- This topic has 160 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This was not the test of JO’B , the test will come in the future to see how he learns from this.
Watching the race in the Chester press room the near universal comment during the race was, "what on earth is he doing on the inside" – or words to that effect …. it was slightly more Anglo Saxon than that.
Watching the replay from the inside angle O’Brien had to snatch up and probably lost close to a length ….. would he still have won had that not happened who knows but it would have been closer.
The bottom line is jockeyship played an decisive role in the result, it wasn’t the best tactical ride from O’Brien and Barzalona rode a tactically astute contest.
Would the result be different if the race was re-run, quite likely it would be but the form book, and history, will be written based on what happened today.
I was tempted to make the "boy doing a man’s job" comment but then one has to remember the winning jockey isn’t much more than a boy himself.
When viewing the race as it happened I was surprised Joseph took Camelot up the inner. But if you go back to the start of the straight Paul… A "wall" of horses in a one sided arrowhead formation prevented (or at least made it very difficult for) Joseph to go wide. Should he have taken a pull and taken the horse back and around the whole field? Or taken a pull 4 out and then waited for a gap between the "wall", when there was plenty of space still in front of him on the inner? Surely he played the percentage game and remained on the inner, waiting for a gap to come later in the race?
In hindsight he should’ve followed Encke from this point. But Thought Worthy was I believe the morning second favourite and expected to be the first to go for home. Encke was a 25/1 shot, an outsider not expected to figure. Surely the wise decision (without hindsight) was to initially follow Thought Worthy?
Once it became obvious Thought Worthy wasn’t going well enough, Thomas Chippendale falling back and Encke travelling much the best… Joseph changed in what should have been plenty of time to follow Encke through.
At this point Barca went for his whip and (surprisingly given Encke’s form) quickly went 3 lengths clear… While Joseph gathered his whip (I’ve noticed before he can be a little slow at doing this).
Did Joseph really do much wrong?
Value Is EverythingYou’re wrong Hammy.
Why would a horse held up in both the 2000 Guineas and Derby be ridden nearer the pace at 1m6f+? A horse with "speed" enough to win a Guineas should be held up to make use of that speed at the end of the race.
If that were true Snow Fairy would be held up in every race, but when she has a chance to get a good position they do it (think the Champion Stakes last year, the Irish Champion Stakes, etc.). Same with a horse like Golden Lilac, a speedball and very quick miler who is put pretty close to the speed in her 9f and 10.5f races. Holding up a horse with good speed leaves him hostage to the pace and you can end up putting him in an impossible position (I’m not necessarily saying that’s what happened with Camelot). Also, the further back you are, the higher chance you have of getting strung up in traffic (slower pace also = more traffic problems).
I’m not sure how relevant this is to this case though. Looked to me like JO’B took a tug at the start to relax the horse and after that he was stuck in the back. I think he had his chance and he was more staying on than flying at the end, but under different circumstances he could’ve won (one position closer, nice suck run, etc.).
I don’t think he was clearly the best horse at the distance based on what we saw… ask yourself: who showed a better turn of acceleration, Encke or Camelot? You can also use the 3rd and 4th horses to make your own conclusions.You’re wrong Hammy.
Why would a horse held up in both the 2000 Guineas and Derby be ridden nearer the pace at 1m6f+? A horse with "speed" enough to win a Guineas should be held up to make use of that speed at the end of the race.
If that were true Snow Fairy would be held up in every race, but when she has a chance to get a good position they do it (think the Champion Stakes last year, the Irish Champion Stakes, etc.). Same with a horse like Golden Lilac, a speedball and very quick miler who is put pretty close to the speed in her 9f and 10.5f races. Holding up a horse with good speed leaves him hostage to the pace and you can end up putting him in an impossible position (I’m not necessarily saying that’s what happened with Camelot). Also, the further back you are, the higher chance you have of getting strung up in traffic (slower pace also = more traffic problems).
I’m not sure how relevant this is to this case though. Looked to me like JO’B took a tug at the start to relax the horse and after that he was stuck in the back
What you neglect to say Presto, is when going up in trip there’s a danger of a horse being too free. The more horses are in front the more likely a horse is to settle. What would people be saying if Joseph had found a more prominent position and pulled his chance away? Answer: They’d be saying "Joseph made a big mistake in changing tactics", ie not holding the horse up.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Joseph played the percentages.Snow Fairy is always held up Presto.
In the 2011 English Champion she was initially held up 3/4 of the way back in the field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHg4zELIqKI
It was only when others in front of her went wide that her rider took those places to get nearer the pace at halfway. In yesterday’s race, once Joseph made the decision to settle the horse 3/4 of the way back, he had no opportunity of getting closer at any stage, with horses always in front of him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37TedwNa4fg
The almost continuously turning track at Doncaster makes it difficult to make positions up early on, especially when racing on the inside, unless horses in front allow you to… There was no "chance to get a good position" yesterday.
Looking at Camelot’s early position, the two horses immediately in front of him were Encke and Michelangelo, who finished first and third. You could expect a 2000 Guineas winner to make up at least a length on those two in a slowly/slower run 1m6f+ race. Camelot came from a similar position at both Newmarket and Epsom. Why change a winning formula? At his best Camelot should’ve had more speed than any of these.
Value Is EverythingI agree JO’B had no opportunity to take up closer after he took the tug at the start. I’m not really arguing this particular case, but the idea that fast horses have to be deliberately held up. In my view usually any position with cover is fine.
You’re right that there are special cases, ie. when you’re worried about a horse overracing, which was probably the thinking here. In that case the priority is getting the horse to settle, but I see no sense in holding up the horse farther than you need to. If you can settle the horse behind one or two horses I think it would be fine (obviously I’m not talking about the Leger).As I’ve written in my updated previous post I agree that Camelot didn’t close off the way he’s capable of (for whatever reason). He should be showing a stronger burst of speed than Encke but looked quite dour when making up the ground
On an aside: Camelot is a Guineas winner but he won it in the manner of a 10f horse getting everything (pace and ground) to suit and just scramble in over a bunch of not-so-great milers. Nobody would call him a good miler, whereas many including myself would make the case that Sea The Stars was strong at the distance.
Having reviewed the race again, I have no doubt that if Joseph O’Brien had made his move earlier that Camelot would have won the St Leger and with it the Triple Crown.
Camelot definitely stayed the distance. He was going away from proven stayers at the end.
Mikael Barzelona, a more talented and tactically astute young jockey than Aidan’s lad, in my opinion, stole a march, knowing full well that if his horse was to claim the prize, he had to try and take advantage of his lead and kick on early, hoping to catch Joseph and Camelot unaware – and this he did to great effect.
In short,
you left it too late, Joe !
For John Francome to say later on that Camelot would still have lost the race had it been run over a mile and a half is just utter nonsense.
If the St. Leger run hasn’t taken too much out of the him, then I would most definitely run Camelot in the Arc.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Having reviewed the race again, I have no doubt that if Joseph O’Brien had made his move earlier that Camelot would have won the St Leger and with it the Triple Crown.
Joseph "made his move" as early as possible H, there were always horses in front of him. Nowhere to go until Barca went on and left a gap for Joseph.
Value Is Everythingfolks , its no good having a go at the jock , the long and short of it is , the horse was not good enough on the day
end of story
IMO AS always
Ricky
folks , its no good having a go at the jock , the long and short of it is , the horse was not good enough on the day
end of story
IMO AS always
Ricky
I think it’s 70% horse and only 30% the jock. Not much that we can do about it.
http://imagicon.info/cat/10-3/icon_smile.gif
folks , its no good having a go at the jock , the long and short of it is , the horse was not good enough on the day
end of story
IMO AS always
Ricky
I think it’s 70% horse and only 30% the jock. Not much that we can do about it.
http://imagicon.info/cat/10-3/icon_smile.gif
Those figures are pure conjecture
However I think the reasoning behind them sound.
I was at Churchill Downs for Zenyatta’s 2nd BC Classic, and attented yesterday’s meeting hoping to see history made.
Both races left me feeling empty, and both left me wondering what might have been had the jockeys kept it simple and played the percentages.
Whilst it was understandable for Camelot to be dropped in by his young pilot, it did seem strange that he ended up on the fence when drawn 7 of 9. In the end he was following the eventual winner through on the rail, however Encke was drawn 1 so could be forgiven for plotting a course which inevitably requires luck in running.
I imagine O’Brien expected a strong pace which is why he elected to drop his mount out, but with hindsight he probably should have been in the position Michaelangelo was, and once it became apparent the pace was not strong a more seasoned pilot may have sought to improve his position.
Connections have implied Camelot was "tanking". I guess we can only take their word for that as there was little visual evidence of this from the TV Screeens.
I don’t think the horse failed to stay, otherwise he wouldn’t have comfortably sailed past the field (bar Encke) 1.5f out. Just at the point where Simon Holt said "and Joseph O’Brien is very cool on Camelot" look at Barzalona. He has already been riding hard and for a furlong, getting his mount into top gear when O’Brien is sitting like a statue.
Was O’Brien over confident? It certainly seems so as he picked the rest of the field up realtively easily but Encke had flown. With 12lbs on official ratings between the front two, maybe O’Brien was entitled to exude confidence through that crucial stage fo the race between the 3f and 2f poles.
However, he should also have been mindful of the fact that the "unknown territory" into which his mount was entering at precisely that stage could blunt his speed as stamina reserves became sapped. Maybe he would have been better advised to have got his horse into top gear earlier in order to build up enough momentum to go past Encke and then hope that he could hold on. In the end Camelot was catching Encke at the finish but not at the rquired rate. That crucial period where O’Brien sat motionless cost the horse the race in my opinion.
I appreciate that Francome feels the horse was not at his best, however Main Sequence has finished roughly the same distance behind Camelot as he did at Epsom, with Encke improving past Main Sequence from York with the extra trip most likely being the chief reason. Putting it another way, take Encke out of the race and Camelot has run a very similar race to Epsom.
I don’t believe Encke has improved past Camelot, I believe that Camelot was not given the best opportunity by his jockey to catch Encke. Whilst being hemmed in on the fence was not ideal, the main flaw in O’Brien’s ride came when he failed to react to Barzalona’s decisive move until the Godolphin charge had amassed a 3l advantage.
Camelot is not a horse with a visually devastating turn of foot (a la Dancing Brave for instance). He has to be wound up with a gradual, withering run, as was the case in both his previous English Classics. With the pace being more moderate than anyone expected (Gosden’s team clearly trying to replicate the pattern of the Great Voltigeur) the race became something of a dash to the line from the three pole. As a result I think Camelot was actually caught flat footed and could not immediately respond to his rider’s urgings – the 2,000 Guineas and Epsom Derby were both run at a good clip.
Of course, if O’Brien had kicked on at the top of the home straight and got collared close home he would have been slated for not conserving his horse’s energy, so in some respects he was in a no win situation. However, there is little doubt in my mind that Barzalona out witted him, and this was the main reason for the failure to land the Triple Crown.
For John Francome to say later on that Camelot would still have lost the race had it been run over a mile and a half is just utter nonsense.
That does amuse me. Don’t C4 usually interject with Francome’s comments mid-race? If Francome and McGrath were so sure of this why not ask the director/producer to drop them in with that comment? Why wait till the horse was beaten?
Possibly the most blatant aftertime in the history of the sport!!
I suspect young O’Brien was on a hiding to nothing. Had he won there would have been no plaudits. Had he done what some have suggested here, wound the horse up sooner and got him going 3 out as MB did with his, what if he had not lasted home? He’d be getting savaged had that happened with people saying ‘He’d never tried that trip, why do that with him? He had 12lbs in hand! He should have sat still and come late!’
I was at Churchill Downs for Zenyatta’s 2nd BC Classic, and attented yesterday’s meeting hoping to see history made.
Both races left me feeling empty, and both left me wondering what might have been had the jockeys kept it simple and played the percentages.
Whilst it was understandable for Camelot to be dropped in by his young pilot, it did seem strange that he ended up on the fence when drawn 7 of 9. In the end he was following the eventual winner through on the rail, however Encke was drawn 1 so could be forgiven for plotting a course which inevitably requires luck in running.
I imagine O’Brien expected a strong pace which is why he elected to drop his mount out, but with hindsight he probably should have been in the position Michaelangelo was, and once it became apparent the pace was not strong a more seasoned pilot may have sought to improve his position.
Connections have implied Camelot was "tanking". I guess we can only take their word for that as there was little visual evidence of this from the TV Screeens.
I don’t think the horse failed to stay, otherwise he wouldn’t have comfortably sailed past the field (bar Encke) 1.5f out. Just at the point where Simon Holt said "and Joseph O’Brien is very cool on Camelot" look at Barzalona. He has already been riding hard and for a furlong, getting his mount into top gear when O’Brien is sitting like a statue.
Was O’Brien over confident? It certainly seems so as he picked the rest of the field up realtively easily but Encke had flown. With 12lbs on official ratings between the front two, maybe O’Brien was entitled to exude confidence through that crucial stage fo the race between the 3f and 2f poles.
However, he should also have been mindful of the fact that the "unknown territory" into which his mount was entering at precisely that stage could blunt his speed as stamina reserves became sapped. Maybe he would have been better advised to have got his horse into top gear earlier in order to build up enough momentum to go past Encke and then hope that he could hold on. In the end Camelot was catching Encke at the finish but not at the rquired rate. That crucial period where O’Brien sat motionless cost the horse the race in my opinion.
I appreciate that Francome feels the horse was not at his best, however Main Sequence has finished roughly the same distance behind Camelot as he did at Epsom, with Encke improving past Main Sequence from York with the extra trip most likely being the chief reason. Putting it another way, take Encke out of the race and Camelot has run a very similar race to Epsom.
I don’t believe Encke has improved past Camelot, I believe that Camelot was not given the best opportunity by his jockey to catch Encke. Whilst being hemmed in on the fence was not ideal, the main flaw in O’Brien’s ride came when he failed to react to Barzalona’s decisive move until the Godolphin charge had amassed a 3l advantage.
Camelot is not a horse with a visually devastating turn of foot (a la Dancing Brave for instance). He has to be wound up with a gradual, withering run, as was the case in both his previous English Classics. With the pace being more moderate than anyone expected (Gosden’s team clearly trying to replicate the pattern of the Great Voltigeur) the race became something of a dash to the line from the three pole. As a result I think Camelot was actually caught flat footed and could not immediately respond to his rider’s urgings – the 2,000 Guineas and Epsom Derby were both run at a good clip.
Of course, if O’Brien had kicked on at the top of the home straight and got collared close home he would have been slated for not conserving his horse’s energy, so in some respects he was in a no win situation. However, there is little doubt in my mind that Barzalona out witted him, and this was the main reason for the failure to land the Triple Crown.
I think you are absolutely right there. Jockey won the race.
Some very good analysis on the subject today on ATR from James Willoughby. He made the point that race results are seldom reliant on one single dimension. He also went on to look at the sectionals, which showed both Encke and Camelot covering the last four furlongs in exactly the same time (i.e. they were as far apart at the finish as they were at the four furlong marker).
Encke took an advatage between 4 and 2 furlongs, when the pace was at its keenest. At that stage Joseph was angling out and finding room for Camelot, still very much on the bridle and, one preumes, holding onto the horse before delivering him to accelerate past in the final quarter mile.
Barzalona was more active and urging Encke forward at this stage, eager to expose any stamina flaws in his rivals you would guess.In hindsight, with the detailed knowledge of the splits we have in front of us, you could argue a few things here. You could argue, for example, that Joseph should have booted on earlier and nullified the advantage gained by Encke at this stage. That is easy in hindsight.
It is possible that, had he done so, he would have failed to cover the last two furlongs (where he clawed back that advantage gained by Encke) in the same times that he did. He may well, for example, have folded quicker than Encke under those circumstances. Joseph had none of the benefits of hindsight available to him at the time. We can see the precise sectionals and can review the race over and over, slowing it down, freezing it, etc. We can pose the ifs and whats, the whys and wherefores.
As has been highlighted by many the horse was actually given a bolder and more aggressive ride yesterday than in the Derby or Guineas. Aidan O’Brien’s initial reaction was that he had failed to quicken in his usual manner and that seems to be as good a reading of the situation as any.
Then again, his margins over those behind him in the Derby (and the stats Lee Mottershead relayed on today’s Sunday Forum support the view that this year’s Derby was a particularly dismal renewal) were similar yesterday and the unpalatable (to many of us) fact that he simply isn’t the superstar we thought remains a poossible explanataion for a defeat which, although surprising at the time, can now be interpreted more clearly.
On Encke, Willoughby highlighted the abundance of (top class) staying influences in the winner’s pedigree. He was a horse entitled to improve dramatically for a trip. That wasn’t Willoughby after-timing. He was just pointing out that a wide variety of possibilities existed, one of which was Encke’s potential improvement. That this was the possibility that transpired when events unfolded was just one of thousands (millions) of potential combinations which might (or might not) have played out. That randomness and uncertainty is what makes racing such an interesting and compelling medium for gamblers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.