- This topic has 31 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
The track is now the problem – it’s too tight. I forgot how expansive Chester is.
The tracks are too tight for a lot of our horses. I think a Chester winner will win the Turf tomorrow for that reason alone, he loves sharp tracks (Debussy).
If Red Desire hadnt blocked Midday she would’ve got through first and stayed on to win but that didn’t happen, no fault of Queally in my opinion, these things happen in racing.
The tracks are too tight for a lot of our horses. I think a Chester winner will win the Turf tomorrow for that reason alone, he loves sharp tracks (Debussy).
If Red Desire hadnt blocked Midday she would’ve got through first and stayed on to win but that didn’t happen, no fault of Queally in my opinion, these things happen in racing.
I can’t put a defeat of any of the European’s tonight down solely to the track circumference. Midday never appeared unbalanced because of the track from what I saw. Some won’t handle the tight turns any-more than some won’t handle Newmarket.
I’m fed up of the amazing arrogance of some from over here, including those involved with a certain Arc winner, thinking things should be done their way because they say so. Hard track? What a joke – Royal Ascot was firmer.
I don’t blame Queally either. Last year he got some huge praise for the rail opening up for him, which was requiring the same luck, and this year the splits never came for him.
Midday lost by a narrow margin. As I said, maybe the start cost her more than some think? It is always easy for some to focus on the end to a race when a horse has lost by a narrow margin. If she broke well he might have been able to sit 2nd off a slow pace.
I suppose tonight’s defeat is just Horse Racing.
hek normally in a group one race only the winner gets the perfect ride.You must have a group one horse ,a group one jockey and a group one trip,(free from trouble not of your own making)some call it luck.Only the winner will have all three. Midday did not have the group one trip. End of story.
- Total Posts 17716
Cecil said: " She’ s run a great race, but I thought the track was just sharp enough for her and that she would have been happier over a mile and a half .
" It ‘ s been quite a long year for her and I wonder whether she quite had the zip coming into November, because the winner was holding her at the end .
" She’ d had three tough races and may not be quite at her best. She could have done with a bit more time , in as much as another half a furlong ."
I’d listen to the man who knows!
He did say after her defeat in the Middleham (over 0.5f shorter) that she really needed further on fast ground, and her RPR for her last race was also well below her previous 2.
Given SMS has expressed some similar doubts over Workforce, I’d be loathe to take a short price about him also.I’d agree with Cecil, points 2 and 3 in particular.
Good ride by Quelly on a tight track, produced her at just the right time, the zip just wasn’t there at the end on this occasion, which is understandable considering she’s been on the go since mid May.
What a superstar she’s been this season, she owes us absolutely nothing at this stage.
I’d agree with Cecil, points 2 and 3 in particular.
Good ride by Quelly on a tight track, produced her at just the right time, the zip just wasn’t there at the end on this occasion, which is understandable considering she’s been on the go since mid May.
What a superstar she’s been this season, she owes us absolutely nothing at this stage.
If Cecil really believed that Midday would be one paced over 1m3f then he should have given instructions, on fast going with a short run-in, that his horse was to be ridden much closer to the pace and push on to be in the lead at the turn.
Midday’s final furlong was 12.00 seconds so she actually did have the "zip" for these competitors if they had been ran off their feet early on – but what she actually did was not have sufficient lead because the pace set or pushed for was so poor, about half a furlong too slow. Jockey did not present her anywhere near the right time to show her strengths. It made the rest look good in the inevitable bunched finish.
Whether it was Cecil’s instructions or the jockey’s lack of timing or pace savvy we don’t know, but the race was lost because of pace nothing else.
Beaten fair and square for me.
She was at the end of her run before line and had nothing left to go past.
Zip
Midday was beaten, Zenyatta was beaten, Workfore refused to run. Which was enhanced by the decision of their owners and trainers? Do I hear uproar for ducking the battle? For folding their tent and slinking away?Trainers must have at least as much courage as their horses.I am saddened by the behavior of Sir Michael Stout before the KIng George, the Arc and the BC(he shared more about his suitcase again than about the horse). A spoiled child in a man’s body.
Spoken like a spoiled child.
Stoutey gave the horse a chance to run. If he thought conditions were acceptable Workforce would’ve run. They weren’t, too bad.
Value Is EverythingWas Midday lucky?
She was unlucky that after taking a similar position as last year, the pace was slow, with little room to manoever. Would it have been any different with a fast pace? We’ll never know.
As the race was run she was not unlucky. Getting there in time and not good enough to go past. Not at her best for whatever reason. Had a long and hard season. Tight track did not seem the issue. Don’t know how it can be down to the trip being too short; when not gaining at the finish and won the Nassau with a turn of foot over shorter.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
That just about sums it up. Everything happened just a bit too quick for her and she never looked happy on the tighting tack but that’s not really a valid excuse.
The race was Midday’s to lose and lose she did, most likely hard races took their toll or the season was a tad too long for her.
Still think Henry should have run in her in the Arc but such is life.
Of the 10 tracks to have hosted the breeders cup, all bar Woodbine have their turf tracks sited on the inside of the dirt track.
The record of European runners in BC Turf races at Churchill is 57% BC Turf (7 runs); 43% BC Mile (7 runs); 33% Filly & Mare Turf (3 runs).
I don’t think it can be reasonably argued that Churchill Downs’ Turf track is any less accommodating to European runners than the turf tracks of any of the other BC tracks.
Overall (dirt and turf) European runners at Churchill Downs have an 18.18% strike rate compared with the average 18.13%. Santa Anita’s 28.95% SR is significantly skewed by the two pro-ride meetings – prior to those meetings Santa Anita’s 3 Breeders Cups yielded an 18.18% SR, identical to the Kentucky track. Belmont is running at 20% exactly, so whilst many Europeans tend to regard the New York track as particularly Euro-friendly with its wide bends and climate very similar to ours, it has not enjoyed a significant advantage over Churchill Downs in terms of producing European winners, though admittedly it has only hosted three BCs compared to 7 in Kentucky.
Woodbine would be the most European “friendly” turf track on paper being wide and on the outside of the dirt track. However the 1996 Mile was won by an American (Da Hoss) whilst Pilsudski’s Turf proved a cakewalk for the European contenders with a fairly weak American contingent. Having said it is unfair to draw any real conclusions about Woodbine based on just two BC turf races run there.
Personally having visited Churchill Downs for the first time to attend this year’s Breeders Cup Day 2, I cannot speak highly enough of the track in terms of welcome, the relaxed approach of the staff, and the extremely good nature of the crowd. The beer and bourbon were freely flowing yet there wasn’t a hint of trouble. The Kentucky Derby Museum was magnificent – I could have spent the whole weekend in there alone. With the most important bloodstock breeding centre in the world an hour’s drive away, and Keeneland Racecourse itself a beautiful rural gem housing the most detailed horse racing archive in the USA, if not the world, I cannot think of a better course to host a Breeders Cup.
As for the ride on Midday, from a seemingly perfect draw, the jockey contrived to get the mare on the inside rail as early as the top of the home run first time round. He was always going to need a slice of luck from then on, and the bump early in the final home run to the line was not ideal. However I think there is little question that she had more than enough “real estate” in which to catch the eventual winner, on the day she simply wasn’t good enough.
The ride was definitely flawed, and he seemed to get outridden by some global stars, reminiscent of the early stages of last year’s Dubai World Cup on Twice Over.
Also I think her chances were somewhat overrated prior to the race. The eventual winner for instance was only a head behind Proviso in the G1 Diana Stakes, and Proviso has some very useful form lines with Goldikova, not to mention four Grade 1s to her name. Shared Account’s apparently regressive performance at Belmont in October may have been a combination of the yielding going and it being her first run following a three month break – to date she has never been placed on her three runs following a lay off.
I think there was a general consensus that Midday was a shoe in but I do think she has been wrapped in cotton wool by Cecil, and whilst she is very a good filly, she is not a great one having never been asked to mix it with the top class colts (her only brush with the males saw her beaten by Debussy on the Blue Riband Trial at Epsom). That probably has something to do with the presence of Twice Over in the stable, however it should also be remembered that she never beat Sariska when that filly consented to race.
So in conclusion I don’t think it is at all fair to blame Churchill Downs for Midday’s defeat – it was a combination of the jockey’s poor tactical awareness and the British public overrating the mare.
Midday, "wrapped in cotton wool", You’re way off the mark.
The owner had others for the Arc, including the winner. Why jeapodise another F&M Turf with a run there?
Not many fillies/mares run in both Nassau at Goodwood and Yorkshire Oaks (York). Let alone win both races impressively. Those two races coming fairly close together (20 days apart).
It is generally accepted Midday was at least as good in 2010 as 2009, if not better.
So she got beat, so what? She did not run to form for whatever reason. I would not blame the course either. Possibly a combination of pace/poor position and (the biggest one) she wasn’t quite right at the end of our season.
Had Midday ran to form at Churchill Downs she would’ve won, she didn’t.
Value Is EverythingAs for the ride on Midday, from a seemingly perfect draw, the jockey contrived to get the mare on the inside rail as early as the top of the home run first time round. He was always going to need a slice of luck from then on, and the bump early in the final home run to the line was not ideal. However I think there is little question that she had more than enough “real estate” in which to catch the eventual winner, on the day she simply wasn’t good enough.
The ride was definitely flawed, and he seemed to get outridden by some global stars, reminiscent of the early stages of last year’s Dubai World Cup on Twice Over.
Queally got the horse in to a very similar position as he did the previous year. Had there been a good pace his positioning would’ve been fine. A slow early pace made things difficult.
Your assumption Midday had "more than enough "real estate" in which to catch the winner" is very true; but it does not fit with your criticism of the ride. Queally gave Midday a good enough ride to win, she got there early enough to win the race had she been good enough on the day. "Definately flawed"? "Outridden"?Value Is EverythingMy point about wrapping Midday in cotton wool is in relation to the avoidance of the taking on colts – she hass in effect been stage managed to win 5 Group 1s, and will no doubt add to that tally next season.
I concede Twice Over has been a consideration, as indeed was Workforce however in an age of truly great fillies, Zarkava followed by Goldikova and Zenyatta, the only way Midday can be mentioned in the same breath as those superstars is to be campaigned at least some of the time against the colts at the highest level.
The Filly and Mare Turf is an egg and spoon race compared with the better established Distaff/Ladies Classic won by some greats down the years such as Lady’s Secret, Personal Ensign, and Zenyatta – females who managed to defeat their male counterparts at Grade 1 level. For me Midday’s connections missed a golden opportunity last season when they could have gone for the Ladies Classic on the pro-ride which was very winnable, a victory that would have attracted far greater kudos on both sides of the pond. This season they cocked it up with Workforce and in hindsight Midday would probably have won the Turf – again a race with far greater esteem attached to it than the Filly and Mares equivalent.
As regards Queally plotting a similar course to 2009 – that isn’t quite true (and even if it were Santa Anita’s turf track is quite different to the Churchill Downs one and this season’s renewal was a furloing longer). He was far handier turning in last year and took the lead a lot earlier than when making his finishing burst this time around. Because he was firther out of his ground this year as the runners approached the home turn he found traffic problems which meant Shared Account got first run on him. In the final analysis I still believe Midday was beaten far and square by a better horse on the day this year, however I don’t think Queally plotted a course that a top American horse would have done – such as Edgar Prado for instance!
Midday is an extremely good filly, but that is all as thngs stand. I think
she
deserves to be given the chance to see if she is capable of becoming, in the eyes of racing’s hostorians, a "great" racemare.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.