Leopardstown

But Tracks isn't going to publish this, is he, Dessie? If he is, a good editor should reduce the long-winded bits and make the tone crisper.

Tracks, good stuff, but if you do aim for publication, work on reducing the wordage to say the same thing. It reads in a leisurely manner, as if you're chatting with your friends, but for the written page: get to the point as succinctly as you can. Small example is wondering why the jockeys 'didn't grasp the nettle' when you can ditch the cliche and say something like "But why didn't Lynch and Russell go on, when there was no pace?" It poses a question for your reader to think about, rather than softening the impact of criticism with lengthier writing.

Send now for my book, "CUT TO THE CHASE: writing skills for racing journos", priced at £24.99 inc p&p. ;)
 
Cheers for all of that, guys.

It certainly won't be published; just a case of almost writing my thoughts as they were at the time (which came across in the writing, as Krizon pointed out). Must say I enjoy doing those previews/reviews when I have the time to do them properly.
 
The key point of the analysis is actually grasping what happened, not necessarily the prose that is used to decribe it. That for me has long since been the main failing of some of the RP analysis, though perhaps time constraints and publishing deadlines don't allow sufficient time to reflect as would be ideal.
 
Last edited:
That's the difference between an analysis and an article, DJ. Analyses should be incisive and clear. You can get away with some filling in an article, although if the editor's any good s/he will chop away the dead wood. I used to work for a very rigorous non-fiction house, and its Chief Ed was a fearsome woman who dashed many an aspiring, but long-winded and over-anecdotal writer's fond dreams of seeing his name in print. She'd say, "Send the manuscript back and tell him to cut it by 40%, and then we'll think about it!" :(
 
Indeed, but far easier to knock out what shouldn't be there, than put in what isn't. Of course talking generally now, not regarding your stuff trackside.
 
Reading back over that, a lot of it is shite. I seem to have been aiming for something of a hybrid between a race analysis and a longer piece.

The fact of the matter is that comments like "jumped well in the main" etc. aren't really necessary given that all of the races are fully accessible via either the RUK or ATR website. Much of my prose is undoubtedly flowery and cringeworthy rambling.

Aim to do a few more of these in the future, as I personally find that the whole process increases my understanding of the form, and thus is an aid to my punting in the long-term.
 
Don't know how long you have been writing these reviews,trackside, but I write reports for a living and have found that, over the years, I have developed conciseness. You will as well: practice does make perfect and you have people offering good, constructive criticism. Goes a long way.
 
Whoa, Tracks, don't be so tough on yourself! :D Everything's there - but perhaps you need to define a little more sharply what it is you're aiming for. If you're not going for publication, it won't matter if you waffle a bit, especially if it helps you to memorise a horse's performance better for doing so. Nothing is meant at all in a derogatory way - most people over-describe, rather than under-describe, and most people use 50 words where 30 would do just as well. Please don't be put off by any comments, as they're all meant well.
 
trackside528 said:
Reading back over that, a lot of it is shite. I seem to have been aiming for something of a hybrid between a race analysis and a longer piece.

The fact of the matter is that comments like "jumped well in the main" etc. aren't really necessary given that all of the races are fully accessible via either the RUK or ATR website. Much of my prose is undoubtedly flowery and cringeworthy rambling.

Aim to do a few more of these in the future, as I personally find that the whole process increases my understanding of the form, and thus is an aid to my punting in the long-term.
Click to expand...

You're being much too hard on yourself. Reading your comments helped to bring my own thoughts into focus.
 
davidjohnson said:
The key point of the analysis is actually grasping what happened, not necessarily the prose that is used to decribe it.
Click to expand...

Well said. The value of services such as the Racing Post analysis and even Timeform Perspective (though the latter's analysis is obviously far superior to the former and comes with the advantage of having the Timeform rating as well) have been largely undermined by the fact that every race run in the UK or Ireland is easily accessible. I certainly don't miss the RP analysis and wouldn't pay for it or the Timeform Perspective.

Apologies if any of my comments came across as being ungrateful for the feedback and criticism; on the contrary, they are both welcome and helpful.
 
Reviews..

Cheers for all of that, guys.

It certainly won't be published; just a case of almost writing my thoughts as they were at the time (which came across in the writing, as Krizon pointed out). Must say I enjoy doing those previews/reviews when I have the time to do them properly.
Click to expand...

As do I when I write about Lingfield, Sandown or wherever. I read your comments and your style isn't unlike mine in some respects. I tend toward analysis rather than a re-telling of the race because there are so many outlets to view a video. You're lucky in viewing a Group 1 or more than one Group 1 - trying to enthuse about a Class 6 Seller isn't so easy but I try to pinpoint horses to follow and NOT to follow as well as market moves which play a huge part in AW races.

Anyway, it's good stuff and if you ever come to Lingfield, try writing a review of a couple of races.
 
And we still want to see them, please! From both of you. Stodge's reviews often prompt me to think more about a particular horse or the way it's been ridden, rather than the flat accounting of placings. You were right, Tracks, to draw attention to the Russell/Davy rides, and to ask the reader why the horses were ridden in that manner - what were the aims, given the results? And so on. There's often (Cliche Alert!) more food for thought with home-grown reviews than with the professional ones - again, as we touched on in the topic on the Irish RP, because pro hacks won't always have a dig at jockeys retained by high-level trainers, as they fear that might jeopardise their later ability to secure interviews! Whereas you can write "What was X thinking of, holding up a strong front runner, and then expecting the horse to make up ten lengths?"
 
I really like what you write, trackside. Don't be so hard on yourself. You pay far more attention to the racing then most do and give a very good account of what has happened. Please continue?
 
Galileo said:
Take the winner out and Fionngas would have won by over 10 lengths.
Click to expand...

Mullins says of Fionnegas in today's Post: "...we're going to aim him at either the Neptune...or possibly the Albert Bartlett. His two wins over hurdles were over two and a half mile, so going back up in trip should suit."

While I think Quel Esprit is tailor-made for the Albert Bartlett it would appear from the trainer's comments in the past that he's more likely to go for the Neptune and if that did turn out to be the case Fionnegas would be very interesting at current odds for the three-miler.
 
Someone else agrees with you, Trackside. Nicky Richards on Money Trix's run in the Hennessy:

"We were obviously disappointed with his last run but in fairness to Davy (Russell), he came back and held his hands up and said he hadn't ridden a very good race.
"He said he should have kicked on earlier and made use of his stamina, but it says something about the man that he blamed himself.
"We'll not look backwards anyway and we'll look forward to the future with him."
Click to expand...
 
gus said:
Mullins says of Fionnegas in today's Post: "...we're going to aim him at either the Neptune...or possibly the Albert Bartlett. His two wins over hurdles were over two and a half mile, so going back up in trip should suit."

While I think Quel Esprit is tailor-made for the Albert Bartlett it would appear from the trainer's comments in the past that he's more likely to go for the Neptune and if that did turn out to be the case Fionnegas would be very interesting at current odds for the three-miler.
Click to expand...

I think Quel Esprit will definitely go the three mile route.
 
I'd guess that Fionnegas will go for the Neptune, with both Quel Esprit and Enterprise Park going for the Albert Bartlett.

Which race does Shinrock Paddy go for? I thought that his performance at Navan in December was very impressive, but he hasn't been out since.
 
Think Shinrock Paddy is being targeted at the Albert Bartlett. More concerned myself about what Mullins does with Morning Supreme :(
 
I've definitely seen Mullins quoted to the effect that he favours the Neptune option for Quel Esprit. It would be the wrong option, in my view.
 
Back
Top