Only Nick Mordin...

G

Guest_

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,178
Location
Ireland
can predict so much from so little and be so sure of it.


MIKHAIL GLINKA AND ALFRED NOBEL LOOK SET TO WIN CLASSIC TRIALS
Coolmore gallops at the Curragh March 21st 2010
FIRST GROUP
One mile. Slow for first two furlongs, picked up the pace approaching five furlong mark then went racing pace last four furlongs
Time for full mile: 1m 55.3 secs (worth rough speed rating of 6)
Last six furlongs: 1m 25.1 secs (worth rough speed rating of 26)
Last four furlongs: 54.6 secs (worth rough speed rating of 37)
The going was very soft. Speed ratings show the horses were going Listed class pace over the last half mile. They actually looked to quicken a little in the last three furlongs but there was no clear marker for me to clock this.
1 MIKHAIL GLINKA
2nd 0.25 ST NICHOLAS ABBEY
3rd 2.50 FAME AND GLORY
4th 3.25 AGE OF AQUARIUS
5th 4.25 MIDAS TOUCH
6th 6.00 FLYING CROSS
7th 7.00 AT FIRST SIGHT
8th 7.25 DON CARLOS
9th 8.50 BIG OCCASION
10th 9.00 RAIN FOREST
The purpose of this gallop looked to be to test the fitness of Ballydoyle's two Derby prospects MIKHAIL GLINKA (37) and ST NICHOLAS ABBEY (37) - the three year olds in this line up with Group 1 placings to their names. Of the other three year olds in the gallop, only At First Sight (30), Rain Forest (28), Flying Cross (31) and Big Occasion (29) were seriously ridden - and clearly were in there just to ensure a decent test for their stablemates as they were kept bang there within a length of the lead till tiring.
St Nicholas Abbey looked fit and well from what I could see. He was always within half a length of the lead, was ridden along to kick clear at the furlong pole but then could not hold the late rush of Mikhail Glinka who came from the back down the wide outside to show a good turn of foot, moving smoothly while being pushed out.
These two pulled clear of the rest as was clearly the intention. The two older horses both looked backward - especially Fame And Glory (35), but Age Of Aquarius (34) was also sweating so he may be as far off a run as his stable mate.
St Nicholas Abbey is a tall, long striding sort that has yet to fill his frame. He's certainly not suited to a trip as short as the mile of this contest, especially in a sprint finish. And the only other serious horses in this line up were ten furlong plus sorts. So clearly the Guineas is no longer under consideration. I'd still be concerned about such a gangly looking horse negotiating Tattenham Corner.
Mikhail Glinka clearly has a smart turn of foot and has a smooth action that indicates he'll be effective on much faster ground than he had here or when second in that French Group 1. He clearly has a major chance of winning a Derby Trial.
DON CARLOS (30) was never asked for an effort but smoothly made a little late progress. It's worth bearing in mind that he hated heavy ground like this in France and that may well be the reason he wasn't asked to go top speed even in the last half mile.


SECOND GROUP
Time for full seven furlongs: 1m 42.9 seconds (worth speed rating of roughly -2)
Last six furlongs: 1m 25.6 secs (worth rough speed rating of 22)
Last four furlongs: 55.1 secs (worth rough speed rating of 32)
They didn't go off quite as hard in this gallop but once more picked up the pace in the final half mile. It wasn't as good as the other gallop on the clock, but if Alfred Nobel had been allowed his head I dare say he'd have run at least as fast as Mikhail Glinka and St Nicholas Abbey.

1: LORD HIGH ADMIRAL
2: nose FENCING MASTER
3: 1.75 ALFRED NOBEL
4: 2.50 CAPE BLANCO
5: 3.00 BEETHOVEN
6: 4.25 GREATWALLOFCHINA
7: 20.00 AFRICAN CAT


CAPE BLANCO (29) has grown and strengthened up a great deal since last season. He's now a big, rangy, deep chested sort that looks an out and out mile and a half horse that will likely get the St Leger distance. He did carry a fair bit of condition though and looks likely to need his first run.
In the gallop Cape Blanco had to be ridden along to keep up and a bit more vigorously to make ground in the last quarter mile. The Chester Vase or the Lingfield Derby Trial would seem to be his best options as the other Derby Trials over ten furlongs and that's probably going to be too short for him now. I'd like to see him given a run over ten furlongs first to get him in shape.
ALFRED NOBEL (30) lobbed along cruising in last place and surged forward into third without being asked. He would undoubtedly have cruised by the two who finished in front of him if ridden as strongly as them and if this had been a race he'd have been an easy winner. Clearly the remarkable turn of foot he showed when winning the Phoenix Stakes gave him a big edge in this sprint. He has the build of a miler and has already won over seven furlongs, but this performance and that Group 1 win over six furlongs suggest he could well be very decent if cut back to sprinting. Meanwhile I'd be scared of opposing him if he comes out for a seven furlong Guineas Trial.
LORD HIGH ADMIRAL (32) moved next best throughout and came through to win the gallop narrowly. It should be said though that he looked noticeably fitter than the other three year olds so I wouldn't necessarily bet he's a Group 1 horse or better than those that finished behind him here.
The intention was clearly for FENCING MASTER (32) to sweep through from the back to win the gallop handily. He tried that but had to be ridden a bit harder than Lord High Admiral to range almost upsides that one as they crossed the line. My feeling from his physique and watching this performance is that he's more a ten furlong horse than a miler.
BEETHOVEN (29) has grown and muscled up into an attractive specimen over the Winter but is still only a medium sized sort and smaller than his stable mates. He was carrying a fair bit of condition too (though nothing like as much as Cape Blanco). He made a bit of ground late into fourth, not ridden anything like as hard as Cape Blanco but more than Alfred Nobel. I continue to get the impression he'll struggle to win another Group 1.
GREATWALLOFCHINA (27) is a lead horse and AFRICAN CAT (10) a sprinter. They disputed the lead and set the pace for their stable mates as clearly intended before falling away in the closing stages. African Cat clearly didn't get the distance in the ground as he tired rapidly to finish far back.
 
You should see his article in the Weekender about the Grand National.

Mind you, I don't blame him. In my opinion he's just a charlatan. It's the people that decide his sh*te is worth printing, let alone headlining, who should be getting the flak.
 
He's such a love him or hate him character.

The fundamentals of his work are fantastic and I wouldn't make money at punting without them but he doesn't half chat some shit.
 
That piece is classic Mordin Dessie - the statistic about horses completing 18+ runner 3m handicap chases when at least 80% of the field have completed (or something like that) is top stuff.
 
I wonder if he even takes himself seriously? It's amazing how he can put his name to all the bullshit he has published.
 
Mordin On Time remains one of the best books written on speed ratings despite all the shit he writes.
 
I tend to read some of his stuff when it's of interest (i.e. a horse I'm interested in) and he does come up with some good nuggets every now and again, but then has some clangers too.
 
I like NM..he tries to think outside the box..sometimes in another solar system though :p

His speed figures fail to allow for true G1 times...hence he is always spotting potential G1 winners that are little faster than Listed/G3 class.

His par figures at the top end are set too low..basically imo he has made pars from G1 races that are generally not run at a true pace.

When he sees a very fast time in G1 race on his calcs its basically just an average G1 time..not an exceptional one.

This factor has brought him a lot of derision..but i suppose he has to have headline horses..so he is spotting what he thinks are G1 time horses just for his headlines...or maybe knows they aren't..i don't know with him anymore.

His book Mordin On Time is actually a good starting point for anyone new to speed figures..its simpler than the Beyer books to follow for a newbie.

As far as his standards go..some are out...the Goodwood 11f one is always giving him really fast horses..when in fact its his standard time there that is way too easy to achieve.but so are some of the RP's times out too.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with that EC1. Beyer on Speed is a better book but Mordin on Time is a better starting point and better for UK racing.

I've ended up combining their theories as Mordin's class par system is very useful despite having some flaws (I think he's overly generous to three year olds for example).
 
EC1 said:
I like NM..he tries to think outside the box..sometimes in another solar system though :p

His speed figures fail to allow for true G1 times...hence he is always spotting potential G1 winners that are little faster than Listed/G3 class.

His par figures at the top end are set too low..basically imo he has made pars from G1 races that are generally not run at a true pace.

When he sees a very fast time in G1 race on his calcs its basically just an average G1 time..not an exceptional one.

This factor has brought him a lot of derision..but i suppose he has to have headline horses..so he is spotting what he thinks are G1 time horses just for his headlines...or maybe knows they aren't..i don't know with him anymore.

His book Mordin On Time is actually a good starting point for anyone new to speed figures..its simpler than the Beyer books to follow for a newbie.

As far as his standards go..some are out...the Goodwood 11f one is always giving him really fast horses..when in fact its his standard time there that is way too easy to achieve.but so are some of the RP's times out too.
Click to expand...
Good analysis EC1 - close to Listed Class on my figures :p
 
Nick Mordin sets himself up as a contrarian and, it must be said, does throw some light on the merit of challenging “received wisdom”. However, for me the ‘hits’ are much less frequent than the misses. He can be at best willful and at worst plain daft. A personal favourite of mine was that weight doesn’t matter in handicaps, a position he has, I believe, since retracted since Newton’s universal law of gravitation was drawn to his attention.
 
Oh, God, don't! I remember the hysterical rantings that took place after the long-departed 'Swirly Chaser' aka Dayna Jane Sterling II and other assorted monikers asserted that, impishly, many years ago. What a furore ensued - raged longer than an Australian bush fire, and left as many egos singed en route. There were endless algebraic extrapolations of distance x weight x the length of a horse's body x the Sun trine to Jupiter. Hilarious for some of us, but exhausting for those who fell for it.
 
SteveM said:
Nick Mordin sets himself up as a contrarian and, it must be said, does throw some light on the merit of challenging “received wisdom”. However, for me the ‘hits’ are much less frequent than the misses. He can be at best willful and at worst plain daft. A personal favourite of mine was that weight doesn’t matter in handicaps, a position he has, I believe, since retracted since Newton’s universal law of gravitation was drawn to his attention.
Click to expand...

In his defence, he has (rightly) lambasted so called experts on TV who have said things along the lines of "ooh that 2lb overweight the jockey put up cost connections first place there."

Whilst weight obviously is important in race analysis, 2 pounds on the back of a 1500 pound animal isn't going to literally result in the horse losing x amount of lengths.
 
Gamla Stan said:
In his defence, he has (rightly) lambasted so called experts on TV who have said things along the lines of "ooh that 2lb overweight the jockey put up cost connections first place there."

Whilst weight obviously is important in race analysis, 2 pounds on the back of a 1500 pound animal isn't going to literally result in the horse losing x amount of lengths.
Click to expand...
It might very well, in fact, if the margin between the two horses was very small. At 5f 2lbs could amount to half a length. Over the National trip, it could amount to four lengths.

But we all accept it isn't an exact science.
 
Desert Orchid said:
But we all accept it isn't an exact science.
Click to expand...

Yet it is discussed by the mainstream racing media as though it's more of an exact science than the boiling point of water.

It's debates where this where I'm glad of folk like Mordin and yes he talks a load of cobblers a lot but it's good for someone to go against the status quo with reasonable logic from time to time.
 
Gamla Stan said:
Yet it is discussed by the mainstream racing media as though it's more of an exact science than the boiling point of water.

It's debates where this where I'm glad of folk like Mordin and yes he talks a load of cobblers a lot but it's good for someone to go against the status quo with reasonable logic from time to time.
Click to expand...

Talk enough shite and eventually some of it will have a bit of truth to it.

His weekly articles are absolutely dire - horrendous.

Makes up his mind and then works his theories around his preconcieved belief.
 
Gamla Stan said:
Whilst weight obviously is important in race analysis, 2 pounds on the back of a 1500 pound animal isn't going to literally result in the horse losing x amount of lengths.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic - but does anyone know that min-ave-max weights of thoroughbred race horses? I'm not talking about record-breakers, just a feel for how much the weight of horse can differ. Presumably there is a difference between fillies and colts and also flat, hurdle and jumps horses.

A questions with many variables I know. I'd just be interested in the difference between a small-chaser and Denman for example.
 
Galileo said:
Talk enough shite and eventually some of it will have a bit of truth to it.

His weekly articles are absolutely dire - horrendous.

Makes up his mind and then works his theories around his preconcieved belief.
Click to expand...

It just amazes me that people choose to knock him when you have c**ts like Winstanley and Matt Williams in the RP every week and on the website all the time. Winstanley probably doesn't even know how many furlongs are in a mile.

I'd rather a "professional" at least have a go at alternative theories and talk the odd bit of shit rather than tipping up Stoute favourites every week. I'd agree with what others have said about Mordin, he seems to make a hash of the top Group One events yet makes some pretty shrewd calls on handicaps etc.
 
Back
Top