K Fallon on Heavy

M

mrussell

At the Start
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
690
Location
Mostly London
I've received a newsletter from Flat Stats - an email - that makes the case that K Fallon underperforms on heavy going. The investigation was triggered by his poor strike rate at Southwell, where the author states that Fibresand rides much like heavy going on turf.

To quote:

"Using the new Today's Stats (Extra) page a few weeks ago I noticed that Kieren Fallon had a poor record at Southwell. I was surprised I had not noticed this before: it was probably because he had not ridden there much since his return from suspension.

The next day Fallon had 6 rides booked at Southwell of which 4 were fancied. It was worth taking a closer look at his stats to see if they could be opposed.

I used the Today's Stats (Extra) page to show me the "course record for jockeys" table. It is surprising to see such a high profile jockey like Fallon at the bottom of the table along with the low strike rate jockeys.

Runs: 67 Wins: 5 S/R 7.5% A/E 0.34

That is a very low strike rate for Fallon. At the other all weather courses his strike rate is more than 3 times greater. Notice the extremely low figure of 0.34. What is astounding is that 52 of those 67 runners were fancied in the market so this clearly points to Fallon being unable to handle the Southwell Fibresand.

The next day Fallon failed to win on any of his 6 rides and could only manage 2 places and thus continue his poor record at the track.

Why does that happen? Why is it that a champion jockey cannot be effective at any racecourse?

The answer is that it is all to do with the going. Southwell is a Fibresand surface that runs very slow - it is similar to soft ground on the turf. Sometimes the going at Southwell seems to be more like heavy going and this is what Fallon cannot handle.

(Here the author quotes more stats, but it's a pain formatting them here, so just his conclusion is included.)

Fallon is an overall 18% hitter on the turf but when the going is heavy that record is halved. Clearly his riding style is not effective when the going is that soft and he struggles to win races.

Once again this shows that jockeys are not machines who are 100% efficient in every circumstance. Some jockeys are better in sprints and weaker over longer distances, some jockeys perform well on straight, galloping courses but may struggle on right handed, or tight courses and as in this example with Fallon some jockeys show biases with different goings."
 
Interesting.I always knew that Fallon hated Goodwood but this is news to me.
I thought Murtagh showed he is the undisputed King of The Curragh over the weekend.
Maybe we should try to compile a list of jockeys best and worst tracks.
 
Flatstats highlights many areas that are surprising re jockeys over certain trips at certain tracks

the A/E rating is the best most telling bit of the ratings as well
 
It's interesting, but surely we've known for ages that some jockeys have favourite tracks where they shine best? Ryan Moore has ridden Brighton since he was an embryo, Eddie Ahern can ride Lingfield backwards on a camel and win, etc., etc. I think in order to arrive at true stats, you'd also need to look at the horses KF had ridden - were they, in fact, horses whose previous form showed they disliked Heavy? Let's face it, Heavy is the least usual surface for Flat horses - if they're mainly Turf performers then they're more used to Firm, GF, G, and occasionally GS. Most Clerks don't plan to arrive at Soft, let alone Heavy, for Flat runners, since few trainers care to put them through a slog.

Southwell also has the disadvantage of very high and stinging kickback, and you'll see far more heads in the air and horses not wanting to go into the rain of sharp sand smacking their faces than you will at Wolverhampton, Kempton, or Lingfield (or Dundalk). Thus, their performances are rarely truly genuine unless they're front-running types who prefer to keep their faces clean.

I don't see anything unusual about him being on fancied horses - do you?! With him up, clearly punters would go for that horse - he is, after all, a brilliant jockey. But the fact he doesn't win on them doesn't mean he's no good at Southwell. There could be many other predisposing factors which have brought his win rate down - not the least being that most horses dislike Southwell almost as much as most jockeys.

You could really only say that he's rubbish at Southwell if you compared how all the other jockeys who rode those horses at Southwell performed - if Pat Dobbs had got 2 wins previously, Neil Callan a couple here and there with others, and so on, to perhaps show that Fallon was really the losing factor. And you'd have to compare with Southwell only - the feel of the track in terms of impact, and the lack of really uncomfortable kickback are positive features at Wolves, Kempton, and Lingfield. How many of Fallon's losing rides were on S'well first-timers? Many horses go there once, never to return, because they just underperform.

Just a few thoughts.
 
krizon said:
It's interesting, but surely we've known for ages that some jockeys have favourite tracks where they shine best? Ryan Moore has ridden Brighton since he was an embryo, Eddie Ahern can ride Lingfield backwards on a camel and win, etc., etc. I think in order to arrive at true stats, you'd also need to look at the horses KF had ridden - were they, in fact, horses whose previous form showed they disliked Heavy? Let's face it, Heavy is the least usual surface for Flat horses - if they're mainly Turf performers then they're more used to Firm, GF, G, and occasionally GS. Most Clerks don't plan to arrive at Soft, let alone Heavy, for Flat runners, since few trainers care to put them through a slog.

Southwell also has the disadvantage of very high and stinging kickback, and you'll see far more heads in the air and horses not wanting to go into the rain of sharp sand smacking their faces than you will at Wolverhampton, Kempton, or Lingfield (or Dundalk). Thus, their performances are rarely truly genuine unless they're front-running types who prefer to keep their faces clean.

I don't see anything unusual about him being on fancied horses - do you?! With him up, clearly punters would go for that horse - he is, after all, a brilliant jockey. But the fact he doesn't win on them doesn't mean he's no good at Southwell. There could be many other predisposing factors which have brought his win rate down - not the least being that most horses dislike Southwell almost as much as most jockeys.

You could really only say that he's rubbish at Southwell if you compared how all the other jockeys who rode those horses at Southwell performed - if Pat Dobbs had got 2 wins previously, Neil Callan a couple here and there with others, and so on, to perhaps show that Fallon was really the losing factor. And you'd have to compare with Southwell only - the feel of the track in terms of impact, and the lack of really uncomfortable kickback are positive features at Wolves, Kempton, and Lingfield. How many of Fallon's losing rides were on S'well first-timers? Many horses go there once, never to return, because they just underperform.

Just a few thoughts.
Click to expand...

the A/E rating is good though Kri..it measures actual winners against the market chance..the market is one of the strongest measures of a horse's chance..thats hard to get away from

the only query re the A/E I have re this area is that a lot of horses Fallon rides are ..or were..shorter than they really should have been in the betting..just because he was riding them..so even though the A/E is low..it could be overdone because the expected level suggested by the odds is to hard to achieve.

I like A/E ratings though..but when you do it with high profile jocks then the market is skewed a bit
 
Last edited:
Well, there's no getting away from a surprisingly low performance level! I think we're in agreement that the horses are shorter than, perhaps, their abilities might indicate just because it's him on board and not a lower-profile rider, which concurs with your notion that the expected level could be harder to achieve.

I do think it's interesting that a really strong punting forum like this hasn't explored more of jockeys' stats and winkled out those who are specialists at some courses, just as horses can be. When you put together all of the ammunition at one's disposal, it's very powerful. Thinking about what the article raises, once you know what a horse likes (distance, going, right/left, etc.) and under which circumstances it performs best, then figuring in how its rider performs at the track it's at could be another bullet in the armoury of useful information. And if it's debuting, then the rider's stats per course could be more helpful than one might imagine. All very much food for thought and, as Luke's suggested, perhaps a dedicated thread noting who's best (or worst) where.

It's also good to know who's best riding in a certain way, too. We had Darryll Holland on board PETER ISLAND at Brighton (John Gallagher trains), because John wanted a jockey he knew could ride effectively from the front. PETER ISLAND is an old hand, 7, who was already a CD at the course, but needed to be pushed out and kept there by a strong jockey who can judge front running properly. Result - another course win for the horse. There are plenty of other very capable hands, but knowing just how much to be in front, without over or under-doing it, is very skilful - I guess the concensus is that, for all his high-profile rides, Ahmed Ajtebi has yet to learn that!

Knowing the quirks horses have - 7 y.o. MUJOOD must have a small field and a tricky track, or switches off (another CD at Brighton, and another win in a field of just 8 on May 10) - and adding those to the course abilities of their riders must certainly improve a punter's chances a good deal. As a certain supermarket says, "every little helps"!
 
Last edited:
Talking of Peter Island,he vacates Brighton this week and instead runs today in an amateur riders race at Chantilly.
Should be fun to see how his jockey tries to dictate from the front.
 
Smacks of data mining to me.

Any jockey is going to have a best and worst track. I would guess that in the long run it would usually mean revert. There may be one or two that hold for a reason, but most won't.

A contributory factor to Ryan Moore's good record at Brighton may be that because he is from the area, local owners in with a sniff are more likely to put him up on the horse. Another factor might be that he is more inclined to go there than (say) Fallon and being a top jock (and best available) he will get the better rides.

Murtagh may be the Curragh King purely because it is a track where almost all horses are at their best and trying. He is a top jock so gets on the top horses so will have a relatively high percentages.

Maybe.
 
Over the last 5 seasons (including this) Smullen has a 9% strike rate at the Curragh. He's on 8% with Weld runners and 10% without Weld. Given the sample sizes, these are effectively equal.

Murtagh has a 19% strike rate at the Curragh over the last 5 years.

For the first two of those 5 seasons, he often rode for Mick Halford and only had one ride for O'Brien. His strike rate was 15% overall; 14% with Halford and 16% without. Again, effectively equal given the sample sizes.

In the last three seasons since joining Ballydoyle, his overall strike rate stands at 22%; 29% with O'Brien and 13% without him.

As I mentioned, the sample sizes are small which makes the margins of error relatively large. However, I think it's fair to say that whilst Murtagh is probably the better of the two jockeys at the Curragh, his apparent superiority is inflated by the effect of riding for O'Brien.

(Numbers taken from http://www.timeform.com/free/)
 
Weld has a pretty dire record at The Curragh - that would explain alot of Smullens's stats at the track.


Gareth Flynn said:
Over the last 5 seasons (including this) Smullen has a 9% strike rate at the Curragh. He's on 8% with Weld runners and 10% without Weld. Given the sample sizes, these are effectively equal.

Murtagh has a 19% strike rate at the Curragh over the last 5 years.

For the first two of those 5 seasons, he often rode for Mick Halford and only had one ride for O'Brien. His strike rate was 15% overall; 14% with Halford and 16% without. Again, effectively equal given the sample sizes.

In the last three seasons since joining Ballydoyle, his overall strike rate stands at 22%; 29% with O'Brien and 13% without him.

As I mentioned, the sample sizes are small which makes the margins of error relatively large. However, I think it's fair to say that whilst Murtagh is probably the better of the two jockeys at the Curragh, his apparent superiority is inflated by the effect of riding for O'Brien.

(Numbers taken from http://www.timeform.com/free/)
Click to expand...
 
Galileo said:
Weld has a pretty dire record at The Curragh - that would explain alot of Smullens's stats at the track.
Click to expand...

You'd think so, but perhaps not; since becoming stable jockey for Weld (1999, I think), he has a worse record at the Curragh on non-Weld runners.

Now, there's lots of factors that might play into that. And again, the sample sizes are small enough to suggest that any real effect may be very small. But what we can be fairly certain about is that it isn't Weld holding him back.
 
In the last 5 years at The Curragh -

Trainer Runners Wins
Weld 502 36 - 7.1%
O'Brien 584 96 - 16.4%
Oxx 346 51 - 14.7%
Bolger 565 67 - 11.8%
 
Galileo said:
In the last 5 years at The Curragh -

Trainer Runners Wins
Weld 502 36 - 7.1%
O'Brien 584 96 - 16.4%
Oxx 346 51 - 14.7%
Bolger 565 67 - 11.8%
Click to expand...

without knowing the actual chance of winning that the horse's had are those % really much use as a comparison tool?

maybe a lot of lot of Welds were 456 fav's whereas AOB's will mostly be 123fav horses
 
Last edited:
Okay, I give in... please, mister, what does 'revert' mean (in this context)? I never realised taking a horse from point A to point B could be so technical!
 
Say Ryan Moore's average is 14% at all courses.

Say his average at Brighton is 19% and at Yarmouth is 9%.

A lot of people would then think that Moore will continue to outperform at the former track and underperform at the latter track.

But if the averages were to mean revert, it would mean that his performance at Brighton would revert to the mean (or average across all tracks) rather than to his previous performance at Brighton.

Does that make sense?
 
Bar the Bull said:
Say Ryan Moore's average is 14% at all courses.

Say his average at Brighton is 19% and at Yarmouth is 9%.

A lot of people would then think that Moore will continue to outperform at the former track and underperform at the latter track.

But if the averages were to mean revert, it would mean that his performance at Brighton would revert to the mean (or average across all tracks) rather than to his previous performance at Brighton.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

but the A/E rating actually tells you something..unlike a bare %..a low AE would suggest a regular underperformance..and not a statistical blip

bare % on their own are as much use as bare times
 
Back
Top