- This topic has 65 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Am not interested in how many British or Irish or French or American horses win our races…
That is… as long as it is a level playing field.
Do other countries have as stringent rules on steroids and other things that affect horses? Probably.
Looking forward to many Wesley Ward Royal Ascot discussions on this in the summer!
Britain produces few jockeys that most would consider to be in the very top rank. I wonder if that applies to stable staff too. Many British yards call upon foreign nationals for the nucleus of their staff. I get the impression Ireland still has a more ready supply of good work riders.
Roger Brookhouse and Malcolm Denmark are others who are now seeming to have more success with Irish trainers.
It amuses me that our top trainers have to get sessions with the likes of Yogi Breisner every five minutes.I don’t think Fred Winter would have had much truck with that
However, Elliott’s form immediately prior to Tuesday was a mere 5/10. A 6 is my rating for neither above or below form. So Elliott bagan Cheltenham week with his horses in fairly poor form. And yet from the first Cheltenham race bang, bang, bang! Almost everything was either running to form and a lot improving. Trainers do suddenly hit form from time to time, so from going from 5 to 10/10 in a day can happen; but it’s extremely rare. Jessie Harrington 6/10 going in to Tuesday to 10/10 by end of Cheltenham. Ran 9 horses at Cheltenham, won 3; two of the losers no hopers so call it 3 wins from 7 in the most competitive races all year.
These three did not just produce good or very good form; it was absolutely outstanding! I only (usually) give a 10 about seven or eight times a season. Hopefully coincidence that three Irish trainers could not have chosen a better time to suddenly score a 10.
This is my theory on the matter and I have no experience on/being at a yard so this is based on no ‘proper’ evidence whatsoever but here goes –
If Elliot has a bunch of 2m horses for Cheltenham he may train them together in the week(s) running up to the festival, however he won’t want to throw away one of these horses chances by making it front run/set the pace for the remainder of the pack – so instead he’ll get one of his not-so-good horses to set the pace instead. He will do this for his 2m4f horses and 3m horses as well, with a lower-grade 2m4f and 3m horses front running for their respective Cheltenam runners.
So he gets his front runners to race in the days before Cheltenham because they’re fit enough to race but also probably a bit knackered from front running – this gets a run into them and also gives him the possibility of their handicap marks dropping as they aren’t 100%.
Then a few days later Cheltenham starts and all his horses that have been prepped for it suddenly come into form and run incredibly well.
This could be complete nonsense as I said above I have never set foot on a yard but it’s just something I have a feeling about.
Interesting thread.
The Betbright Cup, imv, is something of a red herring – it was always a minor side-show on the C4 coverage, but this time round on ITV seems to have been seen as a useful hook for an audience used to team games and medal tables. Horse racing, of course, isn’t this – as the annual farce of the Shergar Cup shows.
Look at the number of Irish/British trained winners, and yes one sees an increase in the number of Irish-trained winners which – superficially at least – suggests Irish domination. But, as Louise says, this is more about trainers, and especially the relative strength/depth of strings, which – of course – also relates to owner-base. The numerical comparison between British-based and Irish-based trainers with Festival winners, and based on 2012-17 data, looks like this: 2017 (as Louise says) is 7/7; 2016 is 9 British/6 Irish; 2015 is 10/6. 2014: 11/7; 2013 9/9 and 2012, 11/3. On those figures one could just as well argue that recent years have seen a concentration of both British and Irish-trained winners into a smaller number of yards but a finer-grained analysis adds more detail, and complicates that picture.
Taking the Irish-based trainers with winners first: overall there are 19 individual trainers with Festival winners in this period. The headline act across the period is obviously WPM – who increased his haul from 3 in 2012 to a high of 8 in 2015, but whose number of winners are now showing a year-on-year fall (if one can call 6 that!). At the same time, GE is on the rise – singleton winners in 2013-15, followed by 3 (including Don Cossack) in 2016, and then 6 in 2017. Beyond that, Jessie obviously had 3 this year, but she had only one other winner in the period (2014), and the only other trainers to have > 1 winner in a year are Bolger (2016), Culloty (2014) and Martin (2013). Look at the breakdown of Irish-trained winners by year, and the trend to concentration is apparent: in 2013, WPM’s 5 winners aside, there were single winners for 6 other trainers, and 2 for another. By 2016 the big 2 account for 10 of the winners, with only 4 others with winners, and this year it has been a pretty similar story.
Their British-based counterparts provide a more diffuse pattern. There are 31 in total with winners in the period but they struggle to hit the numerical heights of either WPM or GE (largely for reasons to do with owner-base), and one has to go back to 2012 before one gets 7 winners for NJH (who also amassed 4 in 2013). Mostly, the big guns (NJH, PFN, DP, JJON) average out at 1/2 winners per year, with the occasional 3 and the occasional zero. Others (e.g. PJH, AK, NTD) manage a winner (or 2) on a 50% basis; some (like CT) are less consistent; and then there’s a clear trend to new trainer talent coming through (e.g. Ben Pauling, Nick Williams this year; Harry Fry, Ian Williams & Dan Skelton last year, Warren Greatrex, Neil Mulholland & Rebecca Curtis, plus the Bradstock’s all scoring in 2015).
The data also show some further points:
1) a clear increase in Irish-trained winners of the non-graded races. In 2012 there were 2 Irish-trained winners; 2013 (5); 2014 (3); 2015 (5); 2016 (6); 2017 (9). I think thewexfordman has made an important point!2) a preponderance of big name/big string trainers (Irish and British-based) striking in the non-graded races this year.
3) the importance of the novice ‘pipeline’ for WPM’s sustained success in the graded races – and the loss of that pipeline this year. The pendulum may have swung back to British-based trainers.
Five of the seven Irish handicap winners had career RPR’s of 145/147/153/154/168 in their respective codes, going into the festival.
Difficult to conclude they were all buried away from those figures imo.
Hopefully coincidence that three Irish trainers could not have chosen a better time to suddenly score a 10.
Why a coincidence, surely that would be the aim for any trainer looking to succeed in the biggest race meeting of the year to get their horses to peak.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
I just did a quick count so I could be slightly wrong but there are 10 handicaps, so 40 places. GB got 27 places and Ireland got 13. Ireland got 7 wins from the 13 and GB got 3 from the 27. So was it just the luck on the week that meant Irelands got on the right side of the wins in the handicaps? The other thing that has to be considered is that an Irish trainer won’t send over a horse to run in a handicap if it has no chance or is out of form because why would you go to the hassle of travelling, whereas it is more likely that a British trainer will just run an out of form horse or one that has no chance, therefore its reasonable to suggest that the strike rate of Irish horses in handicaps should be significantly higher than the percentage of Irish runners
Yes TWM, you make a good point.
A higher percentage of Irish horses should be successful in handicaps than the percentage of British horses.
But it should not be that much of a difference.Value Is EverythingAnother point which I think is relevant is the amount of races in Britain compared to Ireland. Take an average week with two similar groups of 100-123 rated hurdlers, one group in Britain and the other in ireland. In Ireland there might be two races a week for these horses. In Britain there might be 8 races a week for those horses. If the Irish bunch ran across the two races in Ireland there would only be two winners whereas in Britain 8 of their group would be winners. Therefore in terms of handicap marks this is how British marks become inflated. Winners probably go up 5/6 pounds on average. Therefore 8 British horses will go up 5/6 whereas only 2 of the Irish will go up 5/6.
No, that’s not how handicapping works.
It does not matter whether a horse wins, comes second, third or fourth etc. What matters is the “form” achieved in the race. ie If the Irish race is more competitive it’s allowed for in handicapping the result of that race…
eg If an Irish horse puts up exactly the same form perfomance in finishing fourth in an Irish Handicap as the British horse does in winning a British Handicap – Then that has to be recognised in the future marks given for those horses… And if the Irish winner puts up a better performance than the British winner, then the Irish winner needs to be put up more than the British winner.
What you’re actually saying is, you think a lot of Irish horses are too leniently handicapped because either they don’t go up enough, or British horses go up too much (which is the same thing).
Please tell Irish based jockeys, trainers and owners.
Value Is EverythingYou’re all talking rubbish.
The reason Irish horses do so well is that they spend all year plodding around their courses with Des Scahill droning into their ears.
It’s a natural two stone improvement when relieved of this at Cheltenham.
Mike
Am not interested in how many British or Irish or French or American horses win our races…
That is… as long as it is a level playing field.
Do other countries have as stringent rules on steroids and other things that affect horses? Probably.
Far more to the point:
Are rules adhered to?
Do other authorities make enough checks, so as to deter trainers breaking rules?
Are penalties heavy enough to deter trainers breaking rules?I do my own “trainer in form” ratings. They’re not all about wins, more to do with probability (prices), running to form (or not) and/or improving.
There’s a lot of rubbish talked about this subject. eg Media said Mullins was “out of form” after the first two days. In fact his horses had run as well as their form entitled them to. Plenty of placed horses. Douvan’s poor display all aout an imjury which could happen to any horse (including those from in form trainers). I made a post prior to the Festival saying Mullins horses were coming to form nicely. Began Tuesday with a 7 out of 10 from me.However, Elliott’s form immediately prior to Tuesday was a mere 5/10. A 6 is my rating for neither above or below form. So Elliott bagan Cheltenham week with his horses in fairly poor form. And yet from the first Cheltenham race bang, bang, bang! Almost everything was either running to form and a lot improving. Trainers do suddenly hit form from time to time, so from going from 5 to 10/10 in a day can happen; but it’s extremely rare. Jessie Harrington 6/10 going in to Tuesday to 10/10 by end of Cheltenham. Ran 9 horses at Cheltenham, won 3; two of the losers no hopers so call it 3 wins from 7 in the most competitive races all year.
These three did not just produce good or very good form; it was absolutely outstanding! I only (usually) give a 10 about seven or eight times a season. Hopefully coincidence that three Irish trainers could not have chosen a better time to suddenly score a 10.
I think you need to review this angle Ginger. For the top yards especially their form in the 14 day period immediately prior to Cheltenham is likely to be unrepresentative because it is based on their lower rated horses (some of whom would not have been performing reliably or up to expectations) and not on horses running in target races.
You’re all talking rubbish.
The reason Irish horses do so well is that they spend all year plodding around their courses with Des Scahill droning into their ears.
It’s a natural two stone improvement when relieved of this at Cheltenham.
Mike
Plus the horses don’t get confused by “the approach that will bring them right towards the entrance before the straight”
Mullins made what could have been a decent point. He suggested that we perhaps have too much prize money geared towards handicaps as opposed to graded races and that triggers many of the better horses being geared towards Ireland. As he says, who wants to buy a handicapper?
Makes sense
Mullins made what could have been a decent point. He suggested that we perhaps have too much prize money geared towards handicaps as opposed to graded races and that triggers many of the better horses being geared towards Ireland. As he says, who wants to buy a handicapper?
Makes sense
You could argue, who wants to buy a mares’ hurdle winner. Personally I’d rather have a handicapper. Mullins is fond of banging on about how little this horse and that horse cost. O’Leary spent 100k on the handicapper that is ‘the worst horse’ he owns. Just how to we know whether we are buying a handicapper or not? Trust Mullins with our money, presumably.
GT, I use trainer form too though not at the intensity you do. But judging it at Cheltenham is close to impossible. As GM says, the targeted animals are unlikely to have run within a month of the festival. There are insufficient ‘important’ races in the run-up to adequately test a yard’s form (Imperial Cup has been on the slide for a while, for example).
Now that we’ve all turned our attention to the Irish, doubtless they’ll get gubbed next year and all our theories will be back at square one.
Answer me this: why do the Irish with their proud heritage of staying chasers and superb recent festival record struggle so much with the Ultima (Festival Trophy)? They’ve a lousy record overall and haven’t won it since 2006.
I think you need to review this angle Ginger. For the top yards especially their form in the 14 day period immediately prior to Cheltenham is likely to be unrepresentative because it is based on their lower rated horses (some of whom would not have been performing reliably or up to expectations) and not on horses running in target races.
That’s allowed for in my calculations, GM.
But as said, I do not judge horses by position finished; it’s all about running to form. “Lower rated horses” should still be running to their form/expectation even if not finishing in the first three. Cheltenham/good horses may be more reliale than lower rated horses, but not to that extent.
Value Is EverythingJoe,
I don’t see how someone can judge trainer form by “important races” alone – unless it’s only on the last couple of days of a Festival. At any other time of year there’s not enough of them.When it comes to British trainers at Festivals, trainer form has played a massive part in my profits over the years, just as much as day-to-day racing. However, when it comes to Irish trainers (flat included) they’ve often gone from poor or indifferent to exceptional in one hoof print, at exactly the right time.
This is bound to happen naturally from time to time, but it’s seemingly happening with regularity. That’s why I’m concerned.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.