- This topic has 255 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Cue Card is nowhere near the horse he once was so comparisons with performance dating back more than 18-24 months are completely moot.
He used to stay but the last few performances I’ve seen hint at a fairly rapid deterioration in ability
There nay be a minute in the difference of cue cards performances but the ground this year must have been heavier than last year, Also races tend to be run a different paces and styles. And also cue card had to use up some energy early on to keep up with BDM in the ground and therefore emptying quicker than usual
I don’t think you, or anyone else, is getting my point here.
The race probably ran like a 3 and a half mile race race yesterday. Only Bristol De Mai ran anything like his form yesterday.
However bad the ground is, the time ratings make allowances for the going and the actual going is factored into the rating.
Bristol De Mai earned a rating of 145 from Topspeed in the Racing Post for yesterday’s race. Mike has already said his figure was lower on 128. I don’t know what figure Mike gave Cue Card but I do know that Topspeed gave him 95 and that is miles under his best figure of 161 recorded in the same race two years ago. You need to go back to the King George in 2012, behind winner Long Run, to find a race where Cue Card earned a lower figure from Topspeed.
Steeplechasing is flying in the face of professional assessors and good forum judges here.
I am clearly wasting my breath here so I will leave people to hold their own views. As far as I am concerned the logic is totally flawed.
Every meaningful figure suggests Cue Card was miles below his best in the Betfair. Deny it if you wish Cue Card fans.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Those victories of BDM, Apples Jade, Apples Shakira et al all have a single common denominator and that was that they were all achieved on either soft or heavy ground and that is why people are saying that regardless of how visually stunning a performance BDM’s was on the day, a big but needs to come after it as you can’t simply rely on form under those conditions to be confirmed when reverting back to a sounder surface – history tells us that race form can be turned on its head once the ground turns testing.
With regards to how the race would have turned out with no BDM, one could argue that with Cue Card potentially dictating the race at a much more sedate pace (the others most unlikely to have pressed him for the lead), Tea For Two’s stamina may not have been stretched beyond its limits (remember he was still fractionally in front of CC when climbing over the last) and he would have finished a lot closer than the 9L he was beaten by CC – had CC ended up winning, I am pretty sure his rating would have been some way below 168.
BDM to date has failed to prove that he can be as dominant on quicker ground as he is on heavy but he will have that very opportunity at Kempton – as I have said though a worry I have is on a sounder surface with everything happening that much quicker around him, he will have less time to organise himself at his fences as while he is very good going long I believe having to shorten up to a fence at speed could be an issue.
185 imho is a massive overreaction to a race that the bare form has plenty of if buts and maybes about it
GT, another one to amicably disagree on, I think. Cue Card has hammered the likes of Don Poli, Silv Conti, Coneygree and a few others over 24f or more on easy/soft/heavy ground. I can’t have it that he doesn’t stay, especially after that brutal KG he won. I was at Haydock in 2013 when he won his Betfair in soft ground and the image of him staying on to draw clear of a field that included Dynaste, Silv Conti, Bobs Worth, Long Run and Tidal Bay will live long in the memory.
It isn’t the main reason Cue Card under-performed so markedly, but imo it was a contributory factor why he was beaten by so far. How often do King George winners not stay the Gold Cup trip? Quite often.
Only the first three in that 2013 race count when considering “form”, Joe. Bobs Worth, Long Run and Tidal Bay all way below their bests, just as Cue Card, Outlander and Tea For Two were this year. Well, I say “three”; not really that. Silvi wasn’t at his absolute best and – believe it or not – neither was Cue Card. His King George (on better ground so less of a test of stamina) Melling and Ryanair victories over lesser trips can be rated higher. Look at the rest of Dynaste’s form. Do you really believe Cue Card at his best was only a 4 1/2 lengths better horse than Dynaste?
For whatever reason it doesn’t really matter, Joe; but it’s obvious to me only one horse showed anywhere near his form in the 2017 betfair. If Cue Card was anything like his best then we’re talking about Bristol De Mai not as a 180, but a 230+.
Value Is EverythingHypothetically, had Cue Card, Thistlecrack, Might Bite or Douvan put up that performance, would we be as sceptical over its merits?
Hypothetically, had Cue Card, Thistlecrack, Might Bite or Douvan put up that performance, would we be as sceptical over its merits?
Sceptical about what? Sceptical that Bristol De Mai, Thistlecrack, Might Bite or Douvan could’ve given a stone to Arkle (like some seem to be suggesting). Yes, I’m sceptical about that.
Effectively he beat Chase The Spud by just over 10 seconds. That’s still a top class effort. So am I sceptical about Bristol De Mai being top class? No.
Bristol De Mai probably put up a performance of a similar standard to what Cue Card did in previous runnings.
Value Is EverythingMark, Degaussed point was well made, I think and we all know the answer. Had it been one of those Degaussed mentioned, it would be odds on for Kempton and all over the racing pages for a week.
As to the Arkle comment, my whole point on this subject is that Bristol De Mai’s performance should be seen for what it was on the day. Had Arkle been in the field, he might have won 20 lengths or been beaten 20 lengths; nobody can ever say because the race was unique, as every race is. The manner in which it was run decided everything that took shape at every stage, which is why your assertion that he effectively beat Chase The Spud by 10 seconds or so makes no sense. And you know that because you’re far and away the prime advocate here for how important pace can be in a race, far and away.
He didn’t beat Chase The Spud by 10 seconds because Chase The Spud was not in his race and therefore was not subject to the tactics and rigours of that race. Had he been, he might have been second, fourth, or tailed off for all we know.
Enjoyed reading this Thread and I think Ginger and Joe will be having an ongoing debate on this forever, both putting up wise and valid points
However…
…the good thing about all this is that Bristol De Mai is a young horse, just coming to his best and will have the time to prove his doubters wrong. Although I feel he has nothing to prove after winning his race by a mind blowing 57 LengthsIf he is as good as that race suggests (all comments noted on that point -no more please
) then he should be able to up his game even more to beat the best of the best on their preferred tracks and going and I’m looking forward to him stepping up to that challenge and showing what he can achieve when taken out of his comfort zone.
Jac
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Of course CC was well below his best, but by how much who knows? Harry Cobden said he was never happy on him. I think age has now caught up on CC. He’s nearly 12 and is a veteran of 39 races. But saying that it was still a mighty performance from BDM to beat him by 57 lengths. He also beat Outlander, who was no doubt also disappointing, by 66. At six, he also has room for improvement. Maybe he is one track/ground dependent but he also just maybe very good.
Good thing is that he is with a trainer who’s intention will be to pitch him in at all the big dances so come the end of the season (injuries permitting) we will have a definitive answer to our questions this race has raised.
Mark, Degaussed point was well made, I think and we all know the answer. Had it been one of those Degaussed mentioned, it would be odds on for Kempton and all over the racing pages for a week.
As to the Arkle comment, my whole point on this subject is that Bristol De Mai’s performance should be seen for what it was on the day. Had Arkle been in the field, he might have won 20 lengths or been beaten 20 lengths; nobody can ever say because the race was unique, as every race is. The manner in which it was run decided everything that took shape at every stage, which is why your assertion that he effectively beat Chase The Spud by 10 seconds or so makes no sense. And you know that because you’re far and away the prime advocate here for how important pace can be in a race, far and away.
He didn’t beat Chase The Spud by 10 seconds because Chase The Spud was not in his race and therefore was not subject to the tactics and rigours of that race. Had he been, he might have been second, fourth, or tailed off for all we know.
Joe,
Had that exact performance been one of the established top notchers from a more fashionable trainer, then it probably would have been thought higher of (by some of the racing media)… But they’d have been wrong in doing so.No, the race was not “unique”. Do you think no other horse has gone that pace or near it at Haydock in similar ground? Only way it is unique is the race has been extended in trip – that’s all. My Arkle comment is valid, of course had Arkle been in the race he may have run poorly or below form. What I am saying is if someone believes Cue Card (or any of the other horses come to that) ran anywhere near their best – then a horse 57 lengths in front of a top form Cue Card or 66 ahead of a top form Outlander etc… means there is no other way of rating Bristol De Mai, he has to be rated better than Arkle at Arkle’s best. That’s just plain stupid, Bristol De Mai is not better than Arkle.
When there’s massive question marks about all the other horses – or even when there aren’t as many question marks – it is a good idea to look at the time and sectional times. Does the time stack up? It tells us there’s very little doubt Bristol De Mai put up a top class performance.
Reason why a lot of time comparisson can be a waste of time is: Sometimes one will be truly run and one slowly run; or one may be earlier in the day and rain between the two slows the second race or wind speed/direction are different. Was there rain between races? Don’t think so, but if so BDM’s performance should be marked down. Or if comparing different days, there’s “heavy” and then there’s “heavy” – one could be normal heavy and the other almost unracable..,
…But none of those are true in this case. Races came one after the other on the same course, on the same ground, over the same trip, off a similar pace and Chase The Spud even carried the same weight. Not saying the two were absolutely identical, might be small differences but only small. Being of a lesser standard means the pace may be slightly less, but only slightly. Or the handicap may have been slightly faster due to its competitiveness. You’ve only got to look at Chase The Spud’s overall record (won Midlands Grand National on very soft ground) and indeed the finish of Saturday’s handicap… To realise Chase The Spud is very well suited by a thorough test of stamina. One thing for sure is both races were run at a strong pace for the conditions. So yes, it does look as though these two races can be compared quite well. If am wrong in thinking pace was very similar then fair enough. Can’t wait for The Verdict on RUK at 12:30 tomorrow. Feel sure they’ll put a split screen comparing the two races. It’ll show that in all probability Chase The Spud would’ve been second in the Betfair… and that all bar BDM in the Betfair were massively below their bests.
Are you saying it’s absolutely impossible to use evidence in order to come to an educated opinion of how one horse would’ve finished had it run in another race?
If so form analysis is impossible. It’s what I’m doing in every race I have a bet in. Chase The Spud will be given a handicap mark that would’ve seen him finish second in the Betfair.Value Is EverythingGood thing is that he is with a trainer who’s intention will be to pitch him in at all the big dances so come the end of the season (injuries permitting) we will have a definitive answer to our questions this race has raised.
Will we LD? Bristol De Mai might put up a similar performance at Kempton or Cheltenham or anywhere else and if less impressive some will say he ran below form and some will say that’s how good he is. Either could be right. But tbh got to be a good chance he’ll need the mud to be flying and/or a similarly flat course, and/or a left handed track and/or needs Haydock in order to have a “definitive answer to our questions this race has raised”… Suspect we might have to wait a full year, and then only if ground conditions are the same and the horse is in the same shape.
Value Is EverythingEnjoyed reading this Thread and I think Ginger and Joe will be having an ongoing debate on this forever,
Could be right, Jac.
Value Is EverythingMark, I’m not saying anything is impossible, but there’s a difference in using two sets of data to form an educated guess and declaring that, in effect, horse A is effectively x seconds faster than horse B therefore had horse B run in horse race A’s race he would have finished second.
According to a sectionals guy on twitter (I haven’t checked but have found this fella reliable in the past) Bristol De Mai got to 3 out a shade over 13 seconds ahead of CTS. What we do not know is what tactics CTS’s jockey would have pursued, knowing of Bristol De Mai’s past performances there, but I doubt he’d have been lying well off the pace. To have any chance of catching Bristol De Mai – as the riders on his Betfair rivals demonstrated – you had to try to keep him in your sights. So the question you meed to ask is how would CTS have fared if he’d tried to reach three out 10 seconds (or more) faster than he ultimately did?
And to your earlier question I’d say no, I don’t believe ay horse has gone at the same pace as Bristol De Mai did in ground that was the same as Saturday’s and carrying the same weight. Your comparison word was ‘similar’ and that depends a hell of a lot on the parameters of ‘similar’. In the same ground, with the same weight? No. I think if that had been done we would know all about it.
As to this Arkle thing, we seem to be going round in circles. Nobody has said Bristol De Mai is better than Arkle. I have said that, had Arkle run in the race, he might have beaten Bristol De Mai and he might not have. Do I believe it was a performance of 185? I believe it was much higher. Does that mean I think he’ll reproduce it on faster ground at a different venue? Most unlikely, but I most definitely do not rule out him doing it again in the same conditions at Haydock.
. . . but I do know that Topspeed gave him 95 and that is miles under his best figure of 161 recorded in the same race two years ago. You need to go back to the King George in 2012, behind winner Long Run, to find a race where Cue Card earned a lower figure from Topspeed.
Steve, Cue Card’s had plenty Topspeed figures below 161 since 2012.
I use speed figures in that I consult them. They’re handy sometimes for cross referencing an RPR, especially with horses we don’t yet know much about. But sometimes they’re in gross disagreement with RPRs and I don’t always understand why.
For example, Cue Card’s Betfair Bowl victory over Don Poli earned him his second highest career RPR of 179. His Topspeed for that was 112. The pace looked good throughout and the RP’s report describes it as being run at a solid gallop.
Good thing is that he is with a trainer who’s intention will be to pitch him in at all the big dances so come the end of the season (injuries permitting) we will have a definitive answer to our questions this race has raised.
Will we LD? Bristol De Mai might put up a similar performance at Kempton or Cheltenham or anywhere else and if less impressive some will say he ran below form and some will say that’s how good he is. Either could be right. But tbh got to be a good chance he’ll need the mud to be flying and/or a similarly flat course, and/or a left handed track and/or needs Haydock in order to have a “definitive answer to our questions this race has raised”… Suspect we might have to wait a full year, and then only if ground conditions are the same and the horse is in the same shape.
What I meant is that NTD will run him regardless of whether it is good, good to soft, soft or heavy in thoses races and if it is a case of them being run on ground quicker than soft we will likely get a truer reflection of his ability in relation to his contemporaries and where he sits in the overall pecking order.
My guess is that racing on good or good to soft ground will simply highlight that while he is a good horse he requires soft/heavy ground to excel himslef whilst stopping his rivals from producing their best.
. . . but I do know that Topspeed gave him 95 and that is miles under his best figure of 161 recorded in the same race two years ago. You need to go back to the King George in 2012, behind winner Long Run, to find a race where Cue Card earned a lower figure from Topspeed.
Steve, Cue Card’s had plenty Topspeed figures below 161 since 2012.
I use speed figures in that I consult them. They’re handy sometimes for cross referencing an RPR, especially with horses we don’t yet know much about. But sometimes they’re in gross disagreement with RPRs and I don’t always understand why.
For example, Cue Card’s Betfair Bowl victory over Don Poli earned him his second highest career RPR of 179. His Topspeed for that was 112. The pace looked good throughout and the RP’s report describes it as being run at a solid gallop.
I’m out Joe. Had enough fantasy island for one thread.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
However…
) then he should be able to up his game even more to beat the best of the best on their preferred tracks and going and I’m looking forward to him stepping up to that challenge and showing what he can achieve when taken out of his comfort zone.
If so form analysis is impossible. It’s what I’m doing in every race I have a bet in. Chase The Spud will be given a handicap mark that would’ve seen him finish second in the Betfair.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.