Goodwood Day 5

Good work from Desert Orchid and EC1 today. Standard of both tipping and discussion throughout the week has been excellent I must say. Well done to all!
 
Well done with Genki, EC1. I thought it would run well but it looks to have improved again. Amazing how far the high numbers were in front after two furlongs. It looked like Genki raced more towards them than low but generally in the middle. The last one I wanted to see win was Evens And Odds as I was on it in the Wokingham.
 
Good stuff DO and EC. I didn't get to see much of yesterday's action apart from the Nassau which was utterly bizarre to watch!

Pretty funny to see Tanya tell Big Mac to give it a rest and put her arm over his.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Well done with Genki, EC1. I thought it would run well but it looks to have improved again. Amazing how far the high numbers were in front after two furlongs. It looked like Genki raced more towards them than low but generally in the middle. The last one I wanted to see win was Evens And Odds as I was on it in the Wokingham.
Click to expand...

a classic example of people believing that "where the pace is" is where the winner will come from..far side were well clear..where the pace was...but the even paced stand side beat them..very few will learn from this though and the "where the pace is argument" will be wheeled out in all its ignorant glory yet again in the future

in most straight course races..if one side consistently wins the race you can bet that its a surface difference issue at play..this race totally dispels the "pace" issue completely..if the most pace loaded side does win the race then farside should have won easy
 
I thought the finishers with high draws did better than those with low draws in yesterday's race. I must check the result. Genki and Markab looked to race middle-to-high but obviously the TV picture wasn't clear.
 
The finishing positions suggest there was no overall bias as 8 from each side made up the first 16 home. It may be that the far side went off too fast (Thebes faded noticeably) in the expectation that they would press home their perceived advantage (based on how the consolation race panned out on Friday). The fact the jockeys all chose to come up the stands' side in the races run on the round course indicated the near side was running faster but it may also be that in the first two or three furlongs to the intersection the ground on the far side was genuinely faster but slower afterwards. Again, the consolation race would back up that theory as the far side was clearly several lengths ahead at the intersection.
 
it looked to me that the best pace - farside.. went too fast..which is another argument against the "where the pace is" - usually wins thinking.

I'm just logging this sort of thing for the future DO..I read so much about straight course races only differing due to pace..when in fact its surfaces that differ that causes one side of a course to be winning most of the time..where the pace is..is always used in those arguments..but pace itself does not decide which side keeps winning...in fact "where the pace is" is usually a disadvantage if there is too much.

if you ran a race 20 times then the winner will on average come from each side 10 times..irrelevant of whether there is pace in one side or not..the only time you would get differing results is when the ground is slower one side..yesterdays race clearly showed that..the stand side was faster I think..but had the least pace..and still won...because ground speed is way more imposrtant than where the pace is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top