June 3, 2019 at 09:59 #1444411Frenchy15Participant
- Total Posts 597
I know trends are not for everyone, but 2 points on Telecaster. 1) Its over 20 years since a horse won the derby having raced 3 times that season. 2) I haven’t looked at the draw bias this deeply before, but I will now, because horses drawn in 1,2 or 3 not only have a bad record, they have a shocking record.
Only 3 horses in those stalls have placed out of the last 33, 21/33 have been beaten by more horses, than they beat home and 12/33 finished in the last 3.
Those stats are so bad, it’s almost worth not playing too much on anti-post next year until the draw is made. Would Saxon Warrior have won the derby last year in a different draw? You could make a decent argument about that when you look just at the race in isolation and not what happened after.
Anyway, the trends were against Telecaster and I’m regretting having a saver on him, although can’t complain too much having won it with AVD.
Broome was another one against the trends as horses running twice at 3 don’t tend to drop their race RPR figure by 4. Sinndaar was the last one, who dropped from 118 to 115. Masar last year dropped just from 118 to 117 and New Approach from 123 to 121, but already achieving a high RPR of over 120+. The 6 others running twice at 3 all improved.
He went from 117 to 113 and didn’t look quick at all in the Derrinstown and so it proved, good but not quite good enough for a Derby. Australia’s are now beginning to look like they will be big stayers,
I would think (I’m no expert at all on breeding) bringing in some serious speed on the Dam side with an Australia could be a very exciting Derby prospect to come.
For AVD, the signs were all there. The highest rated in the field, the best on RPR on 2, proven Group 2 winner, raced over distances at 2 that were not his optimal, due to AOBs not really firing last season. (I’m sure they would’ve stepped AVD up otherwise). Then to have a setback and drift in the betting out to 2/1 in the trial, to win it, prove his stamina, then have both AOB & Ryan Moore say he will definitely improve afterwards because he wasn’t really ready, that was an EW steal in the Derby in that field and thankfully he managed to get his nose in front.
The worst winning rating since 2006, this is certainly not a vintage year, after a poor 2000 Guineas as well, however, we don’t really know whether AVD would’ve won by more had he not had to check a couple of times to get out into the clear. It might have actually benefitted him, but he might also have won by 2L. I guess the Irish Derby will help a little bit to work that one out.
Horses that run well in the Derby have poor records in the King Edward 7th stakes at Ascot, so Sir Dragonet, Broome, Japan and AVD all at the front of that market have to be taken on. Telecaster likely to rest now a bit and doubts over whether Constantinople running, leaves Private Secretary as the clear pick in that now.June 3, 2019 at 12:23 #1444416
I’ll back Humanitarian in the KE7
Supposedly 20lbs inferior to some of those and yet stayed on from a pretty hopeless position at the top of the straight – about five lengths behind AVD at the 4 pole, seven lengths behind at the line and AVD was ridden earlier.
The winner is undoubtedly a better horse at present but I’ll take 20s with the expectation of even more progress from Humanitarian; Gosden knows the pedigree well and, I.m.o, it resembled an educational run.June 3, 2019 at 13:25 #1444418
I’d say that was steady, as opposed to slow or quick.
If they were going steady, Mark; why were they (after conserving energy) not finishing faster than they did? AVD’s pace was pretty much the same throughout – sectionals say so.value is everythingJune 3, 2019 at 15:06 #1444430
The first 1.1 furlong in 18 seconds.
From the mile to the 7 in about 12.5 seconds
From 3 to 2 in 10.9 seconds
I’ve got the placed horses, in particular AVD, as running a steady race uphill ( as you’d expect ) prior to quickening down the hill ( also to be expected )
A few kicked early and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th were closer to last than first when they turned in.
The winner’s pace wasn’t the same throughout and the sectionals posted in that article confirm as much.June 3, 2019 at 16:37 #1444448
As my original post says, Mark. AVD went pretty much the perfect pace throughout. In my second post I did not mean he went the same speed in the first 20 yards out of the gate compared to going downhill. That would be physically impossible. Horses need to get momentum therefore of course the first sectional is slower. And obviously did not mean they went at the same speed uphill or even on the flatter parts as they did downhill; that would clearly not be efficient. What I meant was AVD went (as my first post pointed out) the perfect pace throughout, ie the same pace as would be efficiently perfect throughout.
In order to gain the context of the article’s meaning you need to read what’s said and not just the figures.
Are you really calling the pace “steady” only because they’d just come out of the gates and/or didn’t do other sections at the same speed as going downhill? In that case every Derby has a “steady” early pace.
The speed each horse goes (ie whether judged to be slow, steady, fair, good, strong or overly strong) needs to include taking in to account the contours of Epsom and judged on what previously has been shown to be efficient in each sectional.value is everythingJune 3, 2019 at 18:33 #1444605
I read the article, GT. I didn’t just look at the times.
The pace was steady. The leaders have gone off quicker in some Derbys – 2017 the leader was two seconds quicker over the first 5f but Wings Of Eagles first 5f and overall winning time was almost identical to that of AVD.
I’m sticking with a steady gallop and that it didn’t suit Telecaster on the day.June 3, 2019 at 18:51 #1444606
The above article says:
“Contrary to what has been said in some quarters, this year’s Derby was not slowly-run, or excessively strongly-run.
As can be seen, the leader was several lengths ahead of par early on, but the field was quite well strung out and the eventual winner, Anthony Van Dyck, ran mostly in the “Goldilocks Zone”, where the pace was neither too fast, nor too slow, but “about right”.
The leader was faster than par for most of the race, but Anthony Van Dyck, back in the pack, was never more than a few lengths from it. He made up a leeway of about two lengths early in the straight, but was almost bang on standard thereafter”.
AVD ran “mostly in the Goldilocks zone”. The leader “several lengths ahead of par early on“; Telecaster wasn’t far behind the leader and ahead of the Goldilocks zone.value is everythingJune 4, 2019 at 12:50 #1444629JJMSportsParticipant
- Total Posts 2036
AVD some boy!June 4, 2019 at 14:11 #1444635
I respect Simon but I think his Derby summary is conflated with an observation he made about Anapurna and Pink Dagwood in the Oaks – that the latter made her move too early, expended too much energy at a crucial stage of the race and that’s why she lost. However, both Ryan Moore and Frankie, and also Fallon, have kicked for home at a similar stage and won Epsom Clssics.
It’s an interesting article but I’m not taking it as gospel.
Also, most of those who raced prominently in the Derby were inferior horses or non-stayers. Put North Light in that field and he races where Telecaster was and yet wins.June 29, 2019 at 17:30 #1447297
Jockeys on non-Coolmore horses might (seemingly wisely) think with a probability of Sir Dragonet and Broome out the back, it’s in their best interests to slow the field down, allowing (in theory) little chance pacemakers to go off in front. Sovereign is imo the most likely pacemaker and got within 3 lengths of Broome last time out in the Derrinstown. Therefore, if (and I know it’s a big “IF”) getting loose on the lead without going an overly strong pace, his proximity to Broome suggests will have a chance of staying there. Currently 159/1, I’ve had a few quid on. Remember Arabian Queen?!
Unfortunately I didn’t do the same in the Irish Derby.value is everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.