- This topic has 146 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Was a cracking watch il give it an 8/10
Would be a 10/10 but I didn’t back the winner
If galvin had won it would’ve been an 11/10
There an article on racing post now, have we turned the Grand National into just another cross country chase.
I agree with it as that’s what I see it as and how I thought it was while watching SaturdayVf x
Greg Wood’s opinion in “The Guardian”:
I am not sure how he can say: “It was a race with all the drama and spectacle that got many of us hooked on racing in the first place”.
With the exception of Corach Rambler and the departure of 2 runners at The Chair, it was about as undramatic a race imaginable.
“With the exception of Corach Rambler and the departure of 2 runners at The Chair, it was about as undramatic a race imaginable.”
You draw your enjoyment of a race by how many horses and jockeys hit the deck?
We have apparently been bemoaning the watering down of the race for at least 34 years and it has been given a low score by many here.
Yet the race is still going, still being discussed at length amongst the purists (see the Big Races section), still broadcast live on the main TV and radio channels to millions. Even those here who didn’t enjoy this year’s will be tuning in next time.
Maybe things aren’t so bad, eh?
Cork is right that the National gets by far the most wider attention, that is precisely why welfare improvements (perceived or otherwise) in the race matter. If the public sees that things are changing there then as far as they are concerned, the whole of racing is doing something. Injures and deaths will sadly happen but if the sport is seen to be doing all it can to mitigate that risk, it makes any argument for a ban weaker.
I’m not saying it’s entirely logical or right but the fact is that the National forms a huge part of public perception. Most of what happens outside the major festivals will go unnoticed by the vast majority.
“If it’s ‘just another race, then don’t watch. There are thousands of others to choose from each year.”
It’s hard to pass an opinion on something without seeing it Richard. Presumably the likes of Mottershead and that lot at ITV who are mostly being well paid by bookmakers (McCoy should be ashamed of himself for fronting that pathetic advert for a free £1 bet, the guy must be desperate for money) had to see it to have the opinion that it was fantastic. I was tempted to give zero properfences but didn’t want to seem mean.
One thing I’ve noticed is that those said what a fantastic race it was appear to be totally unconcerned that only 2 trainers were responsible for nearly 50% of the runners although plenty were concerned in the weeks preceding it.
Totally agree with Richard88.
Much of what first attracted me to the Grand National as a child was that there was an element of risk. Seeing my favourite horses bravely get round where so many had failed was incredibly exciting, and the race produced many great stories.
However, Dark Ivy in 1987 provided me with the first stark realisation of the downside of that risk. And then Brown Trix and Seeandem in 1989, followed by many others, really rammed home that point.
If I’m being honest, I have to wonder if the more sanitised version of the race that we see nowadays would have captured my initial interest in the same way.
But I do think the race has needed to change to become a fairer test and to maintain public goodwill. Nothing will ever satisfy the antis; it’s the large number of people in the middle who are broadly apathetic that need to be kept on side.
What happened to foxhunting could happen to racing, and is more likely to do so if racing isn’t proactive on this matter. I think Aintree have done a good job at getting the balance right.
“You draw your enjoyment of a race by how many horses and jockeys hit the deck?”
I did not say that. I am merely pointing out that Mr Wood’s comment about the race having “drama” is inaccurate and I don’t see how he can say it.
7/10. Still a captivating spectacle, if now more of an extended cross country event than a Grand National. Doesn’t seem quite right to have GN with fewer runners than a Cambridgeshire, though… CAS, completely agree with your comments about the horse lost at Chepstow, seemingly unnoticed by the once-a-year crowd.
“What happened to foxhunting could happen to racing”
So it will carry on regardless.
Just not covered by ITV.
Gordon Brown interviewing Sean Bowen on RTV after he had ridden the first winner at Kelso: “And you got around in the Grand National on The Goffer!”
He made it sound like an achievement. The basic stats tell you it was more difficult to not get around.
“McCoy should be ashamed of himself for fronting that pathetic advert for a free £1 bet”.
All of them – Geraghty, Mayor, Russell and Twiston Davies – should be embarrassed for being in that advert. But not as much as Hills should be for such a pathetic offer.
In the eyes of the once a year punter they probably had no idea whether the race was any different or not. They watch it and a few minutes later turn it off with little or no thought about it until the news later where the fallout if any is aired.
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
I do believe there are still lessons to be learned from this years Grand National.
While the superficial (wrong word, perhaps) changes have helped maintain the social licence of the race and given the racing fraternity an excuse to pat itself on the back for another 12 months, I believe further changes are required internally to ensure the race doesn’t lose it’s “hook”.
I think consideration should go to reintroducing the reserve system. I got what I wanted; my favourite horse in training got the 34th spot in the race after weeks of agonising over whether he’d get in… but what about those less fortunate? The two late none runners meant that two genuine contenders missed out on what might be their only opportunity to line up in the race. I understand that those withdrawals came in the morning of; but is there not scope for runners to be replaced as late as say midday of the race? I have little doubt connections would take their horses to Aintree in the event a vacancy came up. Especially if there is a 3 mile handicap they could contest instead if all 34 stand their ground. I’m not going to claim to be an authority on how these things work from a betting or oganisational perspective, but if we are going to reduce the number that can line up; can we not offer every opportunity for those who wish to run the chance to do so?
I have to believe that further conditions for entry will/should be introduced ahead of next year. Far too many runners having only their 7th/8th run over fences for my personal preference. Such inexperience ahead of a race like the National (be it grand/bland or whatever) is surely asking for trouble. From a personal standpoint I wouldn’t want any first season chasers or those with less than 8 *completed* chase starts to their name running in the race. Want to reduce incident? Limit the race to horses with sufficient experience.
I’d also re-word the 3 mile chase qualification. I don’t understand why it is a blanket “finish 4th in a 3 mile chase” rule. Surely a “finish *placed* in a 3 mile chase” rule would be more suitable? By placed we simply look at the industry standard of 1-4 runners = first, 5-7 runners = up to second, 8-16 runners = up to third, 16+ runners = up to fourth.
I still believe “win and you’re in” races have a place, however this is much more complicated to implement owing to the handicap. However as a start I would be putting winners of said races at the head of their weight allotment. Kitty’s Light actually lost the ballot and was due to miss out before Conflated came out. Surely winners of established National “trials” should get precedent over those who haven’t?I haven’t got a clue how you can restrict owner/trainer numbers without causing aggravation, so I’m not going to suggest a miracle cure. However I really don’t want to sit through many more Grand Nationals with half the field representing two trainers. Two trainers, 16 runners, and about 4 realistic chances between them.
I was actually a little underwhelmed by the winner on Saturday. Jumping the last you had several big stories in with a chance; only for the same owner, same jockey and same trainer that made the first two days of Cheltenham so formulaic come home with the spoils. Not their fault, they played within the rules. My question is; are the current rules as outdated as the old fences?
The first thing they can do? Be done with that February weight reveal and get the English and Irish handicappers talking to each other.
If you ignore the apologies (not needed) he is saying the race was a borefest. That from a fully paid-up member of the cheerleading club.
Greg Wood appears to have more than balanced the books in the cheerleading stakes. A crazy piece of work.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.