- This topic has 56 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
- Posts
The ground would have suited Kingman perfectly yeasterday. If it was going to be a disadvantage to anything it would be top of the ground horses.
I don’t really see how the ground can be used as an excuse for Gosden’s colt. I thought he ran a mighty race just found one that saw the mile out better. Looking at the two colts respective breeding it’s not really surprising the only thing a bit surprising is that Night of Thunder is as good as he showed yesterday. That said it can be dangerous to write a horse off after one disappointing run especially when its a seasonal debut and doubly especially when it’s an inexperienced three year old. I have no problem with the result just the spectacle and the needless watering and moreover the reasons I suspect behind it.
I did say ‘may’ have been against him, open to debate whether it actually was.
Drone – I meant DRY summer. The horse has well documented issues and it’s possible fast ground will disadvantage him (or, at least the trainer won’t risk him on it).
Yes, quite aware of Kingman’s apparent dislike of ‘top o’ the ground’ which is why your words foxed me as I construed them to mean you’d decided that Kingman actually preferred it fast and was hindered by whatever spring-cushion there was yesterday
Although the great debate could take us anywhere or nowhere, I’d lay 10 pork stratchings to 1 that Newmarket was not on top yesterday. Save that excuse for summer Mr G and others
Sad to hear people bitching about NEWMARKET.The most famous track in the world with an incredible history.Two races in the one race is the decision of the jockeys, not the Newmarket racing secretary.
Dear me what a load of rubbish. It’s a straight piace of grass, can’t get much fairer than that. What happens on it is up to the jockeys. With all the complaints about watering I would have thought further tinkering with false rails and the rest would be the last thing needed.
The winner and Kingman were pretty much next to each other most of the race; best horse/jockey won.
I’m quite happy to believe that Saturday’s result was fair and that the best horse won on the day and that, even if the field hadn’t split, the result would have been much the same.
Don’t get me wrong, I almost quite like Newmarket and used to go there quite often. However, the view is rubbish and made even worse when fields split, making it necessary to swivel ones’ eyes across the track like Mr. Magoo on LSD. Having to pay the sizeable entance fee for this experience is just not worth it.
It may be an historic place, but that doesn’t make it above criticism – or even incapable of change. Aintree has had to adapt its fences for instance; Chester (even more historic than Newmarket) started using a false bend on the home straight some years ago. The sun still rose the next day.
History is all very well, but not when it’s used as an excuse to avoid obvious improvements.
One of the big disadvantages of Formula 1 racing as a spectator sport is that, after the first couple of laps, it’s impossible to tell by ones own efforts who’s in front and the respective position of the various competitors. It’s like that sometimes at HQ when fields split. Furthermore, it can radically affect the outcome of a result (even if it didn’t on Saturday) which, when it happens in a Classic race, is just not good enough, especially when the risk can be drastically reduced by a simple, cheap and paying-spectator friendly remedy well within the wit of the track to introduce – a false running rail for the first few furlongs.Michael Prosser was given a platform by RUK on Sunday. Such was his tone you wouldn’t have thought only the previous day he had presided over an absolute shambles but these days I suppose it’s too much to ask for any Manager to admit to any mistakes. Given his response I am not surprised (as he suggested) that nobody had directly confronted him with their concerns. In all likelihood it would have been a complete waste of time.
According to Prosser the stalls are in the middle of the course purely to lessen interference.
Nobody wants interference but it is something that happens in racing on a regular basis. It cannot be eradicated. Had they raced as one on Saturday would Night Of Thunder have rolled across the closers? In any case if they can keep the race it seems jockeys these days are not too bothered about causing interference on the way.
Stalls in the middle of the course are only of any use if you can trust the jockeys to behave themselves. You simply can’t. Clearly the likes of Hughes thought it was worth wrecking the race as a spectacle to see Kingman beaten. Another short priced favourite and there is every chance the same thing will happen again.
The debacle that played out would almost certainly have been prevented by having stalls on one side, possibly with rail movement on the other side.
I don’t often agree with Mark Johnston as many of his comments have a certain amount of self interest attached to them. Not in this instance. His comments in today’s Racing Post are just statements of the blindingly obvious. They should be listened to and acted upon but with Prosser at the helm the chances of corrective action appear to be not much better than zero.
On a wider point splits should not be encouraged as they allow jockeys another relatively easy way of losing races. Horse goes off on his own, horse beaten out of sight, jockey states was looking for better ground, case closed.
I’m new here, but rather like this forum from what little I’ve seen so far
Some carefully considered opinions, well put.
My thinking remains that the 2000 Guineas was a very fair race and I can’t see how anyone could consider themselves unlucky or would have any reason to criticise the course. The "right" horses quickened clear when they wanted to, unimpeded… its just that Night Of Thunder proved to be better on the day than the fav and 2nd fav.
And who are we to moan about the history of the "home of racing". Should Newmarket results to date be scrubbed out because its a bit wide and has a dip and an uphill finish. How many other Newmarket classics have been "ruined" like this one, with "false" results.
Maybe Newmarket should be leveled out so it is completely flat? And polytrack may be fairer and more consistent. With lanes to avoid any chance of interference…
The problem is that, with huge reputations, £10s of millions at stake in breeding rights, some big egos around and usual human nature when sky high hopes are met with disappointment… some people need something to blame!
Based on the standard argument of "What would have happened if you ran the same race 100 times?" … it would be very hard to argue against any of these 3 filling the first 3 spots and I can’t see any reason why Night of Thunder wouldn’t win most of the time.
He’s just very, very good!
And if the race was run on a completely flat track on perfect ground on a course set up in such a way that there was no possibility of splitting into 2 groups, I still don’t see any reason why the result would be much different.
Hopefully the main protagonists will meet again soon.
Over 7F I would be torn between Kingman and Night of Thunder.
Over 8F, I’d have Night of Thunder all day long.
Over 9-10F or more, I’d probably have to side with Australia.Can’t wait to see how right or wrong I am!
They should be listened to and acted upon but with Prosser at the helm the chances of corrective action appear to be not much better than zero.
Michael Prosser changed the stalls to the centre after criticism (including from myself) after Six Perfections got blocked on the rail and needed to come around the whole field.
Although he changed it to something I didn’t exactly want, I don’t see how you can say Prosser doesn’t/won’t listen or change Stilvi.
imo The best option is for a false rail up to the 2 furlong pole and then open out to the whole width.
Value Is EverythingFor those who haven’t got access to a Racing Post:-
I have seen several people state that the "spectacle" was spoiled on Saturday. Can anyone elaborate on what would have been more spectacular about them remaining in one group?
Has Kingman come late to mow down Night Of Thunder and Australia, I am sure most people would have been thrilled by a great performance and there would be little, if any complaint. Because an outsider won there is a sense that justice wasn’t done.
The horse who finished the race off best won despite drifting across and it seems largely forgotten that Night Of Thunder was probably the best backed horse for The Greenham, and a noted market mover for The 2000 Guineas on the day the trial was held. What price would he have gone off for the 2000 if he had won the Greenham? Of course Kingman beat him a fair way on their prior meeting but we were at a different track and over an extra furlong with potential improvement from both runners to take into account as well.
It is worth noting that Kingman was 9/1 for the 2000 Guineas not long before the Greenham and I backed him at those odds. Most people, bookies and myself included, felt that he had a stranglehold on the big race after the trial. We all learned, once again, that it is dangerous to assume anything 100% based on one race.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
For those who haven’t got access to a Racing Post:-
The seven runner handicap Mark Johnston references was won by a 14/1 shot and the two well backed horses were almost certainly over bet.
The Gosden horse was hammered and couldn’t have any excuse, the Cumani runner had had his form knocked by modest 2000G shows from the two who beat him in the Craven.
The race was won by Barley Mow, who, despite a couple of moderate efforts, was actually the highest rated runner in the field on 107, 12 lbs ahead of the Gosden runner, who was a 15/8 shot. Just like the Guineas, we would have heard little if the jt favs had been one and two in this "Farce"
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
For those who haven’t got access to a Racing Post:-
The seven runner handicap Mark Johnston references was won by a 14/1 shot and the two well backed horses were almost certainly over bet.
The Gosden horse was hammered and couldn’t have any excuse, the Cumani runner had had his form knocked by modest 2000G shows from the two who beat him in the Craven.
The race was won by Barley Mow, who, despite a couple of moderate efforts, was actually the highest rated runner in the field on 107, 12 lbs ahead of the Gosden runner, who was a 15/8 shot. Just like the Guineas, we would have heard little if the jt favs had been one and two in this "Farce"
You are talking about a different race.
I have seen several people state that the "spectacle" was spoiled on Saturday. Can anyone elaborate on what would have been more spectacular about them remaining in one group?
Has Kingman come late to mow down Night Of Thunder and Australia, I am sure most people would have been thrilled by a great performance and there would be little, if any complaint. Because an outsider won there is a sense that justice wasn’t done.
The horse who finished the race off best won despite drifting across and it seems largely forgotten that Night Of Thunder was probably the best backed horse for The Greenham, and a noted market mover for The 2000 Guineas on the day the trial was held. What price would he have gone off for the 2000 if he had won the Greenham? Of course Kingman beat him a fair way on their prior meeting but we were at a different track and over an extra furlong with potential improvement from both runners to take into account as well.
It is worth noting that Kingman was 9/1 for the 2000 Guineas not long before the Greenham and I backed him at those odds. Most people, bookies and myself included, felt that he had a stranglehold on the big race after the trial. We all learned, once again, that it is dangerous to assume anything 100% based on one race.
You seem to be intent on making a point (again) which doesn’t exist. I haven’t read anyone criticising the race purely because there was a 40/1 winner.
For those who haven’t got access to a Racing Post:-
The seven runner handicap Mark Johnston references was won by a 14/1 shot and the two well backed horses were almost certainly over bet.
The Gosden horse was hammered and couldn’t have any excuse, the Cumani runner had had his form knocked by modest 2000G shows from the two who beat him in the Craven.
The race was won by Barley Mow, who, despite a couple of moderate efforts, was actually the highest rated runner in the field on 107, 12 lbs ahead of the Gosden runner, who was a 15/8 shot. Just like the Guineas, we would have heard little if the jt favs had been one and two in this "Farce"
You are talking about a different race.
Sorry, I thought Johnston was on about the other race with Jt Favs, which was the previous one on the card.
Either way I can’t buy into there being much fuss about a seven runner race and the tactics of splitting the field. Jockeys will always seek out a perceived advantage and you can’t stop them from doing so. If the other jockeys choose a different line then they can hardly cite their reasoning being based on a bad draw in a 7 runner race.
I reckon Johnston should consider renaming his column from Bletherings to Sleverings if a seven runner race is giving him sleepless nights.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
You seem to be intent on making a point (again) which doesn’t exist. I haven’t read anyone criticising the race purely because there was a 40/1 winner.
It is self evident that the big outsider winning has been the cause of the outcry. Had the favourite prevailed there would be little comment.
People don’t want to mention the fact that an outsider won because they don’t want their comments to seem like sour grapes or pocket talk.
The best horse won on the day and I await the explanation on how the race would have been more spectacular if they had raced in one group.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Having watched the start a couple of times it seems like the main group headed to the left rail and only a small group remained close to the right rail. Jockeys always go for a rail just as ducks go for water.A field will split up if rails become instantly available.Otherwise the jockeys seek cover from the other riders.Only in a straight course where neither rail gives a shorter distance to cover do the riders shift to either rail to help the horse run straight and not worry about either his left or his right(depending which rail one chooses); personally for one who does not bet I thought it was an a thrill a second finish.From the moment the fav.pulled out and was followed by Fallon you always felt he would conjure up some magic and he did.Incidentally Fallon rode an incredible finish to beat both favorites.Whatever you think of him as a scout leader he is a wonderful jockey.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.