I am confident that I can convince you otherwise.
The Derby
- Thread starter Flaggers
- Start date
I am confident that I can convince you otherwise.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Yes, you're right.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
I find that a strange thing to say and it confirms that you're not really reading what I'm saying. It looks to me like you're guilty of skimming what I'm saying to look for snippets to support your own agenda.
Pot? Kettle? Black?
I didn't lose. I backed Anapurna.
But that doesn't stop me from realising I got lucky on the day because Moore got his tactics wrong. Getting a better understanding of the race is more important to me than having a bet on the winner.
By the by, Tom Segal in the Weekender:
He adds:
We're not far off agreeing - all of us.
I say he got it wrong on the day too but I'm also saying he does it too often for my liking. Rightly or wrongly, I'm allowed to express an opinion. I'm not sure, having taken the time to investigate further, whether the Kew Gardens ride was as bad as PD one since the sectional times appear to be telling me that I was wrong in the first place. There is no entrenchment in my position. I'm open to being influenced by meaningful evidence.
Dettori gets it wrong too. I said last week that ALL jockeys get it wrong. Everybody gets things wrong at times. But Dettori doesn't get it wrong as often and certainly not in the biggest races.
Last edited:
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Lol
As long as its you who is deciding which evidence is meaningful its not nearly as objective a fact finding mission as you think.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
I'm not deciding what meaningful evidence is. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Perhaps I should have said 'empirical'.
I would rather trust 'empirical' evidence than anyone's visual impression, including my own.
Simon Rowlands (a former forumite under the pseudonym Prufrock) is a recognised expert in sectional analysis. Even he would accept that sectionals won't always tell the whole story but, correctly calculated and analysed, they tell a more complete story than just watching. Kevin Blake in his ATR blog used still photos to tell of stories within the story of the race. They tell similar stories as the sectionals. I remember Kauto Abu did likewise on here some time before Buveur D'Air won his first Champion Hurdle.
I think to dismiss them as not being meaningful is to miss out on a bigger picture. That's probably part of my problem. I am a wee bit obsessed about seeing the bigger picture rather than just what I want to see. It's why I'm willing to look at lots of evidence and filter out the unreliable stuff. If that's me "deciding which evidence is meaningful" then I am guilty as charged but I'd rather be guilty of that than of ignoring everything and sticking to my own ideas.
I'm in the queue for inconvenient truths rather than convenient beliefs.
I would rather trust 'empirical' evidence than anyone's visual impression, including my own.
Simon Rowlands (a former forumite under the pseudonym Prufrock) is a recognised expert in sectional analysis. Even he would accept that sectionals won't always tell the whole story but, correctly calculated and analysed, they tell a more complete story than just watching. Kevin Blake in his ATR blog used still photos to tell of stories within the story of the race. They tell similar stories as the sectionals. I remember Kauto Abu did likewise on here some time before Buveur D'Air won his first Champion Hurdle.
I think to dismiss them as not being meaningful is to miss out on a bigger picture. That's probably part of my problem. I am a wee bit obsessed about seeing the bigger picture rather than just what I want to see. It's why I'm willing to look at lots of evidence and filter out the unreliable stuff. If that's me "deciding which evidence is meaningful" then I am guilty as charged but I'd rather be guilty of that than of ignoring everything and sticking to my own ideas.
I'm in the queue for inconvenient truths rather than convenient beliefs.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
From the BHA Handicapper's blog. I have highlighted the sections that would appear to have had a bearing on the result.
The 2019 Investec Derby had an incredibly open look to it pre-race, both on official ratings where just 5 lbs separated the top six contenders, and in the betting where Sir Dragonet was sent off the 11/4 favourite. This resulted in a thrilling race where just 0.6 of a length separated the first five home.
Anthony Van Dyck was rated 118 as a two-year-old, when successful at Group 2 level and placed twice in Group 1 races (second in the National Stakes and third in the Dewhurst). Having run seven times as a juvenile, including a trip to America for the Breeders’ Cup, he was nothing if not battle hardened and this toughness stood him in good stead on Saturday where he came up against some less experienced rivals. The sectional times for the Derby suggest he used his energy in an optimum manner and in rating his winning performance at 118 I believe he didn’t need to improve upon his two-year-old form.
To put that figure into context, Wings Of Eagles (2017) and Ruler Of The World (2013) were rated 119 when coming out on top in similarly tight finishes and they were previously the lowest performances in the Derby this century.
Madhmoon had finished fourth in the 2000 Guineas at Newmarket last month and it could be argued that he was a slightly unlucky loser at Epsom. Towards the rear when stumbling slightly coming round Tattenham Corner, that seemed to galvanise him into action (made a sweeping move) and he ran the fastest two furlongs of any horse at any stage of the race. He clearly didn’t expend his energy as evenly through the race as Anthony Van Dyck and that may ultimately have been the difference. He emerges with a rating of 117, the same as Japan, Broome and Sir Dragonet who all finished upsides.
As the first six home are all trained in Ireland the job of publishing official ratings fall to my Irish colleague Garry O’Gorman and he has confirmed the above figures.
The previous afternoon’s Investec Oaks was won by Anapurna who, like Derby winner Anthony Van Dyck, had won her trial at Lingfield and completed a notable classic double for the Surrey venue.
Comparisons with Anthony Van Dyck don’t stop there as sectional times for the Oaks suggest she also ran an optimal race. She is clearly a fast improving filly and her new rating of 113 matches the five-year race standard. Was and Casual Look were also rated 113 when winning in 2012 and 2003 respectively.
There were interesting aspects to the performances of several of the beaten horses. Runner-up Pink Dogwood ran an exceptionally fast furlong split with three furlongs to run. It took her into the lead but she couldn’t quite hold off Anapurna late on, the latter having run a more evenly paced race.
Fleeting found herself a long way off the lead and like Pink Dogwood really accelerated with three furlongs to run. She ran the fastest final furlong but the front two were just beyond her reach. Both of these Aidan O’Brien-trained fillies clearly have abundant talent and I would be surprised if they don’t win major races.
Another filly worth mentioning is Mehdaayih who was supplemented for the race after running away with the Listed Cheshire Oaks. She endured a nightmare run up the straight, notably when hampered over a furlong out, and must be given another chance.
The 2019 Investec Derby had an incredibly open look to it pre-race, both on official ratings where just 5 lbs separated the top six contenders, and in the betting where Sir Dragonet was sent off the 11/4 favourite. This resulted in a thrilling race where just 0.6 of a length separated the first five home.
Anthony Van Dyck was rated 118 as a two-year-old, when successful at Group 2 level and placed twice in Group 1 races (second in the National Stakes and third in the Dewhurst). Having run seven times as a juvenile, including a trip to America for the Breeders’ Cup, he was nothing if not battle hardened and this toughness stood him in good stead on Saturday where he came up against some less experienced rivals. The sectional times for the Derby suggest he used his energy in an optimum manner and in rating his winning performance at 118 I believe he didn’t need to improve upon his two-year-old form.
To put that figure into context, Wings Of Eagles (2017) and Ruler Of The World (2013) were rated 119 when coming out on top in similarly tight finishes and they were previously the lowest performances in the Derby this century.
Madhmoon had finished fourth in the 2000 Guineas at Newmarket last month and it could be argued that he was a slightly unlucky loser at Epsom. Towards the rear when stumbling slightly coming round Tattenham Corner, that seemed to galvanise him into action (made a sweeping move) and he ran the fastest two furlongs of any horse at any stage of the race. He clearly didn’t expend his energy as evenly through the race as Anthony Van Dyck and that may ultimately have been the difference. He emerges with a rating of 117, the same as Japan, Broome and Sir Dragonet who all finished upsides.
As the first six home are all trained in Ireland the job of publishing official ratings fall to my Irish colleague Garry O’Gorman and he has confirmed the above figures.
The previous afternoon’s Investec Oaks was won by Anapurna who, like Derby winner Anthony Van Dyck, had won her trial at Lingfield and completed a notable classic double for the Surrey venue.
Comparisons with Anthony Van Dyck don’t stop there as sectional times for the Oaks suggest she also ran an optimal race. She is clearly a fast improving filly and her new rating of 113 matches the five-year race standard. Was and Casual Look were also rated 113 when winning in 2012 and 2003 respectively.
There were interesting aspects to the performances of several of the beaten horses. Runner-up Pink Dogwood ran an exceptionally fast furlong split with three furlongs to run. It took her into the lead but she couldn’t quite hold off Anapurna late on, the latter having run a more evenly paced race.
Fleeting found herself a long way off the lead and like Pink Dogwood really accelerated with three furlongs to run. She ran the fastest final furlong but the front two were just beyond her reach. Both of these Aidan O’Brien-trained fillies clearly have abundant talent and I would be surprised if they don’t win major races.
Another filly worth mentioning is Mehdaayih who was supplemented for the race after running away with the Listed Cheshire Oaks. She endured a nightmare run up the straight, notably when hampered over a furlong out, and must be given another chance.
granger
Senior Jockey
My annual one off flat post - was it actually a good derby or just a bunch of horses on a very similar level dominated by a single stable?
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
The official view (copied from above) suggests the latter:
The sectional times for the Derby suggest he used his energy in an optimum manner and in rating his winning performance at 118 I believe he didn’t need to improve upon his two-year-old form.
To put that figure into context, Wings Of Eagles (2017) and Ruler Of The World (2013) were rated 119 when coming out on top in similarly tight finishes and they were previously the lowest performances in the Derby this century.
(My own mind is open the possibility that they're a little better than that but the overall time was slow too.)
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
There was a reason for that, but it hardly fits with the Ryan Moore vendetta this threads been turned into.
I'm not seeing a vendetta - there is a suggestion that he made an error which eventually cost him the race, which happens all the time. That hardly constitutes a vendetta.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
I didn't see reet's post until you quoted it, simmo.
Part of the problem is that I do have 'form' when it comes to criticising Moore. I also used to criticise AP and lots of other 'top' jockeys.
Somehow the criticism of Moore has been a case of going too far with some people. Curiously enough, others who criticise Ruby Walsh for his apparent penchant for putting horses on the floor at the last don't get anywhere near the same vitriol.
I got a lot of attacks when I criticised Geraghty once or twice during the past NH season yet when I mentioned that I thought he was brilliant a couple of times at the festival the comments were ignored.
You're absolutely right. I do not have a vendetta against Moore. I don't even have an agenda against him. I'm just questioning whether he's making more mistakes than a top jockey should in these big races. Maybe his hand is being forced tactically as a race unfolds. But if he's the best jockey on the best horse, should he let it? Is he struggling to cope with the pressure of riding hotpots in these races for his colossus of an employer?
Getting things wrongs in trial races etc doesn't concern me. I assume he's experimenting and the horses are not necessarily there to impress. But surely in the big three Epsom races you don't want to lose out to lesser jockeys' tactics or pace judgment?
On Saturday morning I wrote ahead of the 12f Epsom hcap in which Moore rode Sextant:
The worry is that Moore got it badly wrong on both Kew Gardens and Pink Dogwood so backing him at 7/4 over the same course and distance might end up with the same outcome unless he’s learned his lesson. I think Sextant should win but because of the foregoing concerns I’ve backed Genetics each-way instead.
In the event Sextant didn't get competitive. In this case I'm just not sure if it was another mistake or whether the horse was being prepped for something bigger at Ascot so I'm more phlegmatic about the ride. My horse was well beaten but I was right not to back Moore, even if perhaps it was for the wrong reason.
Form book comments:
Sextant - did best of those to be ridden with restraint and his effort is probably worth upgrading...
Genetics - ... found disappointingly little ... questions to answer
On my figures, Sextant was at least 3lbs below his previous form while Genetics was at least 10lbs below his. Had he run to the kind of figure I had him capable of he's have been involved in a photo for the win. But I still expected Sextant to win.
Back to the other races: I've since admitted that I was harsh regarding Kew Gardens but it seems every other professional observer agrees that Pink Dogwood was the best filly in the Oaks yet didn't win. Madhmoon's run in the Derby was less efficient than Sir Dragonet's (according to the sectionals and Kevin Blake's blog) yet he finished in front of him so I'd conclude that Madhmoon is simply a better horse at the moment and I'm less inclined to say SD got a poor tactical ride. AVD maybe got lucky on the day. Had he gone with the pace he might have slowed late on along with the rest. We'll need to see how the rest of the season unfolds to see how they all go on. Maybe something else altogether will emerge as the best middle-distance 3yo.
Part of the problem is that I do have 'form' when it comes to criticising Moore. I also used to criticise AP and lots of other 'top' jockeys.
Somehow the criticism of Moore has been a case of going too far with some people. Curiously enough, others who criticise Ruby Walsh for his apparent penchant for putting horses on the floor at the last don't get anywhere near the same vitriol.
I got a lot of attacks when I criticised Geraghty once or twice during the past NH season yet when I mentioned that I thought he was brilliant a couple of times at the festival the comments were ignored.
You're absolutely right. I do not have a vendetta against Moore. I don't even have an agenda against him. I'm just questioning whether he's making more mistakes than a top jockey should in these big races. Maybe his hand is being forced tactically as a race unfolds. But if he's the best jockey on the best horse, should he let it? Is he struggling to cope with the pressure of riding hotpots in these races for his colossus of an employer?
Getting things wrongs in trial races etc doesn't concern me. I assume he's experimenting and the horses are not necessarily there to impress. But surely in the big three Epsom races you don't want to lose out to lesser jockeys' tactics or pace judgment?
On Saturday morning I wrote ahead of the 12f Epsom hcap in which Moore rode Sextant:
The worry is that Moore got it badly wrong on both Kew Gardens and Pink Dogwood so backing him at 7/4 over the same course and distance might end up with the same outcome unless he’s learned his lesson. I think Sextant should win but because of the foregoing concerns I’ve backed Genetics each-way instead.
In the event Sextant didn't get competitive. In this case I'm just not sure if it was another mistake or whether the horse was being prepped for something bigger at Ascot so I'm more phlegmatic about the ride. My horse was well beaten but I was right not to back Moore, even if perhaps it was for the wrong reason.
Form book comments:
Sextant - did best of those to be ridden with restraint and his effort is probably worth upgrading...
Genetics - ... found disappointingly little ... questions to answer
On my figures, Sextant was at least 3lbs below his previous form while Genetics was at least 10lbs below his. Had he run to the kind of figure I had him capable of he's have been involved in a photo for the win. But I still expected Sextant to win.
Back to the other races: I've since admitted that I was harsh regarding Kew Gardens but it seems every other professional observer agrees that Pink Dogwood was the best filly in the Oaks yet didn't win. Madhmoon's run in the Derby was less efficient than Sir Dragonet's (according to the sectionals and Kevin Blake's blog) yet he finished in front of him so I'd conclude that Madhmoon is simply a better horse at the moment and I'm less inclined to say SD got a poor tactical ride. AVD maybe got lucky on the day. Had he gone with the pace he might have slowed late on along with the rest. We'll need to see how the rest of the season unfolds to see how they all go on. Maybe something else altogether will emerge as the best middle-distance 3yo.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Madhmoon for the king George. :
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
I would have two concerns right now.
1. How much did the Derby take out of him, especially that sub-11s furlong at the hottest part of the race;
2. The 3yos overall might not be that good.
Telecaster wasn't really on my radar ahead of the Derby but I wonder if not running his race was a blessing in disguise for the future.
It's only very recently you insinuated that RM deliberately lost on a horse to land a punt.
As I've already indicated, this thread has degenerated from a worthwhile 'big race' discussion into your personal witch hunt, and I will have no further part of it.
Happy to be proven wrong - although I very much doubt it - the latter, by some margin. Was a very bad race IMHO.
G-G
Senior Jockey
He got it very wrong in the Dante.
Dettori doesn't ride in many 'small ' races any more, but when he did, he made up his mind whether it could win or not and that would determine where it finished. In classics and high profile races with good prize money, and rewards for his ego, he goes in with a totally different attitude.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,645
I think most of them are like that once they reach a certain level. They're comfortably enough off to suit their own agenda.
As for the Dante, I'm in two minds about that ride. It looked like he got it wrong in following Telecaster's fast pace but on the other hand if the latter had gone too fast you'd expect him to slow down in the last couple of furlongs. I wonder if the plan that day was to give TDH a stern test to see if he felt like he'd stay the Derby trip and both jockey and trainer were quick to conclude that he wouldn't.
Maybe neither was over that race next time.
G-G
Senior Jockey
He's been like it for years. I could tell you a great story about him, Channon, Ferguson and Crisford.