12 56 56 12 272 26436 26436 682 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 22:29:01 GMT
I'd do it if I had those Speedway Stars, Genghis, but I don't.......don't suppose you know anyone who does do you? Oh bugger. It will have to wait to the weekend if I'm to that though, Kev. Can't see that being a problem............this discussion will probably go beyond that anyway. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2009 22:32:02 GMT
Your maths ARE that bad - surely it's 340 meetings. 19 teams x 18 home matches each = 342. 342 - 2 matches not staged = 340. Oh ffs Here's the table with totals at the bottom of each column.........the matches ridden column should equal the total of match points......it doesn't work. Birmingham 35 17 1 0 9 2 6 1628 1096 - - - 55 Eastbourne 36 17 0 1 7 3 8 1636.5 1166.5 - - - 51 Boston 36 18 0 0 5 2 11 1508.5 1294.5 - - - 48 Workington 36 17 1 0 5 2 11 1482 1324 - - - 47 Crewe 36 17 0 1 5 0 13 1535.5 1266.5 - - - 44 Teesside 36 15 1 2 4 0 14 1448 1356 - - - 39 Bradford 36 17 0 1 2 1 15 1339 1463 - - - 39 Peterborough 34 14 0 2 4 1 13 1319 1329 - - - 37 Coatbridge 36 17 0 1 1 0 17 1438 1335 - - - 36 Canterbury 36 14 0 4 4 0 14 1402 1372 - - - 36 Barrow 36 12 2 4 3 0 15 1402.5 1396.5 - - - 34 Berwick 36 14 1 3 2 0 16 1284 1519 - - - 33 Stoke 36 15 0 3 1 0 17 1389 1418 - - - 32 Ellesmere Port 35 13 2 3 1 1 15 1331 1394 - - - 31 Long Eaton 36 14 2 2 0 0 18 1302 1502 - - - 30 Rye House 36 12 0 6 1 0 17 1229 1566 - - - 26 Scunthorpe 36 9 2 7 1 0 17 1333 1467 - - - 22 Sunderland 36 10 0 8 1 0 17 1231 1570 - - - 22 Weymouth 36 10 0 8 0 0 18 1198 1601 - - - 20 680 272 12 56 56 12 272 26436 26436 682 Kev, you numpty , that's because there are two teams in each match - you're counting each match twice The number of meetings is 340. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 22:41:18 GMT
Oh ffs Here's the table with totals at the bottom of each column.........the matches ridden column should equal the total of match points......it doesn't work. Birmingham 35 17 1 0 9 2 6 1628 1096 - - - 55 Eastbourne 36 17 0 1 7 3 8 1636.5 1166.5 - - - 51 Boston 36 18 0 0 5 2 11 1508.5 1294.5 - - - 48 Workington 36 17 1 0 5 2 11 1482 1324 - - - 47 Crewe 36 17 0 1 5 0 13 1535.5 1266.5 - - - 44 Teesside 36 15 1 2 4 0 14 1448 1356 - - - 39 Bradford 36 17 0 1 2 1 15 1339 1463 - - - 39 Peterborough 34 14 0 2 4 1 13 1319 1329 - - - 37 Coatbridge 36 17 0 1 1 0 17 1438 1335 - - - 36 Canterbury 36 14 0 4 4 0 14 1402 1372 - - - 36 Barrow 36 12 2 4 3 0 15 1402.5 1396.5 - - - 34 Berwick 36 14 1 3 2 0 16 1284 1519 - - - 33 Stoke 36 15 0 3 1 0 17 1389 1418 - - - 32 Ellesmere Port 35 13 2 3 1 1 15 1331 1394 - - - 31 Long Eaton 36 14 2 2 0 0 18 1302 1502 - - - 30 Rye House 36 12 0 6 1 0 17 1229 1566 - - - 26 Scunthorpe 36 9 2 7 1 0 17 1333 1467 - - - 22 Sunderland 36 10 0 8 1 0 17 1231 1570 - - - 22 Weymouth 36 10 0 8 0 0 18 1198 1601 - - - 20 680 272 12 56 56 12 272 26436 26436 682 Kev, you numpty , that's because there are two teams in each match - you're counting each match twice The number of meetings is 340. Arrrrrggggggghhhhh it get's worse.........340 matches comprising of two teams, therefore the total amount of matches those teams rode was 680, which I have in the first column in the bottom row. Those 340 matches would have produced 680 match points, and this is where the problem lies, because in the final column in the bottom row I have 682 points. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2009 22:46:07 GMT
Kev, you numpty , that's because there are two teams in each match - you're counting each match twice The number of meetings is 340. Arrrrrggggggghhhhh it get's worse.........340 matches comprising of two teams, therefore the total amount of matches those teams rode was 680, which I have in the first column in the bottom row. Those 340 matches would have produced 680 match points, and this is where the problem lies, because in the final column in the bottom row I have 682 points. Kev, I'm glad you've now realised your mistake and now admitted there are 340 matches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 23:37:49 GMT
Scunny is wrong. They lost all 18 away matches and should have 20 points
|
|
