Like so much in racing, the new track ratings which are now applied Australia wide appear to be a poorly thought out blunder.

A Dead 4 is a track on the "better side of Dead."
A Dead 5 is a track on the "worse side of Dead."

We now only have tracks rated on the "better side of Dead" or the "worse side of Dead". What about a genuine dead track?

A Slow 6 is a track on the "better side of Slow."
A Slow 7 is a track on the "worse side of Slow."

The same applies here. What is a genuine Slow track? One that is not on the "better side of Slow" or the "worse side of Slow"? We don't have one!

But when it comes to Heavy track ratings we get a

Heavy 8 which is "just into the Heavy range" so that is obviously on the better side of Heavy.
Heavy 9 is a "genuine Heavy".
Heavy 10 is "Very soft and wet, heaviest category." Presumably that is very Heavy and the meeting could be in some danger.

There is something drastically wrong here. We can have a genuine Heavy track rating, but not for Slow or Dead tracks. Ratings for Slow and Dead tracks are either on the better side or worse side.

Totally ridiculous.

It's blatantly obvious that we need two additional track ratings - one for a genuine Dead track and one for a genuine Slow track.

I agree ..i love the idea but it needs fine tuning .