- This topic has 22 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
When I got into racing my dad waxed lyrical about his ttraining idols, Tom Dreaper, M V O’Brien and Fred Winter – we are talking circa 1972 when Winter was about to enter his golden age.
I think if you compare Henderson and Nicholls with those trainers the first think to strike you is the number of horses in training – the older generation having required a far fewer number of inmates to reach the top of their game.
It was interesting to listen to a recent interview about Eric’s Charm with Oliver Sherwood (himself like Henderson a former Fred Winter assistant). He referred to Kim Bailey, and it reminded me that both these very capable men were once deemed worthy of Andy Stewarts patronage.
Nicholls and Henderson seem to have acquired a lot of owners which probably irks the other trainers. However would Oliver Sherwood or Kim Bailey have been any less capable of sending out Big Buck’s to record breaking winning sequences? Personally I don’t think so.
On the flat racing has always had periods when a small group of owners/breeders try to dominate however the numbers game has now taken a grip over the sticks too and you cannot help but feel a small number of "super" stables are reaping the benefits. Willie Mullins is the same in Ireland, yes he has a serious horse in Hurricane Fly, but he seems the only trainer there who has managed to avoid the recessions terrible toll – compare Noel Meade’s struggles for instance.
In the north of England the removal of Graham Wylies horses has created a completely different, and arguably more equitable scene. There was a time when every bumper, maiden/novice hurdle and chase seemed to be dominated by a Wylie short priced favourite. Now most of the owners have small strings and so the competeition is more evenly spread (except the McCain/Leslie combo).
Whilst this makes predicting winners far harder it surely makes for better business models in terms of not having all your eggs in one basket. I must add, although I am very much a southerner, I did find it astonishing that a northerner like Wylie refused to leave his horses in the North and ironically sent them to Nicholls and Mullins. I would have preferred him to send them to someboday like Nicky Richards who could do with a reinjection of quality animals, or even a young up and coming handler like David O’Meara for instance.
Personally I think people like Nick Williams and Colin Tizzard are proving that with a relatively small number of cheaply bought horses, you can get success, and probably carry more goodwill with it. It did a little bit of research on RP the other day to see how many horses Michael O’Leary had when he won the Gold Cup with War Of Attrition (just over 30) and today (mid-80s). Is he anywhere nearer winning a Gold Cup? No.
As the Gold Cup records still show, Tom Dreaper remains the leading trainer with five successes, and Dorothy Paget seven. I am sure Nicholls will no doubt surpass Dreaper at some stage, but his set up is now an instrustrial complex compared to Dreaper’s. I tend to agree with the second poster on this thread, racing isn’t about being in one trainers camp of another, and to be honest I find the scale of the Mullins, Henderson and Nicholls operations rather distasteful whilst at the same time conceding that there are types of owners, of the Stewart O’Leary kind, who take their business models and apply them to racing i.e. use money to buy success and nullify the competition. Anthony Knott is a timely reminder of what the sport should be about, and proof that racing isn’t all about who has the biggest wallet in the sales ring.
Fantastic post.
Just look at what Burke has achieved with Hunt Ball.
And i, too, was disappointed with Wylie. Cliched to send his horses to Nicholls and Mullins
However, i have to disagree about Nicky Richards. Seems to have many horses who only run once or twice a year and finds it difficult to keep others in form. The same goes for Ferdy Murphy – how people can still harp on about his Cheltenham record. What about the rest of the year ? He’s had 15 winners since last April. 17 winners between March 2010 and March 2011.
Win the Euromillions and i’d send a couple of horses to Nicky, but i’d make sure a few other trainers with smaller yards had a horse.
I’d also like to see more exposure given to other meetings. The Cheltenham obsession appears to be diluting the quality elsewhere.
I know this is radical, but would it be fairer to introduce a cap on the number of horses an owner can have with a given yard, or even a financial cap on the value of horses a certain trainer is allowed to house. That way the talent would be spread more evenly and your desire for "competition" would be maintained.
Oddly this subject has reminded me of the bitterness attracted by the large supermarket chains who have for years thrown up mega stores on the outskirts of thriving towns and in one fell swoop put a load of small independent shop keepers out of business.
Egalitarinism is a very noble concept, and I, like you, dream of a day when there is more equal society – in all walks of life. The giant money cake has always been cut disproportionately and sadly, always will be – given the nature of the capitalist beast which continues to cruelly devour.
The hard facts of being part of "western" society is that the small fry ( even in the industry of horse racing ) will struggle to thrive in the same waters as the bigger fish ( in this particular case, Messrs Nicholls and Henderson ).
That said, I do agree with your sentiments, although the chances of them ever coming to fruition are very remote indeed.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
"ivanjica":1605ux1x wrote:
It wouldn’t be such a bad thing for NH racing if Henderson got the better of Nicholls this season. Competition is good.I often hear / read people referring to competition being good, and yes in certain instances it is – without a "competition" we wouldn’t see any races!!
however is it not that case that the competition of which you speak ultimately stifles or destroys competition because one or two dominant figures emerge to the detriment of others? we see it in the premiership with Man City/Chelsea suddenly becoming really successful becasue they have billions to spend. The same goes for Nicholls/Henderson, they have ended up with some extremely wealthy and "dominant" individuals which means they have a surfeit of regally bred, often French and Irish imports, that smaller owners simply cannot afford.
I know this is radical, but would it be fairer to introduce a cap on the number of horses an owner can have with a given yard, or even a financial cap on the value of horses a certain trainer is allowed to house. That way the talent would be spread more evenly and your desire for "competition" would be maintained.
Oddly this subject has reminded me of the bitterness attracted by the large supermarket chains who have for years thrown up mega stores on the outskirts of thriving towns and in one fell swoop put a load of small independent shop keepers out of business.
A cap? Don’t be absolutely ridiculous. Installing a cap of the number of horses an owner can have with a trainer is ridiculous. Your basically telling him what to do. If im rich enough to have have alot of horses in training and i have a preference for a particular person to train them, i have every right to have as many with him as i see fit. Installing a cap goes against every single regulation i can think of.
News flash ; there will always be a small number of trainers considered the elite. Unless you wish to completely change the way our market works, that isn’t going to change. There are still good trainers capable of having good winners outside of this elite.
This isn’t remotely related to Supermarkets. Wealthy owners have the option of sending horses wherever they wish. They usually send them to the best because thats where the best results lie. Nicholls etc have the best horses because they are the best trainers. If i had money and a horse and had the option between Nicholls or Ferdy Murphy, it isn’t exactly a tough decision.
When I got into racing my dad waxed lyrical about his ttraining idols, Tom Dreaper, M V O’Brien and Fred Winter – we are talking circa 1972 when Winter was about to enter his golden age.
I think if you compare Henderson and Nicholls with those trainers the first think to strike you is the number of horses in training – the older generation having required a far fewer number of inmates to reach the top of their game.
It was interesting to listen to a recent interview about Eric’s Charm with Oliver Sherwood (himself like Henderson a former Fred Winter assistant). He referred to Kim Bailey, and it reminded me that both these very capable men were once deemed worthy of Andy Stewarts patronage.
Nicholls and Henderson seem to have acquired a lot of owners which probably irks the other trainers. However would Oliver Sherwood or Kim Bailey have been any less capable of sending out Big Buck’s to record breaking winning sequences? Personally I don’t think so.
On the flat racing has always had periods when a small group of owners/breeders try to dominate however the numbers game has now taken a grip over the sticks too and you cannot help but feel a small number of "super" stables are reaping the benefits. Willie Mullins is the same in Ireland, yes he has a serious horse in Hurricane Fly, but he seems the only trainer there who has managed to avoid the recessions terrible toll – compare Noel Meade’s struggles for instance.
In the north of England the removal of Graham Wylies horses has created a completely different, and arguably more equitable scene. There was a time when every bumper, maiden/novice hurdle and chase seemed to be dominated by a Wylie short priced favourite. Now most of the owners have small strings and so the competeition is more evenly spread (except the McCain/Leslie combo).
Whilst this makes predicting winners far harder it surely makes for better business models in terms of not having all your eggs in one basket. I must add, although I am very much a southerner, I did find it astonishing that a northerner like Wylie refused to leave his horses in the North and ironically sent them to Nicholls and Mullins. I would have preferred him to send them to someboday like Nicky Richards who could do with a reinjection of quality animals, or even a young up and coming handler like David O’Meara for instance.
Personally I think people like Nick Williams and Colin Tizzard are proving that with a relatively small number of cheaply bought horses, you can get success, and probably carry more goodwill with it. It did a little bit of research on RP the other day to see how many horses Michael O’Leary had when he won the Gold Cup with War Of Attrition (just over 30) and today (mid-80s). Is he anywhere nearer winning a Gold Cup? No.
As the Gold Cup records still show, Tom Dreaper remains the leading trainer with five successes, and Dorothy Paget seven. I am sure Nicholls will no doubt surpass Dreaper at some stage, but his set up is now an instrustrial complex compared to Dreaper’s. I tend to agree with the second poster on this thread, racing isn’t about being in one trainers camp of another, and to be honest I find the scale of the Mullins, Henderson and Nicholls operations rather distasteful whilst at the same time conceding that there are types of owners, of the Stewart O’Leary kind, who take their business models and apply them to racing i.e. use money to buy success and nullify the competition. Anthony Knott is a timely reminder of what the sport should be about, and proof that racing isn’t all about who has the biggest wallet in the sales ring.
Fine post – thank you – one of the best I’ve read on this forum, on any subject
Martin Pipe changed racing because of his training methods. Paul Nicholls changed it because he brought the principles of a well run PLC to the sport.
PN would make a fine CEO in any field. He has an instinctive flair for what is needed in the pursuit of success and he’s a classic example of how to deliver business objectives.
Despite his generally intimidating manner, I get the impression he’s an accomplished schmoozer and astute politician – witness his superb handling of the mercurial John Hales and the highly ambitious Clive Smith (Sam Thomas episode showed PN at his cold and calculating ‘best’ (worst), briefing against ST in trade press because Smith rather obviously wanted him out).
PN has done everything that gives any business an advantage over rivals: invested in top facilities, best staff, best jockey, a finely honed PR routine etc.
One huge advantage over ‘normal’ businesses, he’s been very aware of from the outset – owners know that in sending him their best horses, they stand the strongest chance of competing against lesser lights rather than the stars of NH racing.
I think he shares one of the unusual but, in business, valuable characteristics Lester, in his pomp, had – he doesn’t care a jot what others think of him.
As for NJH, to have been at the top for so long, I suspect he shares many of the qualities his rival has, but he hides them much more skilfully.
One key difference: I’d be confident PN knows pretty much all there is to know about the physiology of the racehorse. I’m reliably informed, NJH recently told one of his owners that a horse breathes through its mouth.
I never really gave my opinion so here it is.
I admire PN largely because of the excellent reasons Steeplechasing outlined so well in the previous post.
I also admire NH because of his instinctive feel for horses. I think (in comparison with PN) he is naive in his dealings with the press but that doesn’t make him any less of a trainer, and I’d be surprised, SC, if he really did think horses breathe through their mouths (although i’m not disputing that he said it!)
I’d think both know how to celebrate. I also think both are passionate, knowledgable and amiable when required.
If you gave me a £250k french import though and I had to choose one trainer I’d send it to…
HENDERSON
But I’d probably spend lots of sleepless nights wishing I’d sent it to the other one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.