The Derby

Desert Orchid said:
Let me put it this way, reet.

When I see Moore on something I've backed it's a bit like having McCoy booked. It should be a positive because he's the go-to guy for trainers and agents who know much more than me but I'm never convinced. I'm not sure why. Is it because I've seen him lose races he should have won? I could say that about every jockey. Maybe because he's got this superstar reputation I'm less forgiving of things not going right in a race but if he's so good he should make sure as little goes wrong as possible.

Honestly, I don't see Dettori getting it wrong anywhere near as often. And again honesty, I probably don't look as hard with other jockeys, maybe because I expect less of them. But at Epsom, I want to see my jockeys ride tactically like Piggott - and I was always wary of Piggott in anything other than the top races because he always had his own agenda - by being no more than a few lengths off the lead and one off the rail.

Watching the Oaks, I was convinced Anapurna was getting a better tactical ride than Pink Dogwood. Circumstances didn't dictate that; jockey decision-making dictated it. Moore could have sat on Anapurna's withers but presumably felt he had the best filly in the race so it wouldn't really have mattered too much. He probably still felt he was fine when he swept through to lead. Take Anapurna out of the race and he'd have been right. Or maybe that should say put a different jockey on Anapurna and he'd probably have been right. I remain convinced that a better tactical ride and PD would have won tidily. And I backed Anapurna.

I'm not trying to be controversial, in all honesty. It's a forum and I'm just expressing an opinion. In this case, it appears that the sectionals are supporting my opinion (unlike in the Derby).
Click to expand...

Didn't Piggott, when asked which jockey currently riding would be the one that he'd want on his horse, say 'Dettori'? [going back a while here, though...]
 
Me:

Desert Orchid said:
From the top of the hill to the 3f pole AVD was no more than a length behind SD and Madhmoon. As the latter nudged into Circus Maximus the latter rolled towards Telecaster and the gap in front of AVD closed so Heffernan had to bide his time and look for an alternative route through. While this was happening, SD and M were going fully three lengths, maybe four, in front of him and dragging Broome and Japan after them. Then AVD got rolling again as he moved to the rail. Maybe having the rail helped him but I think being checked when the others were making their move has won him the race. I think the occasion and/or maybe the lit-up Madhmoon has got to the others and got them going those 50 yards too soon.
Click to expand...

Kevin Blake:

While Seamie didn’t get the splits he was looking for just inside the three-furlong pole, that may well have proved to be a significant blessing in disguise, as while he was waiting, conserving and switching for room, his main rivals were playing their hands. That delay, coupled with a bit of luck when Madhmoon edged right rather than left to open a gap for him, allowed him to deliver his challenge last of all down the inside and seize victory.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Let me put it this way, reet.

When I see Moore on something I've backed it's a bit like having McCoy booked. It should be a positive because he's the go-to guy for trainers and agents who know much more than me but I'm never convinced. I'm not sure why. Is it because I've seen him lose races he should have won? I could say that about every jockey. Maybe because he's got this superstar reputation I'm less forgiving of things not going right in a race but if he's so good he should make sure as little goes wrong as possible.

Honestly, I don't see Dettori getting it wrong anywhere near as often. And again honesty, I probably don't look as hard with other jockeys, maybe because I expect less of them. But at Epsom, I want to see my jockeys ride tactically like Piggott - and I was always wary of Piggott in anything other than the top races because he always had his own agenda - by being no more than a few lengths off the lead and one off the rail.

Watching the Oaks, I was convinced Anapurna was getting a better tactical ride than Pink Dogwood. Circumstances didn't dictate that; jockey decision-making dictated it. Moore could have sat on Anapurna's withers but presumably felt he had the best filly in the race so it wouldn't really have mattered too much. He probably still felt he was fine when he swept through to lead. Take Anapurna out of the race and he'd have been right. Or maybe that should say put a different jockey on Anapurna and he'd probably have been right. I remain convinced that a better tactical ride and PD would have won tidily. And I backed Anapurna.

I'm not trying to be controversial, in all honesty. It's a forum and I'm just expressing an opinion. In this case, it appears that the sectionals are supporting my opinion (unlike in the Derby).
Click to expand...

That's the whole point though,DO; Sectionals do not take account of the trip a horse had (Nor Simon Rowlands, seemingly). It is quite clear from the replay that Pink Dogwood was nearer last than first at SR's point of measure (3.5f, where the path crosses the course immediately after Tattenham Corner), so when RM exricated her he had little choice but to ask her to finish quickly. To check her impetus, once she'd started her run, would have been borderline lunacy, so he had no other choice but to sit, and hope she lasted home.
Sectionals are a wonderful tool (be much more useful if they were equal sections,mind), but still need interpreting properly, and watching a clockface rather than the race will never suffice as form reading, IMVHO.
 
Last edited:
James Willoughby and sidekick on The Verdict did not know what to make of The Derby either so we are not alone !
They were not impressed by the time of the race but it was still below standard .
The first five were nearly five lengths clear of the sixth finisher so cannot be that bad.
Time will tell.
 
reet hard said:
That's the whole point though,DO; Sectionals do not take account of the trip a horse had (Nor Simon Rowlands, seemingly). It is quite clear from the replay that Pink Dogwood was nearer last than first at SR's point of measure (3.5f, where the path crosses the course immediately after Tattenham Corner), so when RM exricated her he had little choice but to ask her to finish quickly. To check her impetus, once she'd started her run, would have been borderline lunacy, so he had no other choice but to sit, and hope she lasted home.
Sectionals are a wonderful tool (be much more useful if they were equal sections,mind), but still need interpreting properly, and watching a clockface rather than the race will never suffice as form reading, IMVHO.
Click to expand...

My point is to question whether PD should have been as far back early on as she was. If Dettori could get Anapurna on the heels of the pace within a furlong or two why couldn't Moore do likewise with PD. Nor had he done so with Kew Gardens. Having watched those two races again simultaneously, I can forgive Moore to some extent on Kew Gardens as the pace was clearly faster in that race. If PD just didn't have the pace to get prominent then clearly Moore can't be at fault for not getting her there.

As for when her finishing effort started, I would argue that rather than get her going then check her he could have held on to her for the half-furlong that Weaver (and Murtagh implicitly) suggested but I accept these are the split-second decisions that jockeys have to make under the immense pressure of riding in the very biggest races.

I'm sure Greville Starkey would wish to have ridden Dancing Brave again in the Derby, despite remarking to the contrary at the time. El Gran Senor should have won his Derby. The examples are innumerable.

The whole point, though, about looking back and analysing with the benefit of the tools and tech available to us is being able to work out why the race panned out how it did and how each horse truly compares with each other rather than what result the history books will show. It isn't an exact science but it's closer to an exact science that mere visual interpretation.
 
''Mere visual interpretation'' would have shown you (and SR) that Ryan Moore was where he was by dint of his outside draw and - short of using a bunch of energy to pass the whole strung-out field - had little opportunity to improve that position until switching in the straight.
The 'science' obviously tells sfa in that context.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Sectionals are a wonderful tool (be much more useful if they were equal sections,mind), but still need interpreting properly, and watching a clockface rather than the race will never suffice as form reading, IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Correct. Too many people seem to take sectionals literally. For me they are a prompt to go back and view a race in the broader context of current race, along with a host of other information on all horses in a race. Use sectionals in isolation and you may as well be pinsticking.
 
reet hard said:
''Mere visual interpretation'' would have shown you (and SR) that Ryan Moore was where he was by dint of his outside draw and - short of using a bunch of energy to pass the whole strung-out field - had little opportunity to improve that position until switching in the straight.
Click to expand...

Grasping at straws, I reckon.
 
Maruco said:
Correct. Too many people seem to take sectionals literally. For me they are a prompt to go back and view a race in the broader context of current race, along with a host of other information on all horses in a race. Use sectionals in isolation and you may as well be pinsticking.
Click to expand...

I don't take sectionals literally. I use them to help me understand what went on in a race.
 
But do they tell you that Moore on Pink Dogwood was watching Gosden's favourite, and when he saw that he could force Havlin into traffic, he ensured that he shut the door on her, when Havlin was hoping to make her challenge. If Moore was going to lose, it wasnt to what appeared to be his main rival. As it turned out it was Gosden's second horse was the one that she needed to beat.

It's very easy to go looking for the result you want, calling it analysis, and use whatever tool you wish including sectionals to bolster your own argument.
 
reet hard said:
Watch the race the FFS.
Click to expand...

I have done, thank you. Several times. I suggest you do likewise rather than reply so impolitely.

I have tried to build bridges with you over the last few months.

To no avail, it would seem.

Attitudes like yours only stifle meaningful debate and bring down what used to be the best forum around.

I won't be responding to anything you say again.
 
Desperate Dan said:
Baffles me why people find it necessary to be so rude.
Click to expand...

I sometimes understand people losing their manners on a political topic but on a very reasoned discussion with an informed and polite veteran I don't get. Maybe there are extraneous issues we are not aware of.
 
Desperate Dan said:
Baffles me why people find it necessary to be so rude.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I've offended anyonr else, but members who post condescending crap such as "mere visual interpretation" and "grasping at straws, I reckon" are only deserving of one type of answer, in the long term.
 
Last edited:
HawkWing said:
But do they tell you that Moore on Pink Dogwood was watching Gosden's favourite, and when he saw that he could force Havlin into traffic, he ensured that he shut the door on her, when Havlin was hoping to make her challenge. If Moore was going to lose, it wasnt to what appeared to be his main rival. As it turned out it was Gosden's second horse was the one that she needed to beat.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that interpretation implies that Moore got his tactics wrong in following the wrong horse. It's an angle I genuinely hadn't considered. For me, that might make his misjudgment all the more naive. But I'll watch it again some time and see if I agree.

HawkWing said:
It's very easy to go looking for the result you want, calling it analysis, and use whatever tool you wish including sectionals to bolster your own argument.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're reading my posts correctly. I said I wanted to see what the sectionals said. I said I was open to having them change my interpretation or at least allow a different slant. I admitted they didn't bear out my original interpretation of how the Derby panned out. I've admitted Moore's mistake on Kew Gardens in the CC wasn't as bad as the one in the Oaks.

If anything, I've allowed the sectionals to alter my opinion.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I would suggest that interpretation implies that Moore got his tactics wrong in following the wrong horse. It's an angle I genuinely hadn't considered. For me, that might make his misjudgment all the more naive.
Click to expand...

This is the horse Frankie said he would have ridden if given the choice.
 
The suspicion to me is the focus on the sectionalsnis a search for sticks to beat Moore with. Best of luck with it. Should be noted that Dettori did pretty much exactly the same in the Irish 2000 guineas - riding his race to beat Magna Grecia, you can almost pinpoint the stride that he realises he had forgotten about POS. I don't think Dettori rode the race poorly. There are a lot of unknowns in the classics and Id guess when you think you are riding the best horse you try to keep it simple. Give your horse the best chance and if there happens to be a better horse, given an enterprising ride so be it. It's always tempting and always boring to blame the jockey.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I would suggest that interpretation implies that Moore got his tactics wrong in following the wrong horse. It's an angle I genuinely hadn't considered. For me, that might make his misjudgment all the more naive. But I'll watch it again some time and see if I agree.
Click to expand...

Yes. You could. And would show the motivation for your investigations. It's just a more intelligent approach to the betting shop character throwing his docket at the TV calling the game bent after losing.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Watching the Oaks, I was convinced Anapurna was getting a better tactical ride than Pink Dogwood. Circumstances didn't dictate that; jockey decision-making dictated it. Moore could have sat on Anapurna's withers but presumably felt he had the best filly in the race so it wouldn't really have mattered too much.
Click to expand...

Just clocked this. How possible do you think that was given his draw and track position without causing interference and/or putting himself in traffic?
 
It strikes me as something of a shame that we can have a debate about Sectarianism on the forum without falling out, but we can't discuss sectional timings?

I find that it is best to approach any discussion on the internet from the viewpoint that my "opponent" is never going to change his mind about anything, ever and discuss accordingly.
 
Back
Top