- This topic has 174 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ginger,
Barney Roy will be dropping back to a mile next year.
I’ll double or quits you the fish and chips you owe me that BTB does not finish ahead of him in any G1 race next season.?It’s just like you to bring the debate down to fish and chips instead of logical debate. 😉
We both have a high opinion of Barney Roy, Nathan. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if Beat The Bank beats Barney, a lot will depend on the ground.
If you believe Beat The Bank ran to form on Saturday, then you’re saying he’s no better than around 95.
95 is not good enough to even get in to some big mile handicaps, let alone win one. So how come Beat The Bank has already won a listed race by 3 lengths followed by a Group 3 by 3 lengths followed by a Group 2 by 5?He ran to form because of the distance infront of lavery, he had ideal conditions an ideal prep nothing came out of the race unusual?, saying he had an off day dosent cut it, he was flattered by his 118 rating, he was rated higher than here comes when the group1 sussex stakes winner for beating an extremely weak group 3/listed field in a group2 contest by name…. his shockingly poor form line was maintained on saturday IF lavery had finished infront or closer than he did youd maybe say ok he might not have ran to form, but he did run to form
maybe Beat the Bank just don’t act at ascot?i know trainer made excuses for run in Jersey but that is twice he has bombed at ascot and I am a big believer that ascot has its ‘quirks’ as a course since the re-lay
He may well of run below par but was too highly rated to start with and was no value whatsoever at 4/1 I told you that before the race. The group 2 he won was p!ss poor, my old mate Peacock would of won it.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
It’s a mixture of Beat The Bank being over rated and running below what his mark should have been in my opinion.
I have seen Beat The Bank rated 123 and not many weak Group 2 winners are ever really that high in my opinion.
Sir John Lavery was considered a Derby hope at one time but he was a flop regarding that target. The fact that he dropped to 8F was surely at least Plan C for him. Jallota was given by some pundits as winning a “Warm” Listed race after running behind Beat The Bank previously. I said at the time that I thought it was an awful Listed race and all I can say is that the runner up went on to be thrashed out of sight off 99 in a Handicap next time.
If we look at it another way, Jallota was beaten 13 lengths by Ribchester off levels in the Queen Anne at Royal Ascot. He was only beaten 7 and a quarter by Beat The Bank in the Joel and he was conceding 4 lbs to the 3YO. That left an awful lot on for the Balding colt and I think a rating of 123 for Beat The Bank was a flight of fancy.
If you have a genuine group 1 horse on your hands it is a bit sad that you could only get the horse ready to compete at that level at the end of October. I mean sometimes trainers rush them too early but it seems late to be finally taking the wraps off your group 1 colt just as the curtain falls on the season.
So Beat The Bank DID run below form but not by as much as some would say that he did. Big distance wins beguile just as often as the times when many good horses can be squeezed into the gaps.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
maybe Beat the Bank just don’t act at ascot?i know trainer made excuses for run in Jersey but that is twice he has bombed at ascot and I am a big believer that ascot has its ‘quirks’ as a course since the re-lay
You make a good point nwalton. BTB has won 5 of his 7 races, the two poor runs both at Ascot. I myself favour the theory it was just one run too many at the end of a long season. On the go longer than the vast majority of Champions Day runners. ie Had his first race in February so probably been in training since January.
Value Is EverythingHe may well of run below par but was too highly rated to start with and was no value whatsoever at 4/1 I told you that before the race. The group 2 he won was p!ss poor, my old mate Peacock would of won it.
In the QEII Beat The Bank ran to a rating below Listed level, Nathan; a rating that would not have even been good enough to even get in to some big handicaps. So how can whether he’s of genuine Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 or Listed quality be judged from a race where the horse is so palpably way below form? Saying “I told you so” in these circumstances is silly.
Value Is EverythingI think Beat the bank just proved my point about some horses just not taking to Ascot.
He’ll bounce back next year.
I think there is a strong possibility Beat The Bank just doesn’t need excuses and is simply nowhere near as good as some people think.
Rated 123 by some, it takes a hell of a stretch of the imagination to think that 95 (Two stones less) is purely down to the track. Ground probably too lively in the Jersey and tackling the toughest race of his life are much more likely reasons for his problems.
If a horse is already a GP 1 winner then fair enough to look for a reason but a one time, weak, GP 2 winner is a different scenario.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I cited the track as he only ran to 87 RPR in the jersey( I know the yard made other excuses) I also believe that he is not a 123 horse,but in my silly mind he may have ascotitis
I cited the track as he only ran to 87 RPR in the jersey( I know the yard made other excuses) I also believe that he is not a 123 horse,but in my silly mind he may have ascotitis
It seems fairly regular that a horse can love a certain track but I don’t have many memories of horses hating certain tracks to the extent of a couple of stone.
Like I say, if you were looking at a proven group 1 winner, you would be more suspicious that something was amiss.
Looking at the Jersey Stakes, the time was fast by 0.65 seconds and it could be that the pace of the race on Good To Firm over 7F simply took Beat The Bank out of his comfort zone. It probably rode a bit like an extended sprint.
The times in his other races were much slower and in the QE II he was taking on multiple group 1 winners, rather than the exposed Jallota and one of Aidan’s more modest inmates in Sir John Lavery.
Just my thinking on it anyway, time will show us more.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
He may well of run below par but was too highly rated to start with and was no value whatsoever at 4/1 I told you that before the race. The group 2 he won was p!ss poor, my old mate Peacock would of won it.
In the QEII Beat The Bank ran to a rating below Listed level, Nathan; a rating that would not have even been good enough to even get in to some big handicaps. So how can whether he’s of genuine Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 or Listed quality be judged from a race where the horse is so palpably way below form? Saying “I told you so” in these circumstances is silly.
Nothing silly about it
What was silly was rating the horse 123 for winning a group 2 race that wouldn’t have looked out of place if they called it a listed race such was the runners involved. I recommended place laying the horse on the grounds he was far too short in the betting, part of the reason for doing so was in anticipation of him not being able to replicate his run against poor horses when taking on very good ones, perhaps he ran so bad because they broke him, he couldn’t go the pace despite being in a similar position to the winner in the early stages.Blackbeard to conquer the World
yep fair points steve, I do have this thing about ascot and Doncaster since the re-laid, the horses that don’t seem to act there and wide margin winners, probably me but that’s my theory lol
Nothing silly about it
What was silly was rating the horse 123 for winning a group 2 race that wouldn’t have looked out of place if they called it a listed race such was the runners involved.Why was it silly, Nathan?
What would be the RATINGS you guys give the first, second, third and fourth of the Joel Stakes and why?
Beat The Bank beat Sir John Lavery by 5 lengths. (I know you say there was 5 lengths between them at Ascot, but all the other horses/distances mean it is obvious they were both below form on Saturday). There was a further 2 1/4 back to Jallota and 1 1/4 back to Sovereign Debt.
2nd Sir John Lavery ran to an RPR of 111 on his two runs prior to the Joel. Both races at a mile, one on good ground and one on soft.
3rd Jallota won at 7f on good-soft, running to an RPR of 112 after the Joel.
Jallota had run to 103 on his run before the Joel at 7f on Soft in France.
Before that Jallota ran to 112 over 7f on Good at York.
Take the Queen Anne out (outclassed) Jallota has run to marks of 109, 112 and 106 in his last three starts at 1m. It’s possible Jallota isn’t at his very very best (stamina stretched) when ground is on the soft side racing at 1m. But the 106 came on the same ground and distance as the Joel.4th Sovereign Debt was giving 3 lbs more than weight for age. In 9 races for Ruth Carr Sovereign Debt has run to RPR’s of between 106 and 117.
Look forward to hearing from you guys.
Value Is EverythingPersuasive got 121 for beating Ribchester and Churchill
How the hell would 123 be justifiably for Beat the Bank in beating what he didBlackbeard to conquer the World
It’s a simple question, Nathan.
You’ve criticised the rating of 123 and said that it’s far too high. So…What would be the RATINGS you guys give the first, second, third and fourth of the Joel Stakes and why?
Value Is EverythingI understand fully why they gave him the 118 rating, but it was an over reaction, due to how he beat the field they had no choice but to put him upto that mark from his orevious plus based on the winning distance/how easy he won etc etc the problem lies with how do you distinguish if it was just an off day for the others or if the ground threw up a shock result as it tends to do being soft/heavy even though 2nd should have handled it
Much like cracksman, they have to raise him something significant for the manner he won
But it dosent always mean its a genuine rating and this is one of these cases, hes probably a 112/113 rated horse in fairness to him, he has the measure of lavery thats evident but he isnt as good as here comes when at 116,
what is a stronger formline, here comes when winning the sussex or beat the bank winning the joel?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.