Monday's apology looks a lot more dramatic than it felt at the time but I suppose tone is difficult to faithfully convey through words over the internet. It was not so much my being harsh on myself as it was an acknowledgement of incorrect form. I view mistakes and errors as opportunities to develop - itself a positive gift seldom afforded by "success". Sentiments such as "that was negative" or "those actions were negative" are unhelpful and a much better approach is "what went wrong?","did it really go wrong?", "what can be learned from this?" and "how can these lessons be applied going forward". So without further ado, let us drag the corpse from the rubble of this unmitigated disaster and flog it for a bit before firing it into the sun...
First item, the process. Given that the winner had conspicuous attributes mentioned numerous times elsewhere in the thread, let alone the very same review, had been missed completely was not a deliberate oversight but it was certainly careless. The analysis was done in one sitting without breaks and posted without a proof read. This led to lapses in concentration and an absence of quality control. This is perhaps due to an atavistic impulse to develop and project ones ideas before they are influenced or pre-empted by others. To mitigate, the following process should help - research, notes, first draft, break including an unrelated activity, final draft, submission. Furthermore, said atavistic impulse, now acknowledged, can be firmly dismissed on the basis that 1) the degree and extent of independent research warrants an indifference to any premature external influence 2) the work justifies itself and 3) the author is not in competition with any other analyst. In the unlikely event that after the first draft has been written, a facet of information has been revealed by another writer's insight then it ought to be acknowledged and celebrated in the spirit of universal collaboration.
Second item, overestimated horses. Corn On The Cob Horse - front running tactics would have been less effective in field with several prominent runners which is something to be mindful of in the future. Good ground possibly an issue in hindsight - firmer than forecast - maybe leave preview closer to race or revisit in event of altered conditions. A Mere Bagatelle - still needed considerable improvement. Maybe being too clever.
Third item, underestimated horses. Little Brother - ability to race prominently without need to lead, battling qualities, fair jumping on debut with anticipated experience should have been given their due attention beforehand. Too much was read into the missed gamble first time. Gambles are placed by human beings backing their judgement and while they can offer clues, are still fallible and can confuse matters. Too dismissive of stallion and trainer due largely to low sample sizes and below average strike rates. Both of their improvement rates were respectable beforehand. Also dismissive of Gale Force Ten as a stallion on the basis of his sire being Oasis Dream. While it is true that Oasis Dream has a poor overall strike rate as a grandsire, in terms of producing stallions who get winners, Oasis Dream is on 75% for those with ten or more sons which puts him below only Galileo, equal to Danehill Dancer and ahead of every other grandsire including the likes of Montjeu and Linamix. When taking French three-year-old results into account, these horses then surpass him but the rate increases to 80% which puts him on a par with Green Desert and Monsun and ahead of Danehill, Dansisli and Sadler's Wells. Notwithstanding, his winner to runner rates and overall strike rates are still the lowest of the fifteen qualifying grandsires. If one wanted to complicate matters further, it could be noted that Gale Force Ten's damsire Kirkwall was predominantly a national hunt stallion. However, the take-away should be that Oasis Dream stallions have a poor strike rate but that does not paint the entire picture - particularly where his less exposed stallions are concerned. Perry Owens was dismissed because his recent form was poor and his trainer's recent form was also below the usual standard. However, a horse having a sole poor run after a break is not necessarily negative - Hiconic being a prime example. Furthermore, Noel Meade is exceptional with his juvenile hurdlers and his 75% improvement rate will automatically improve to 77% once Perry Owens and Jeff Kidder return to the racecourse. The yard was still in decent enough health to send out the latter to finish second last week and is more than capable of getting good performances from lower rated flat horses.
With that out of the way, the preview for Monday's race.
The second race of the Irish season took place at Ballinrobe seven days after the curtain raiser at Roscommon. The former did not look quite as strong as the latter beforehand by virtue of the fact that there was a difference of a stone in the highest official flat ratings. This notion could be further justified by the fact that the first two here were beaten nearly eighteen and thirty-five lengths at Roscommon. Nevertheless, the strength in depth between the races was broadly level, the race itself was run at a good tempo and the winning time was the fastest of the four races on the card at the distance. The front four were also clear of a strung out field. Although given the nature of the track and numerous mistakes by many in the field, it is far from certain that the placings will hold. Notwithstanding, it otherwise has a solid look.
Little Brother was a winner on the flat but where the market is concerned, he disappointed on his hurdling debut last week after being backed into second favouritism. His jumping there was not terrible but left room for improvement and that perhaps remains the case as he did not post a foot perfect round. Nevertheless, he travelled well and close to the front, which helps at Ballinrobe, before knuckling down to draw away from the runner-up. The application of first time cheekpieces possibly helped but the drying conditions certainly did. Little Brother would be vulnerable on either softer ground or a more challenging circuit, especially to the third placed horse. Still, he has a nice attitude and his jumping can improve further so another race of this nature in these conditions would see him with a chance.
111
Calidus Mirabilis was best placed of these at Roscommon and though the winner reversed placings by over eighteen lengths, this was still an improved effort. He dived at his hurdles on a couple of occasions here but he got over those and the rest of the flights quickly and only made one real mistake three out. He helped to set a strong gallop and put in a fine effort overall although he probably won't want conditions much sterner than this.
109
Perry Owens would be the one horse to take from this race. His jumping was rather poor, particularly early on, he wandered into the penultimate flight, became unbalanced turning for home and was still a good ten lengths behind the winner at the furlong marker. Despite all of this, he was able to rally to get within two lengths of the winner. There is plenty to work on in the jumping department but if that improvement can be found then a contest such as this should be within his grasp.
109
Sister Eliza came from nowhere to finish third in a seven furlong handicap at Galway last time but was ridden more prominently here. Her jumping was decent save for a slow jump at the last but she was always close enough if good enough and does not appear to have any excuses. She can come on for this run but her prospects seem limited to this kind of level and it would be surprising if her capacity extended beyond this class.
102
Belgoprince did little in the way of racing on his hurdles debut and it was a similar story here. Though he jumped off with the rest of the field, he still kept himself to himself towards the back of the field while learning how to jump over hurdles. He made something resembling headway after the last and won the battle for fifth place while looking rather confused by the process. He is blatantly capable of much better.
100
Voice Of Hope was making his seasonal reappearance and was a bit reticent with his jumping at times before finishing rather tired. It was not brimming with promise but there was enough there to suggest that he can improve for fitness and experience, particularly on softer ground.
100
Varna Gold raced in the rear while making slow jumps but made good headway to join the leaders three from home. He shortly faded thereafter which could either be indicative of a lack of stamina or that the move took too much out of him. Not without promise but not immediately compelling either.
91
Tommy The Hat is a 57 rated eight race maiden on the flat and although his jumping was good, that was the only positive to be drawn. Other than a potential but unlikely lack of stamina for this particular task, there was no real explanation for his being well beaten beyond a general lack of class.
75
A Mere Bagatelle jumped well enough while leading on his debut at Roscommon but adopted more patient tactics here. There was some headway four out but he would fade shortly after. Perhaps more positive tactics might help in the future but he would still likely need handicaps before finding himself in the frame.
72
Corn On The Cob Horse had acquitted himself with much credit in three honourable front running defeats in flat handicaps this year but was not to repeat the dose on this occasion. Racing wide early on, Corn On The Cobb Horse found himself in a protracted battle for the lead and was lit up by the effort. While he was able to get his lead, it was a disputed one for much of the way and Corn On The Cobb Horse had enough some five furlongs from home. This was a disappointing effort and while Corn On The Cobb Horse does not have the profile of a dour stayer, he was beaten too far out for stamina to have been the key factor. Corn On The Cobb Horse was backed throughout the day but he did drift closer to the off which might be tangential to the ground conditions drying out. Another factor would almost certainly be the fact that Corn On The Cobb Horse did not enjoy fighting for the lead. In fairness to Corn On The Cob Horse, his jumping was absolutely fine and if he is not soured by the experience then he can step up markedly on this performance provided there is the likelihood of a soft lead on a suitable track. However, given that his valour is Corn On The Cob Horse's main asset, that an experience such as this might be detrimental to same could be a concern.
56
Blue Sky Thinker was rated forty on the flat after six starts which is about forty-six pounds superior to what he achieved here. Apart from a hesitant jump at the first, there was not much to complain about in that department. He was simply beaten very very far.
0
Money Mike was making his racecourse debut but apart from being distantly related to good horses, did not look particularly intriguing beforehand. He would finish hopelessly tailed off.
0
Mmmm, whilst flat rating (for what it’s worth, Colin) is a useful starting point we are in a different ball game and I wonder how we’d get on without it. Time maybe
Flat ratings are not gospel but they are a fair indicator of a horse's overall ability and perhaps as strong a guide as any. I have just done a quick check on this by comparing those with official flat ratings and more than two hurdles runs by their respective ratings.
Flat Rating / Jump Rating / Avg Diff
113-100 / 127.21 / -12.37
99-90 / 117.84 / -10.89
89-80 / 114.02 / -4.71
79-70 / 102.83 / -6.41
69-60 / 96.18 / -3.32
59-50 / 89.33 / -0.38
49-40 / 82.65 / 1.72
Jump Rating / Flat Rating / Avg Diff
164-140 / 86.46 / 23.47
139-130 / 79.31 / 19.69
129-120 / 75.70 / 12.85
119-110 / 72.94 / 6.44
109-100 / 66.86 / 2.55
99-90 / 63.02 / -3.50
The most talented flat horses won't usually make the most talented jumpers and vice versa but in general terms, particularly among more average horses, flat ratings are a good guide. In the absence of flat ratings, factors such as breeding and connections would be used beforehand and these can also be used to make adjustments to ratings both prior and after a race. I think jumping proficiency would also be a useful factor although I would like to be better at assessing same when watching clips. I do look at time although over jumps, I suspect times might be better at indicating the strength of pace than quality of field. Although if anybody has done research that shows otherwise then I will happily reconsider my position.
I think any ratings are a useful supplement to your words (however waffling!!!) which should carry much the main weight.
Fair enough. I will add them to future reviews but they are obviously to be taken with several condiments!
I’ve some thoughts on how you can apply ratings that may be a little different BH. Your friend may fall out with me though! :lol:
You’re already doing a fantastic job differentiating horses by DI and course So whereas the handicapper, Timeform, and the RP ratings apply blanket ratings, I think there is scope to apply ratings by course characteristics. It feels like a logical next step.
Hi Maruco
I am not entirely sure what you are suggesting here. The DIs from past winners at any given racecourse are largely to indicate the stamina demands that a juvenile race at such a course might entail. In truth, I think an aggregation of winning times divided into seconds per furlong possibly affords a more accurate guide. I usually look at past juvenile races at the courses when such research is demanded by an upcoming race. I could potentially do a few more courses for comparison in groups of flat/undulating, sharp/galloping, stiff/easy finish etc but I am uncertain as to what particular benefit. In terms of applying ratings, I am even more stumped as to how this might be applied. Particularly as ratings are generally utilised on an ad-hoc basis and put into context by individual traits. If there is to be specific research to be done by these metrics then it would demand a vast amount of data which I unfortunately do not have in my possession. Furthermore, it would probably require more evidence than juvenile hurdlers can provide in a single season given that it is most unlikely that a sufficient amount of juveniles will have ran across a sufficient variety of racecourses to provide anything resembling reliable data.
If anybody happens to have a spreadsheet with a truly comprehensive set of data going back a couple of decades then I would be willing to play around with it to see if anything interesting can be extrapolated. But otherwise, I am not sure how what I can do with your suggestion.
