Colin Phillips
At the Start
Too many hard races?
Irish Guineas
- Thread starter Harbinger
- Start date
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 588
not so sure that can be used as an excuse
i think he just lacks a turn of foot
maybe upping in trip and soft ground would help
but on the whole i would say I agree with charlie d
its unlikely that he will add a grp 1 to his cv this year
i think he just lacks a turn of foot
maybe upping in trip and soft ground would help
but on the whole i would say I agree with charlie d
its unlikely that he will add a grp 1 to his cv this year
Plenty are jumping the gun a bit with New Approach...the clerk of the course is getting plenty of stick for the state of the ground today...with jockeys stating the final furlong was "like a road". Before the 2000 Guineas at Newmarket we all said he wouldn't want it to fast...today was not just fast but firm.
We know what a different horse Henry is now he has got his ground, New Approach deserves the same chance.
We know what a different horse Henry is now he has got his ground, New Approach deserves the same chance.
Powerscourt
At the Start
NA did not run to his best on that ground whereas Henry got the ground he wants. Thought Murtagh did a nice job keeping Henry away from NA near the finish ruling out any chance that NA would fight back.
Be interesting to see where they both go next as they are the best two three year olds in IRE/UK. Well done to connections of Stubbs Art for supplementing the horse and he ran to his earlier Guineas form. Not often you see 20/1 odds about a horse that had been supplemented.
I think there will be plenty of G1s to be won by NA when he gets better ground over further. I hope the firm ground today will not have a lasting effect on him.
Be interesting to see where they both go next as they are the best two three year olds in IRE/UK. Well done to connections of Stubbs Art for supplementing the horse and he ran to his earlier Guineas form. Not often you see 20/1 odds about a horse that had been supplemented.
I think there will be plenty of G1s to be won by NA when he gets better ground over further. I hope the firm ground today will not have a lasting effect on him.
I have to disagree with you on that Charlie. I think NA looked very uncomfortable on the ground. He was hanging a bit and generally not happy and in the circumstances i think he ran well and tried hard on ground he obviously doesn't like. If the ground came up Good or easier for the irish Derby I still think he's the one to beat. He has only been beaten by 1 horse in his life and you're writing him off!!!! Henrythenavigator looks exceptional on that ground but on different ground the result may have beeen different, as indeed it was last year. I feel it is jumping the gun a bit saying he hasn't trained on either considering his run in Newmarket. Although 2nd to Henrythenavigator there the pair were a long way clear of some highly touted 3 yr olds. In my opinion New Approach will bounce back.
Daren't share my opinion then, :laughing: other than to say I'm on the side of the clerk for a change. Somethings not right, either the timing mechanism was broken, the distances were badly wrong (running rails) everything was a slow tactical affair, or not for the first time, jockeys aren't very good judges of what the ground rides like?. Wouldn't like to say which in honesty.
I will be interested to see what Dave Edwards brings the ground out at, but bear in mind not a single horse on the card beat standard time. Compare that to a weaker card at Haydock where I estimate 28 of the 59 did. The latter points to firm ground, the former doesn't
New Approach was definitely hanging left most of the first half of the race and had to be almost wrestled round the turn into the straight. Maybe the ground was a bit fast for him or he hasn't had enough pratice going right-handed.
Henry, by contrast, seemed well-balanced and on an even keel all through the race, and loved the ground.
I think that was the difference between the two horses today.
Henry, by contrast, seemed well-balanced and on an even keel all through the race, and loved the ground.
I think that was the difference between the two horses today.
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Very impressive performance from Henrythenavigator today, but hardly comes as any great surprise given the prevailing conditions were very much in his favour.
As for New Approach, he never looked comfortable on the ground (just look at his head carriage).
As for New Approach, he never looked comfortable on the ground (just look at his head carriage).
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
New Approach looked to have things pretty much his own way up front. Looked to go fairly steady to me, which ended up playing into Murtagh's hands (not that it affected the result one bit).
New Approach has had his way in front on both occasions this season but has been beaten by a better miler on each occasion. I agree he did not enjoy the ground today, but even if todays Henry had of turned up at Newmarket it still would have been an easy win. Much improved display.
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
No argument there Gal, though I still maintain that the conditions played their bit.
I really hope his next run is in the St. James Palace.
I really hope his next run is in the St. James Palace.
Stubbs Art beaten 4l by New Approach at English HQ
Stubbs Art beaten 3.5l by New Approach at Irish HQ
That works out as both horses ran pretty much to Nemarket form, if NA had not run his race, Stubbs Art would have been much closer or beaten NA wouldn't he???
It hasn't been calculated yet, although the 117 he got at Newmarket was a PB. I suspect Dave Edwards is having mighty difficulty rationalising the alleged going with the times run :laughing: Something is badly amiss (not the first time in Ireland, and most definately not the first time at the Curragh either). I can only assume that the rails have been shifted massively, as there's no evidence in the times to suggest the ground was anything but 2 full going descriptions wrong if the advertised distances are right. In raw time (and despite going into a headwind) the English Guineas was quicker, but then Newmarket is an easier course, and standard on the Rowley Mile is 2secs faster. At standard though, he's only 1.51 secs faster
To put it in context Obezyana ran a mile in a 0-80 Haydock on ground that I've brought out as +4.50 today (Firm). This was achieved in a time -0.09 slow of standard (easily accounted for by the class of race). There were three higher quality races run at the Curragh today over the same alleged distance, all of which were won in times significantly slower.
Henrythenavigator -1.63 (1.54 secs or 7.75L's slower)
(3yo, Gp1)
Grecian Dancer -1.69 (1.6 secs or 8L's slower)
(Gp3 Fillies)
Summit Surge -3.03 (2.94 secs or 14.75L's slower)
(Top handicap)
Castles In The Air won the 3yo, 0-80 handicap at Haydock in a time +0.62 faster than Standard over 6F. At the Curragh Astronomer Royal won a 6F, Gp3 in a time -0.99 slower than standard. The younger handicaper has beaten Astronomer Royal by about 8L's :brows:
.
To put it in context Obezyana ran a mile in a 0-80 Haydock on ground that I've brought out as +4.50 today (Firm). This was achieved in a time -0.09 slow of standard (easily accounted for by the class of race). There were three higher quality races run at the Curragh today over the same alleged distance, all of which were won in times significantly slower.
Henrythenavigator -1.63 (1.54 secs or 7.75L's slower)
(3yo, Gp1)
Grecian Dancer -1.69 (1.6 secs or 8L's slower)
(Gp3 Fillies)
Summit Surge -3.03 (2.94 secs or 14.75L's slower)
(Top handicap)
Castles In The Air won the 3yo, 0-80 handicap at Haydock in a time +0.62 faster than Standard over 6F. At the Curragh Astronomer Royal won a 6F, Gp3 in a time -0.99 slower than standard. The younger handicaper has beaten Astronomer Royal by about 8L's :brows:
.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Nope, taken that into account. Henry looked like he'd harder homework than the actual race today.
Warbler - those times really are strange. I'm not sure rail movement could cause that much of a difference, especially on the straight course! Slowly run races, maybe, I dunno.
Only possible reasons I can think of are a gale-force headwind (!) or, and it's a stretch, that the ground was so firm that none of the horses were willing to let themselves down on it.
Warbler - those times really are strange. I'm not sure rail movement could cause that much of a difference, especially on the straight course! Slowly run races, maybe, I dunno.
Only possible reasons I can think of are a gale-force headwind (!) or, and it's a stretch, that the ground was so firm that none of the horses were willing to let themselves down on it.
According to Turftrax there was a Force 6 North east wind today @ the Curragh, which according to Beaufort scale equates to a windspeed of around 25-31 mph
Don't know which direction this would hit the horses at the Curragh, but it would go someway to explain the slow times on fast ground if the horses were running into it
Don't know which direction this would hit the horses at the Curragh, but it would go someway to explain the slow times on fast ground if the horses were running into it
My initial reaction was rail movement gareth and i reckon it has to have been worth about at least 60 yds, which you just couldn't do on a mile round course. In any event the straight course evidence blows that out of the water.
As any oceanographer will tell you, 'the 40 year wave does break' and there are of course a set of circumstances to do with similarly run slow tactical races all coinciding within about a second of each other on the same card that can scupper my methods. More often than not, I'll be right, as it does require a series of unlikely coincidences to misdirect me, and normally something will happen on a 7 race card that gives the lie to the rest. In this case it hasn't though. My corrections aren't infallible though, and I'm aware of circumstances in which they can be blown of message. It is of course possible that this is what we've encountered today (it normally happens about once or twice a season) but I can usually spot rogues by now, but this one has me stumped.
A headwind I considered, but that should have assisted those running with it at middle distances where it would have been a tailwind or cross wind. The evidence of the 12F races is even more puzzling therefore. The 0-80 at the Curragh was won in a time -7.23 slow, where as the same trip at Haydock (admittedly listed) was fast by +0.58, (that's just short of 40L's). In any event, a wind that strong would need to be close to storm force 8, unless there was a vicious tailwind at Haydock and a strong headwind at the Curragh in which case force4/5 at both venues might have done the trick?.
It's not unheard of for the RP to give out the wrong standards at the Curragh I'm told (can't think I've encountered myself) but if they have, then I'm sure Edwards will be on to it, as alarm bells must be ringing with him by now, even if no one else has picked it up.
Faulty timing mechanism?
Even if the ground was so firm that horses wouldn't put down on it, I'd have thought that at least one of them would have been suited and complied? Haydock at +4.50 is firm, and a second quicker would have been borderline dangerous. As i said about 28 of the 59 horses beat standard on Merseyside today. Nothing at the Curragh did. Given the class of race there, surely you'd have expected at least one of them to have been freakily suited and at least threatend it? Astronomer Royal got closer than anything -0.99 slow shrug::
As any oceanographer will tell you, 'the 40 year wave does break' and there are of course a set of circumstances to do with similarly run slow tactical races all coinciding within about a second of each other on the same card that can scupper my methods. More often than not, I'll be right, as it does require a series of unlikely coincidences to misdirect me, and normally something will happen on a 7 race card that gives the lie to the rest. In this case it hasn't though. My corrections aren't infallible though, and I'm aware of circumstances in which they can be blown of message. It is of course possible that this is what we've encountered today (it normally happens about once or twice a season) but I can usually spot rogues by now, but this one has me stumped.
A headwind I considered, but that should have assisted those running with it at middle distances where it would have been a tailwind or cross wind. The evidence of the 12F races is even more puzzling therefore. The 0-80 at the Curragh was won in a time -7.23 slow, where as the same trip at Haydock (admittedly listed) was fast by +0.58, (that's just short of 40L's). In any event, a wind that strong would need to be close to storm force 8, unless there was a vicious tailwind at Haydock and a strong headwind at the Curragh in which case force4/5 at both venues might have done the trick?.
It's not unheard of for the RP to give out the wrong standards at the Curragh I'm told (can't think I've encountered myself) but if they have, then I'm sure Edwards will be on to it, as alarm bells must be ringing with him by now, even if no one else has picked it up.
Faulty timing mechanism?
Even if the ground was so firm that horses wouldn't put down on it, I'd have thought that at least one of them would have been suited and complied? Haydock at +4.50 is firm, and a second quicker would have been borderline dangerous. As i said about 28 of the 59 horses beat standard on Merseyside today. Nothing at the Curragh did. Given the class of race there, surely you'd have expected at least one of them to have been freakily suited and at least threatend it? Astronomer Royal got closer than anything -0.99 slow shrug::
One for Googlearth, but I wouldn't have thought 25mph - 31mph would be quite so detrimental, in the times as it appears, but at this stage, it looks by far the most likely explanation. You nromally see a series of fast and slow times however on a wind affected card which split pretty well according to the different distances where it was hindering or helping horses. I've certainly rated cards before where wind speeds have been given as higher.
Now lets see if I can find the Curragh and set my compass (don't fancy my chances in truth)
Since it seems to have been accepted before the race that NA would go off in front and effectively set the pace, and since as Manning said he was unhappy and wouldn't let down, doesn't that in part explain tactically why the pace was slow overall? Jocks just didn't want to or didn't think of changing their tactics? - what was very noticeable, was that Murtagh didn't even have to lift his stick when he took it up, and how often does a colt win a Classic hands and heels?
That doesn't explain the other races all being run in slower times than par, though...
That doesn't explain the other races all being run in slower times than par, though...
The wonders of Googlearth!!! Alright the coverage pixilates quite badly at the lower altitude (not uncommon for rural areas) but the course is clear enough to work out what the wind was doing when you set the compass to N/E. A strich headwind in the straight would be East of South East. A N/E headwind would mean it would hit the horses at about 45 - 50 degrees from the left and in front. It would be a slowing wind rather than a stopping wind. The only time it would have been a direct headwind would have been from about 7 - 6 furlongs. I hadn't fully appreciated what an exaggerated teardrop the course is, and a North Easterly would be against them, for all of the races run as it never really gets the chance to become a tailwind. It wouldn't have been directly into their faces, but it would certainly have slowed them up. Even a half ton animal as powerful as horse, who doesn't have to bother putting up a brolly should have been inconvenienced.
If a similar strength wind was blowing at Haydock, but was critically behind them, it would go a long way to explaining the discrepancies.
If the wind is in the same position today and of similar strength, allied with watering, it could easily make the thousand guineas ride closer to 9F than a mile, which would have to be a concern to Nadoodh given she has a DI of 5.00 and is already seemingly running in defiance of her dosage.
It will be interesting to see what Dave Edward's gives it at, as unlike me, he does have a formula that legislates for wind speed and direction.
If a similar strength wind was blowing at Haydock, but was critically behind them, it would go a long way to explaining the discrepancies.
If the wind is in the same position today and of similar strength, allied with watering, it could easily make the thousand guineas ride closer to 9F than a mile, which would have to be a concern to Nadoodh given she has a DI of 5.00 and is already seemingly running in defiance of her dosage.
It will be interesting to see what Dave Edward's gives it at, as unlike me, he does have a formula that legislates for wind speed and direction.
eric c
At the Start
There is a N/E GALE blowing at present here in Howth---all boats anchored outside the harbour have been taken inside---much stronger than yesterday.
Combined with watered ground, stamina will be more of a factor at Curragh.
Combined with watered ground, stamina will be more of a factor at Curragh.