Novice Chasers 2011-12
- Thread starter granger
- Start date
Zenyatta
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 587
I'm sorry Hamm but that is simply rubbish.
Quote 1: "It was obvious to me that he wasn't himself and we have found a couple of things that weren't right," said McCain.
Quote 2: "There are a couple of issues. What we have found is more than enough to fully justify his run".
Quote 3: "We're sorting the problem out and hopefully we should be OK and we can get him back on track".
Quote 4: "I think now we've found those problems there is no reason for us to change our original plan and all going well, we're aiming towards the Arkle".
Quote 5: "I've never been so pleased to find a problem with a horse in my whole life."
Quote 6: "The issues we've found are going to need a bit of management so we'll try to sort that before we make plans for his next run."
I think we can safely say that there were excuses.
Additionally, why was Peddlers Cross' win at Bangor a 'nothing event'? He had a very good horse in Minella Class comfortably beaten in a very fast time giving him 10lbs. It was not achieved at a flash track but that does not mean it was a 'nothing event'.
If "there is no way Peddlers' Bangor run was only 5 pounds lower than Sprinter Sacre at Kempton" then how would you rate the pair using the available evidence?
There are no problems!
I would get your facts right as you are making yourself look a bit of a tit. There was nothing wrong with him, he just didn't run as McCain expected, hence McCain can't accept that was his true running and says he 'obviously wasn't himself' yet nothing has showed up.
What is the mystery thing that was wrong with him? Maybe the smell in the air that day? McCain has confirmed scoping and blood tests revealed nothing, so why can't he say what it was? There is a very simple reasons - there is nothing there. He was thrashed, and the manner of the defeat was little surprise to the connections of Sprinter Sacre.
"Kempton is very sharp, it's very quick and the winner's a very good horse,” said McCain.
Donald Mccain: said Peddlers Cross "wasn't himself" on Monday
PICTURE: Martin Lynch
"Jason [Maguire] came in and said don't panic. I didn't want to read into the result too much.
"He obviously wasn't himself, he's a bit subdued and he knows it himself. We'll sort him out and get him back to where he should be.
"We've scoped him and blood tested him and they've come back okay but there are a couple of more things we need to do.
"The trouble is when you have one as good as him you think they can do everything. We will definitely run him left-handed next time.”
I would get your facts right as you are making yourself look a bit of a tit. There was nothing wrong with him, he just didn't run as McCain expected, hence McCain can't accept that was his true running and says he 'obviously wasn't himself' yet nothing has showed up.
What is the mystery thing that was wrong with him? Maybe the smell in the air that day? McCain has confirmed scoping and blood tests revealed nothing, so why can't he say what it was? There is a very simple reasons - there is nothing there. He was thrashed, and the manner of the defeat was little surprise to the connections of Sprinter Sacre.
Last edited:
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I think you are doing a fantastic job of arguing your case, Zenyatta. There are very good reasons why SS may not reproduce the Kempton form in March. All that glitters is not gold.
Hamm, why do you think Zen is looking like a tit? He says there were problems because that is what McCain has said. You say “McCain said there was nothing physically wrong at Kempton” even though McCain said “There are a couple of issues. What we have found is more than enough to fully justify his run.”
You may not believe him, but you are the one who has misrepresented what McCain has said.
Personally I think Al Ferof will win the Arkle. I don’t trust SS on a stiff track. And I don’t think Peddler’s is fast enough to win an Arkle.
Regarding your rating of PC, I think you have come too high, as I think MC is a bit over-rated based on his novice hurdle form. Was Megastar really that good?
Hamm, why do you think Zen is looking like a tit? He says there were problems because that is what McCain has said. You say “McCain said there was nothing physically wrong at Kempton” even though McCain said “There are a couple of issues. What we have found is more than enough to fully justify his run.”
You may not believe him, but you are the one who has misrepresented what McCain has said.
Personally I think Al Ferof will win the Arkle. I don’t trust SS on a stiff track. And I don’t think Peddler’s is fast enough to win an Arkle.
Regarding your rating of PC, I think you have come too high, as I think MC is a bit over-rated based on his novice hurdle form. Was Megastar really that good?
Bar the Bull
At the Start
You’re still wrong.
Hurricane Fly tore the bollocks out of Peddler’s Cross that day and he will never recover.
Hurricane Fly tore the bollocks out of Peddler’s Cross that day and he will never recover.
Zenyatta
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 587
Zenyatta
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 587
Interesting that you think Al Ferof is faster than Peddlers Cross. I prefer Peddlers Cross because I think he's faster than Al Ferof!
Agree that Minella Class might be a touch overrated but even if he is I still think a rating of around 160ish is justified for the Bangor effort.
Last edited:
SteveM, you seem to be suggesting that I somehow have an agenda to desperately try to prove Peddlers Cross will win the Arkle. I don't. I have looked at the evidence and think he will. I appreciate the ratings are open to criticism but I have tried to do them as objectively as possible. I am not trying to prove any particular case, I am trying to find out whether I am right or wrong.
Sprinter Sacre undoubtedly has the best chase form in the book. However, during his career he has encountered a stiff track or a test of stamina on four occasions. The first was over 2m in a bumper at Ascot (a stiff track) where he won by a nose. The second was over 2m4f in a novice hurdle back at Ascot when he was beaten by Frascati Park (consistently rated around the 130 mark over hurdles). The third was when he won a 2m novice hurdle at Ascot beating Polisky very easily (who is still a maiden rated 134). The final time was in the Supreme when he looked all over the winner before tiring up the hill. He lost a good 10 lengths on Al Ferof from the second last to the line.
If they are the credentials of an Arkle winner, a race that has been proven to test stamina as well as speed, then lump on at 5/2.
Peddlers Cross recorded a mark of 160 at Bangor, a performance which is reflective of that mark and is grossly underrated by many. It might have been at Bangor but with Minella Class in opposition nobody can describe the opposition as 'nothing'. He jumped very well and won in a really fast time from a very good horse giving him 10lbs. For some reason, because it wasn't at one of the big name tracks it is overlooked and assumed to be poor form. I couldn't disagree more.
Yes, Minella Class has not yet won a chase, however he was running very well at Newbury next time ('pressing winner and travelling well' according to RP comments in running) when he was unlucky to unseat. It was too far out to judge how he would have fared.
I absolutely think that Sprinter Sacre is the best 2m chaser in the Arkle field but, as we saw with Finian's Rainbow last year, that is not necessarily enough to ensure victory. I currently have about 5lbs between the pair and think that is a bridgeable gap. Sprinter Sacre might be too good but he might not and at the prices I would far rather side with Peddlers Cross.
Is nobody willing to offer an alternative rating for Sprinter Sacre? I would be interested to hear some other arguments (genuinely, to see how people are thinking).
You’re as entitled to a view as anyone and as I say this is to be encouraged. What you are doing is dressing up this view to make it appear to be based on evidence… this is not the case. SS has shown a different level of form to Peddlers as a novice chaser. Ratings are meaningless at this stage as it is clear that SS is capable of more than you could rate him. What is clear is that Peddlers has a mountain to climb and must run far in excess of what he has achieved to date (prior to his below par last outing) to get anywhere near to winning.
Last edited:
With absolutely no disrespect to either Zen or yourself I don't see that he is doing such a fantastic job (but as I fundamentally disagree with his assumptions about Peddlers I wouldn't), but I wouldn't deny him his right to try.
Last edited:
Zenyatta
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 587
"SS has shown a different level of form to Peddlers as a novice chaser" - Yes, about 5lb by my reckoning.
"Ratings are meaningless at this stage" - Why?
"It is clear that SS is capable of more than you could rate him" - I don't really understand this point I must confess.
"What is clear is that Peddlers has a mountain to climb" - Thankfully, as does Sprinter Sacre. It is otherwise known as the Cheltenham Hill and will hopefully make all the difference.
"Must run far in excess of what he has achieved to date to get anywhere near to winning" - If he ran to his rating of 160 that he achieved at Bangor then I don't think he has a great deal to find.
"With absolutely no disrespect to either Zen or yourself I don't see that he is doing such a fantastic job (but as I fundamentally disagree with his assumptions about Peddlers I wouldn't), but I wouldn't deny him his right to try." - With respect SteveM, you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of cohesive structured argument backed up with evidence to support your case whatsoever. All you have done is make subjective remarks about where you think I am wrong. I would be delighted if you can prove me wrong, even if that proof might rely on a spattering of opinion given the limited evidence at our disposal.
"Ratings are meaningless at this stage" - Why?
"It is clear that SS is capable of more than you could rate him" - I don't really understand this point I must confess.
"What is clear is that Peddlers has a mountain to climb" - Thankfully, as does Sprinter Sacre. It is otherwise known as the Cheltenham Hill and will hopefully make all the difference.
"Must run far in excess of what he has achieved to date to get anywhere near to winning" - If he ran to his rating of 160 that he achieved at Bangor then I don't think he has a great deal to find.
"With absolutely no disrespect to either Zen or yourself I don't see that he is doing such a fantastic job (but as I fundamentally disagree with his assumptions about Peddlers I wouldn't), but I wouldn't deny him his right to try." - With respect SteveM, you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of cohesive structured argument backed up with evidence to support your case whatsoever. All you have done is make subjective remarks about where you think I am wrong. I would be delighted if you can prove me wrong, even if that proof might rely on a spattering of opinion given the limited evidence at our disposal.
Support what case Zen? I haven't offered one. I believe your passion for Peddlers is genuine, but your reasoning poor.
Ratings are meaningless at this stage of any novice's career because if they are up to scratch and going to be anywhere near winning the Arkle they will have to leave them well behind. They have so little exposure to chasing at this stage that it is useless to base any reasoned argument on the rating alone (incidentally SS has a higher chase rating than Peddler's anyway).
I can see that you are getting a little upset so won't press the point further, but remember forums are for discussion, not simply for us to agree with another's opinion. You have said yourself that your opinion falls short of analysis. On that basis I respect it as an opinion and wish you good luck.
Ratings are meaningless at this stage of any novice's career because if they are up to scratch and going to be anywhere near winning the Arkle they will have to leave them well behind. They have so little exposure to chasing at this stage that it is useless to base any reasoned argument on the rating alone (incidentally SS has a higher chase rating than Peddler's anyway).
I can see that you are getting a little upset so won't press the point further, but remember forums are for discussion, not simply for us to agree with another's opinion. You have said yourself that your opinion falls short of analysis. On that basis I respect it as an opinion and wish you good luck.
Last edited:
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Very impressed with Sprinter Sacre at Kempton but it was just a two-horse race where his main opponent was always playing catch-up after the early blunder.
In his first run at Doncaster, in a bigger field, his jumping was a touch novicey.
Presumably he will not be able to dominate the field at Cheltenham and I can see him being perhaps being pressurised into making a mistake.
He looks the likely winner but I wouldn't be keen on going in heavily at a short price.
In his first run at Doncaster, in a bigger field, his jumping was a touch novicey.
Presumably he will not be able to dominate the field at Cheltenham and I can see him being perhaps being pressurised into making a mistake.
He looks the likely winner but I wouldn't be keen on going in heavily at a short price.
...he just does everything so much easier than the other novices in his division at this stage and is everything you would want to see in a Arkle candidate. I've also been impressed with Grands Crus but it's unlikely they'll meet any time soon, if ever.
Zenyatta
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 587
:lol:
"Support what case Zen? I haven't offered one" - You have. You have said that the idea of Peddlers Cross winning the Arkle is 'fanciful' (or similar). I want to hear your argument to support that case.
"Ratings are meaningless at this stage of any novice's career because if they are up to scratch and going to be anywhere near winning the Arkle they will have to leave them well behind." - This is not true. By my reckoning Sprinter Sacre has already achieved a rating good enough to win 9 of the last 10 renewals. Similarly Peddlers Cross' effort at Bangor was good enough to win (or dead heat in) 7 of the last 10. Why, therefore, will they need to leave those ratings well behind? It seems they are already at the required level from what I can see.
"I can see that you are getting a little upset so won't press the point further" - I am not getting upset of that I can assure you and I must confess that this comment did make me chuckle! Frustrated with the failure of the 'opposing side' to offer anything in the way of a valid argument, yes, but not upset. You can rest easy.
"Remember forums are for discussion, not simply for us to agree with another's opinion." - I couldn't agree more but you seem to disagree with that statement yourself judging by your failure to offer a counter argument to support your opinion. All you have done is say that I am wrong, you have failed to 'discuss' the issue. Please let us discuss then!
"You have said yourself that your opinion falls short of analysis." - My final conclusion that I believe Peddlers Cross can win the Arkle is an opinion yes. This is because it relies on my own belief that he will be able to improve past Sprinter Sacre in the race. The rest of the ratings are based in so far as is reasonably possible on factual formbook evidence.
I would dispute the fact that my final opinion is not analysis anyway. Analysis can be defined (according to Wikipedia!) as "the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it".
This is exactly what I have done. By analysing past results I have arrived at a better understanding of the topic at hand. I can therefore come to the conclusion that I believe Peddlers Cross can win the Arkle. It might be opinion but that does not mean that it is not analysis; the two are not mutually exclusive. Another person can analyse the same topic area and arrive at a different conclusion by interpreting the available evidence in a different manner. I am most looking forward to seeing your response.
I do NOT mean to be as facetious and obnoxious as that sounds. I do however believe that you are contradicting yourself in more ways than one. All in good heart I can assure you.
"Support what case Zen? I haven't offered one" - You have. You have said that the idea of Peddlers Cross winning the Arkle is 'fanciful' (or similar). I want to hear your argument to support that case.
"Ratings are meaningless at this stage of any novice's career because if they are up to scratch and going to be anywhere near winning the Arkle they will have to leave them well behind." - This is not true. By my reckoning Sprinter Sacre has already achieved a rating good enough to win 9 of the last 10 renewals. Similarly Peddlers Cross' effort at Bangor was good enough to win (or dead heat in) 7 of the last 10. Why, therefore, will they need to leave those ratings well behind? It seems they are already at the required level from what I can see.
"I can see that you are getting a little upset so won't press the point further" - I am not getting upset of that I can assure you and I must confess that this comment did make me chuckle! Frustrated with the failure of the 'opposing side' to offer anything in the way of a valid argument, yes, but not upset. You can rest easy.
"Remember forums are for discussion, not simply for us to agree with another's opinion." - I couldn't agree more but you seem to disagree with that statement yourself judging by your failure to offer a counter argument to support your opinion. All you have done is say that I am wrong, you have failed to 'discuss' the issue. Please let us discuss then!
"You have said yourself that your opinion falls short of analysis." - My final conclusion that I believe Peddlers Cross can win the Arkle is an opinion yes. This is because it relies on my own belief that he will be able to improve past Sprinter Sacre in the race. The rest of the ratings are based in so far as is reasonably possible on factual formbook evidence.
I would dispute the fact that my final opinion is not analysis anyway. Analysis can be defined (according to Wikipedia!) as "the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it".
This is exactly what I have done. By analysing past results I have arrived at a better understanding of the topic at hand. I can therefore come to the conclusion that I believe Peddlers Cross can win the Arkle. It might be opinion but that does not mean that it is not analysis; the two are not mutually exclusive. Another person can analyse the same topic area and arrive at a different conclusion by interpreting the available evidence in a different manner. I am most looking forward to seeing your response.
I do NOT mean to be as facetious and obnoxious as that sounds. I do however believe that you are contradicting yourself in more ways than one. All in good heart I can assure you.
Last edited:
Zen you are getting a little carried away. I haven't said the idea of Peddlers winning the Arkle is fanciful, in fact I have said he is one of a handful who could win it.
What I did say was that your reasoning of the scenario you have offered us is at best hopeful and at worst fanciful.
Last edited:
I don't think it was harsh enough Grey. The entire rationale for Peddlers not running to his best the last day is McCain has 'found something' even though scoping and blood tests showed nothing - so what is it? It can't be analysis, only an enormous leap of faith.
Why would McCain hide what it is?
Why would McCain hide what it is?
On The Bridle
At the Start
Scoping and blood tests will only show up so much. If the problem was muscular or skeletal then these issues may not become apparent until later. I am clutching at straws before you say it...
I read through this whole thread last night again and must again compliment you Hamm and how graciously you accepted SS's win. You could have given me an unmerciful time....
Scoping and blood tests are fine. So what is it, and why can't he say? I believe nothing was wrong only they felt he wasn't right as he performed below their expectations. If there was something wrong, why can't/wouldn't they say?
Scoping and blood tests will only show up so much. If the problem was muscular or skeletal then these issues may not become apparent until later. I am clutching at straws before you say it...
I read through this whole thread last night again and must again compliment you Hamm and how graciously you accepted SS's win. You could have given me an unmerciful time....
If there is something wrong, I'd just like to know what it is and factor that in. Nothing to be rubbed in, your opinions have saved me cash many times (even if it goes unstated) - he has won nothing yet, nor Peddlers Cross lost anything. Al Ferof each way is the bet now (for those who backed Sprinter Sacre already).
If you read Zenyatta's article, Hamm, you will see his reasoning. As he says himself it's a point of view, but thought has gone into it. He is suggesting that if Peddlers ran to his best at Kempton (around 160) that would put SS on an implausibly high rating for a novice (176 or so).
It's not an unreasonable point of view.
It's not an unreasonable point of view.
It wasn't intended to be harsh but a simple statement that it was opinion rather than analysis. I can't see what analysis could support a 21 length turnaround.
Last edited:
What if the point I'm contesting, as I have all along, that Peddlers isn't a 160 chaser? If you take out his Champion Hurdle run, he is difficult to rate highly.