- This topic has 471 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In a bad looking year I backed Wings Of Desire, as I felt he was the colt with the most potential improvement.
I was far from confident about him and the stakes involved were small.
Minding was a different kettle of fish altogether and I made it clear here that she was like finding money lying in the street.
I made no such confident claim regarding Wings Of Desire and the large part of that was the concern about how good a Dante it was.
Some people can never accept that they have backed a donkey and need excuse after excuse for poor efforts. So be it. I have opposed Foundation on my own opinion of him and have not needed to regret that decision. That’s what it’s all about. If the horse can’t go on soft it’s high time they stopped running him on it.
Harry Herbert was bullish going into the race, stating the following:-
“Harry Herbert, racing manager for owners Highclere Thoroughbred Racing, said : ” It is all systems go.He has been in very good form and is working very well. Frankie Dettori rode him in some work last week and he was delighted.
“As far as well-being and form coming into the race is concerned, John Gosden is happy with him.
“He ran a terrific race in the Dante and just got in a pocket. If he’d had a clear run it would have been a completely different picture. I am not saying he would have won but he would have finished closer.
“They have had some rain out there and that shouldn’t inconvenience him. Everyone that rides him feels that a mile and a quarter at this stage of his career is what he wants.”If the horse was in form, the ground wasn’t going to inconvenience him and the trip was going to suit, then how on earth did he finish stone last?
The truth will out in time. Not that it will ever be mentioned if I am proved correct though.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
yes you’re right dancing brave comparisons are excessive although that race panned out somewhat similar
It may look similar at first glance, but no, the two races are very different.
US Army Ranger dropped out off an overly strong pace. That is not an opinion, that’s fact – which can be seen by sectional times.
Those at the front were travelling at a pace too fast for their own good and were never going to keep it up. Those at the back (including US Army Ranger) had the advantage of going the correct pace for conditions. Held up horses making up ground from the back as the leaders slowed.
Dancing Brave was held up off slow fractions. So Dancing Brave made up a remarkable amount of ground in the straight considering leaders themselves were quickening. An outstanding performance by the runner-up.
To compare US Army Ranger with Dancing Brave is unfair on a truly Great horse.
Yes I agree with you Ginger. It was probably an over excited reaction.
As you say The Brave did incredibly well to make up such distance off slow fractions (I believe his penultimate furlong was the quickest recorded at Epsom at the time, and maybe still is) and surely would have got to Sharastani if they had gone a quicker pace.
The one comparison I would make with this Us Army Ranger though, is that like Dancing Brave, his next race should be the eclipse.
I think he’s tailor made for Sandown. This is a horse with a big stride who I think would eat up the Sandown hill. The Curragh, I’m not so sure, Harzand seems a more of a galloping type even more suited to the Curragh than Epsom so he might be able to hold up the form.
I can’t see O’Brien not sending his best middle distance three year old to the Irish derby though, so it’s probably an irrelevant point.
The sectional analysis showed that although the early pace of the race was very fast, the mid-race pace was much steadier, so those horses at the front and mid-division had a chance to get their breath back. USAR was making up ground in the straight against mid-division horses who were also quickening.
Foundation is clearly not one to be trusted but I wouldn’t give up on him entirely and think we will see a better horse on better ground. The Dante form was badly let down this weekend but both races were run in entirely different conditions. My experience tells me that soft ground form is not always the most reliable. Are Foundation and Imperial really as bad as they ran on Sunday? I don’t think so. Totally agree with Steve’s point about why they bother running him on soft though!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I guess the question is “was the Derby won by the best horse or by the best jockey?” Other questions you can ask – Did Ryan Moore ride the perfect race? No. Did he ride a BAD race? I think not. Did Pat Smullen ride a better tactical race than Ryan Moore – probably. Did the tactics decide the outcome of the race? In my view, no. USAR had every chance a full furlong out – he couldn’t go through with his effort and was outstayed.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
The fact us army ranger didn’t go past Harzand is probably more due to not handling the camber and the winner being more at home on the ground. He still ran a stormer of a race and the fact that the front five go again at the curragh shows Messrs obrien,gosden and palmer feel the winner is very beatable at the curragh. If the ground is good I will put a sizeable bet on us army ranger as having watched the race again and the races before the derby it would appear that the winner relished the soft ground as opposed to the other horses who went through it but not as well as Harzand. The fact that dermot weld said the leger was on the radar and he would run in the arc if it came up soft backs up what we all saw. It would be interesting to see us army ranger over 10 furlongs but it’s more likely to be the juddmonte as I can see minding winning the King George.
It seems as the new kid on the block that these days sectionals are being trotted out in an attempt to explain just about everything. Clearly they don’t. All the old factors haven’t suddenly disappeared.
With any analysis it is about what useful information can be used in the future.
Port Douglas from the naked eye went too quickly. The others didn’t exactly follow, in fact they were 3-4 lengths adrift. Port Douglas was effectively sacrificed because he was always going to struggle to get home on ground that was much too soft for his liking.
Those who raced closest to the pace didn’t settle, didn’t appreciate the ground or were non-stayers. In all likelihood they didn’t drop away just because they went too fast.
It wouldn’t be a big surprise if pretty much all the best horses in the race were held up. In which case a sectional timing analysis is telling you pretty much nothing.
If you look back at the 2007 Oaks, Peeping Fawn’s race was uncannily similar to that of USAR (she came from the back at the same stage of the race, running down the outside, rolling towards the rail on the camber and running out of steam) and we know how she went on to turn the form around in the Irish Oaks.
Actually you’re right about Light Shift’s oaks being similar and I think Sea the stars derby was similar as well.
Sea the stars was able to hold a much more prominent position than some of his rivals and when he kicked the race was effectively over. Which wasn’t the same as Harzand who didn’t kill the race off completely but what he shares with his sire is an ability to travel and also show reserves of stamina which is clearly a potent combination at middle distances.
Sea the stars held off a late surge by Rip van winkle and Fame and glory and Harzand effectively did the same although I think he had to sweat for it a bit more and there are more valid reasons for thinking that the second can turn the form around next time out.
I do think Sea the stars is an underestimated sire and clearly Epsom is right up his street and for his progeny as well.
One difference with Sea the Stars’ Derby, Coolmore set a slow pace for the sake of Rip Van Winkle (which also suited Sea the Stars), when they should have made it a strong pace for Fame and Glory.
Connections have said it wasn’t the ground that did for Foundation in the French Derby.
In a new one, for me at least, the poor run was put down to “Concentration issues”
I had felt he looked a little quirky in the Dante.
Perhaps something is ailing the horse, his home work had been reported to be good. I would be giving the horse a break and trying to regroup with some headgear fitted.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
One difference with Sea the Stars’ Derby, Coolmore set a slow pace for the sake of Rip Van Winkle (which also suited Sea the Stars), when they should have made it a strong pace for Fame and Glory.
True but the way he won the Arc (ran at a fast pace) and what he did subsequently showed he would have won whatever the pace, as he was just head and shoulders above anything in that derby.
Connections have said it wasn’t the ground that did for Foundation in the French Derby.
In a new one, for me at least, the poor run was put down to “Concentration issues”
I had felt he looked a little quirky in the Dante.
Perhaps something is ailing the horse, his home work had been reported to be good. I would be giving the horse a break and trying to regroup with some headgear fitted.
I think this horse is group three/listed class at best.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.