REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

Yes, it's always intrigued me why these angles aren't exploited. Then again, you do get mentions on TV of how serious certain jockeys are about studying the form. Then again, these jockeys might not be willing to reveal what conclusions their studies lead them to. If they're involved in the race it might give away important tactics.

I think there need to be discussions behind the scenes at, say, the planning stages of a programme. If the producer asks Fitzgerald if he's studied the form for a race or just read Timeform or whatever then his input should be tailored accordingly. If he's gone through all the form himself he should be encouraged to offer his opinion. If he's just spouting Timeform or the RP analysis he should either acknowledge his source ("I see Timeform think this one will take all the beating") or limit himself to how a horse looks. (Surely a jockey can tell by looking at a horse whether it is fit?)

I often wonder if the paucity of information about race tactics etc from the likes of Fitzgerald is an admission that there isn't as much to race tactics as people would have us believe.

<blockquote data-quote="Desert Orchid" data-source="post: 2420725" data-attributes="member: 65242">Yes, it&#039;s always intrigued me why these angles aren&#039;t exploited. Then again, you do get mentions on TV of how serious certain jockeys are about studying the form. Then again, these jockeys might not be willing to reveal what conclusions their studies lead them to. If they&#039;re involved in the race it might give away important tactics.I think there need to be discussions behind the scenes at, say, the planning stages of a programme. If the producer asks Fitzgerald if he&#039;s studied the form for a race or just read Timeform or whatever then his input should be tailored accordingly. If he&#039;s gone through all the form himself he should be encouraged to offer his opinion. If he&#039;s just spouting Timeform or the RP analysis he should either acknowledge his source (&quot;I see Timeform think this one will take all the beating&quot;) or limit himself to how a horse looks. (Surely a jockey can tell by looking at a horse whether it is fit?) I often wonder if the paucity of information about race tactics etc from the likes of Fitzgerald is an admission that there isn&#039;t as much to race tactics as people would have us believe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desert Orchid, post: 2420725, member: 65242"] Yes, it's always intrigued me why these angles aren't exploited. Then again, you do get mentions on TV of how serious certain jockeys are about studying the form. Then again, these jockeys might not be willing to reveal what conclusions their studies lead them to. If they're involved in the race it might give away important tactics. I think there need to be discussions behind the scenes at, say, the planning stages of a programme. If the producer asks Fitzgerald if he's studied the form for a race or just read Timeform or whatever then his input should be tailored accordingly. If he's gone through all the form himself he should be encouraged to offer his opinion. If he's just spouting Timeform or the RP analysis he should either acknowledge his source ("I see Timeform think this one will take all the beating") or limit himself to how a horse looks. (Surely a jockey can tell by looking at a horse whether it is fit?) I often wonder if the paucity of information about race tactics etc from the likes of Fitzgerald is an admission that there isn't as much to race tactics as people would have us believe. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?