Tom Queally

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gearoid
  • Start date Start date
Rory, surely you're not seriously implying that it wouldn't matter too much if Sir 'Enry put up muppets, because good horses would auto-steer themselves to victory anyway? That's how that reads to me, which I find highly surprising. If that were the case, jockey selection wouldn't be at all imperative to some trainers or for certain horses. What some people seem to ignore is that Tom rides out regularly for the Cecil camp, and is therefore well in tune with those animals. He doesn't need to be told how to ride them, because he already does ride them.
 
I quite like Queally, but I'd imagine there's any one of about 15 jockeys that could have won the same number of group 1's from the same opportunities that he's had.
 
That's a very long list, given the approbrium all of them meet on this and other forums! So, who would we say could get the job done just as well (not necessarily better, but not bring in worse results)?

I suppose it'll be Ryan Moore, William Buick, Frankie Dettori, Jim Crowley, Ted Durcan, Ian Mongan, Paul Hanagan, Johnny Murtagh, Jamie Spencer, Kieren...

... uh, I've got to ten... any advance? I can hear the ready-packaged cries of derision if Hughes, Sanders, or either Hills twin is mentioned...
 
Richard Hughes is just about the best jock in the UK in my opinion. He wins races he shouldn't. Dettori and Fallon, are the other two in this bracket for me.

Queally is a good jock, not in the top five but good nonetheless.

To say Midday would have won another four group 1's, is in my opinion, complete bollocks. She tried to throw the nassau away and queally did well to galvanise her again. She isn't good enough to beat the best group 1 colts so god knows how you expect Queally to magic these group 1's out. Frankly i think its a slur on Cecil to suggest Queally is shit and patently ignores the fact that Cecil's resurgence has coincided with Queally's arrival. In every successful team the component parts are not necessarily the best available but its how they function together. Tom and Henry clearly works so give it a rest and enjoy the return of a true great to former glories.
 
All very well put, Aragorn - in fact, I was going to rabbit on about just that issue (Sir H's resurgence coinciding with Tom's ascendancy), so thanks for expressing the same thought. As for Hughes, it astounds me how much ire he draws, yet I can see nothing wrong with any of his riding. Style and effort, positioning of the horse, tactics and thinking for himself - he shows that up so many times when hoeing his own row where all the jocks go one way, him another, with him showing them his rear at the finish. And yet, there's just no pleasing some people...
 
rorydelargy said:
On a serious note, EC1, the stats for Queally at G1 level certainly read well, but I'd argue that they say much more about his principal retainer's ability to source and place top-class performers than they do about the jockey's inherent ability. That remark applies to both HRAC and Prince Khalid, neither of whom throw much crap at the proverbial board.
Click to expand...

K Abdulla's record in G1's before Queally ..2001 to 2007 incl =
6/51...expected wins 9...A/E = 0.66

record since Queally rides
19/86..expected wins 16..A/E =1.18

again..even allowing for your point re the owner..Queally has improved Abdulla's A/E

i think basically it just proves that when punters get a bias against a jockey it can be complete nonsense sometimes..not backed up by figures at all..

By comparison..people think Hughes is a better G1 jockey..but his figures show he isn't as effective as Queally

R Hughes G1 record =
13/134...expected wins 17..A/E 0.76

so who is the better G1 jockey?..someone who wins 76 times when expected to win 100 or one who wins 118 when expected to win 100?

no brainer really
 
Last edited:
If Hughes had Frankel to ride, though, his figures might look a little better. Any jockey's would.
 
Grey said:
If Hughes had Frankel to ride, though, his figures might look a little better. Any jockey's would.
Click to expand...

win figures don't matter though Grey..you are riding against the odds to get the A/E figure

so riding Frankel would not change Hughes hardly at all..plus he had CC to ride..Queally didn't
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
Crikey, EC1 - I don't know how you worked that out, but that's brilliant! Superb piece of stats work.
Click to expand...

i got help Kri ;)

i was surprised mesen by them tbh..coz i gave him plenty of stick over some of his tactics..but his figures show that singling a jockey out for the odd bad ride..and judging his overall ability on just a couple of shit ones... clouds overall judgement
 
Fair enough.

I just thought that winning on an odds on shot would be better for your stats, even marginally, than being beaten on an outsider.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Fair enough.

I thought that winning on an odds on shot would be better for your stats, even marginally, than being beaten on an outsider.
Click to expand...

sorry amended post a bit..it would slightly improve them Grey..but as i said..CC wasn't a bad little earner for Hughes

to be fair to both jocks..they should be judged on what they rode..we could trade hosses all day but the figures are in the book no question

winning on an 8/1 shot though would be far better than winning on a 1/3 shot re your figures..when you ride odds onners you need to make sure they win plenty or they can seriously damage your A/E..
 
EC1 - do you think that trainers work out stats similarly to what you've done? Because if Sir Aitch has, he's no doubt very pleased with them, and wouldn't have any plans to change a winning formula.

What I really, really love about what you've shown is the bald fact. As you say, we can all conjecture, pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking, etc., about how good this or that horse would be with or without a certain person, but when it comes to the pure maths of it all, taking out the personal bias and misjudgment, no-one can (rationally) continue to posit a negative position. QED and all that. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts...
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
EC1 - do you think that trainers work out stats similarly to what you've done? Because if Sir Aitch has, he's no doubt very pleased with them, and wouldn't have any plans to change a winning formula.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether trainers do or not Kri..maybe some of you guys within the industry could find out..

i know i would use them if i owned or trained
 
EC1 said:
K Abdulla's record in G1's before Queally ..2001 to 2007 incl =
6/51...expected wins 9...A/E = 0.66

record since Queally rides
19/86..expected wins 16..A/E =1.18

again..even allowing for your point re the owner..Queally has improved Abdulla's A/E

i think basically it just proves that when punters get a bias against a jockey it can be complete nonsense sometimes..not backed up by figures at all..

By comparison..people think Hughes is a better G1 jockey..but his figures show he isn't as effective as Queally

R Hughes G1 record =
13/134...expected wins 17..A/E 0.76

so who is the better G1 jockey?..someone who wins 76 times when expected to win 100 or one who wins 118 when expected to win 100?

no brainer really
Click to expand...

the problem with the figures you use is that you suppose the odds represents the real chance of the horses they are riding
 
FantasyFellow said:
As Tom Queally won by a nose on my horse, at 25-1, last Wed at Notts, I have had to push him up my jockey list to the very good category
Click to expand...

I can understand why, it sounds like he did very well for you on a tricky ride:

took keen hold, held up towards rear, headway on outside and hung left over 2f out, continued to hang left, chased leaders over 1f out, strong challenge inside final furlong, ran on to lead post
Click to expand...

Congratulations
 
sunybay said:
the problem with the figures you use is that you suppose the odds represents the real chance of the horses they are riding
Click to expand...

True, but no measure is perfect, and the betting odds, at least, are based on people putting their money where their mouth is.
 
sunybay said:
the problem with the figures you use is that you suppose the odds represents the real chance of the horses they are riding
Click to expand...

the betting odds are probably one of the most reliable indicators that are present in horse racing

get any database..ask it to display 5 years results of horses at each odds level and you will get uniform results that represent the odds on offer

its quite impressive really when you think about it
 
Could you also use the figures to say on average how over priced Queally is or how underpriced Richard Hughes is in Group 1s by seeing what average price returns a +/-0?
 
Back
Top