April 7, 2019 at 15:52 #1416751Ex RubyLightParticipant
- Total Posts 1400
Nigel Hawke bought him for 10k from Godolphin and resold him for 80k to Gigginstown. Considering that he trained the horse for no longer than 6 months, he’s had a nice 10 grand on a 7/1 winner.
Does anyone know what would happen to his chasing mark, if Tiger Roll would go hurdling the entire next season? With a tilt at the Stayers Hurdle and then to return back chasing for the 20/21 season and another tilt at the GN?
Would that make sense at all?April 7, 2019 at 18:28 #1416775
Surely O’Leary will change his mind and bring him back for a third National? They can’t give him any more than another 5 pounds.
I agree, Joe. On distances he had in hand at the line Tiger Roll should go up 5 lbs.
Tiger Roll ran off a mark of 159 and was 8 lbs “well-in”. So going in to the race he was thought capable of 167 (159 + 8 = 167).
Rathvinden ran off a mark of 154 and was 8 lbs well-in, so going in to the race Rathvinden was thought capable of 162 (154 + 8). He was then beaten 5 lengths by Tiger Roll, 162 + 5 = 167.
Tiger roll carried 5 lbs more than Rathvinden, so if Rathvinden ran to form 167 + 5 = 172.
However, Tiger was absolutely cantering when jumping the last fence. Went clear and then – like last year – appeared to idle quite badly in the last 50 yards.
Is there a liklihood Tiger Roll is actually at least a few lengths better than those distances make out?
Worth putting up to a mark of 175?
If putting TR up to only 172 (13 lbs more than he ran off / 5 more than current rating) – and the fact he’s still improving – imo he’ll have an excellent chance of a third Grand National victory.
Connections not wanting to commit to 2020 is purely to put pressure on the handicapper. Asking Tiger to run off a mark more than a stone more than he did yesterday… we’ll get the old O’Leary speil about how the English handicapper is being unfair on the Irish.value is everythingApril 7, 2019 at 18:38 #1416779pilgarlicParticipant
- Total Posts 563
If Michael O’Leary was being straight when he said he worried about him I would think retirement may be under consideration. If he returns to Aintree he’ll be conceding weight to everything else next time even if he has already peakedApril 7, 2019 at 19:28 #1416787patriot1Participant
- Total Posts 433
It seems unthinkable that he wouldn’t go for a third National next year. He’s only going to be 10 years old next April.
O’Leary certainly isn’t shy of the limelight so this cross country and we’ll see talk could be a wind up.April 8, 2019 at 00:20 #1416810Venture to CognacModerator
- Total Posts 16805
Many thanks Joe.
That Munster National win was a “wow” moment for me, and it’s been some ride with him.April 8, 2019 at 06:23 #1416820wordfromthewiseParticipant
- Total Posts 446
No surprise if Tiger was campaigned next year like the ‘best staying chaser’ in the sport that he undoubtedly is IMO.
He will get top weight for the GN next year therefore a campaign that targets the Gold Cup could easily emerge as an alternative that although doesn’t have anywhere near the immortality of winning 3 Nationals it would be an arguably more achievable way of establishing Tiger as an all time great.
As a racing fan seeing Tiger win the KG and the GC and maybe then seeing if the GN was within scope in terms of dates,weights and wellbeing would be a privilege to see happen.April 8, 2019 at 22:47 #1416895
Were GHS to run the noble beast in the 2020 GN under 11-10 Davy Russell could be instructed to PU the moment he felt Tiger Roll was not enjoying himself to thus fulfil the responsibility to the wider public that O’Leary rightly acknowledges he now has. Let him have a crack at it.
Ginger, we use slightly different scales of figures so I don’t want to get into a long technical debate but a couple of pieces of food for thought.
Firstly, I don’t think TR idled in either GN. He did not when further clear in last month’s XC. He was all out in the 2018 GN, less so, on much less stamina testing ground, but could not have gone any faster post-Elbow on Saturday, he ‘merely’ kept on well.
Secondly, time is far from everything, however, compare the GNs of 2015 and 2019 both run at a similar pace on very similar going and each with the omission of one fence. Many Clouds ran 4.20s faster whilst carrying 4lb more than TR. Many Clouds’s RPR 170, TR’s 174. Interesting to know what Timeform’s and Mike’s figures are!
For the record, I rated MC 172 in 2015 and TR 171 this year. And TR’s figure allows him 2 (pounds/lengths) for mistakes at the 2nd, 26th and 27th. Allowing for their own errors on Saturday (and visual impression) I have Anibale Fly and Regal Encore running virtually identically to how they did in 2018 and 2017 respectively and the performance ratings I gave them then when replicated fit perfectly for TR receiving 171.April 9, 2019 at 21:09 #1416954Ex RubyLightParticipant
- Total Posts 1400
The best winner in at least 46 years:
That should be no surprise considering the horses behind him that ran in the first six.
And his rating of 172 isn’t really his limit, I’d say.April 9, 2019 at 21:31 #1416956GladiateurParticipant
- Total Posts 1157
Timeform have him on 167, 4 lbs behind Al Boum Photo and three below Kemboy.April 9, 2019 at 22:28 #1416959SteeplechasingParticipant
- Total Posts 5770
It might just be worth sounding a note of caution for those, like me, who’d like to see him in the Gold Cup. It’s more than 2 years since he won over park fences, and 18 months since he ran over them
His massive and consistent form upsurge coincided with the introduction to unconventional fences. I’m told he went to post in last year’s National with a Timeform squiggle against his name
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/April 9, 2019 at 22:56 #1416961
So (see above) the handicapper reckons Tiger Roll ran 5lb better than did Many Clouds!
He is not remotely the best winner in the last 46 years. Most of the fault seems to lie with past ratings, the article talks of relating today’s official figures to a subscription service’s assessment of the 1970s and of meaningful records beginning only in 1973.
I have meaningful ratings going back to 1836. The likes of Crisp, Red Rum and L’Escargot would pulverise Tiger Roll. Crisp, for example, ran to the same time as Tiger Roll over 1/2f further and stiffer fences whilst carrying 7lb more. And Tiger Roll has the benefit of better jockeyship, training methods, nutrition and turf management (all of which having improved over the 46 years).
I’m sorry but the handicapper’s idiotic comments are deflecting from the feat that Tiger Roll really did achieve. Greenwood is stark raving bonkers and so is any person or firm that concurs with him. Those of you who compile your own ratings will enjoy a long period of fruitful investment if this is a true example of his work.April 11, 2019 at 00:13 #1417023
tbh GM, am beginning to doubt your ratings. Can understand if Tiger Roll doesn’t quite top the ratings from 1973 to 2019; that’s just opinion. But for you to say he’s “not remotely the best winner in 46 years”, suggests to me it’s your rating that’s flawed.
There are several horses around the mid-160’s Timeform Rating bracket, there is no doubt Tiger Roll is amongst… Many Clouds, Neptune Collonges, Don’t Push It, even Lord Gyllene…
Give Tiger Roll the credit he deserves.value is everythingApril 11, 2019 at 00:46 #1417024
Any direct comparisson of race times shows very little.
Anyone judging how good races are by times, must allow for if the race was truly run or not… And how meaningful analysis of sectionals tell how a horse could’ve bettered the overall time had the pace been an even one. Obvious Saturday’s race had pretty slow early fractions. So of course Crisp’s time (in a strongly run race) is bound to be fast by comparisson.
imo The handicapper is not making “idiotic comments”, neither is he “stark raving bonkers”.
You criticise Timeform, you criticise Racing Post Ratings, you criticise the official handicapper. Are you sure it couldn’t be your ratings that are wrong, GM?value is everythingApril 11, 2019 at 17:57 #1417058
I have every confidence in my Grand National performance ratings, 1836-2019. Again, official meaningful records began only in 1973 and earlier attempts at National Hunt ratings are exemplified by Timeform’s woefully inflated figures for Arkle and Flyingbolt in the 1960s. Working chronologically from origin provides a more accurate historical perspective.
In some ways one cannot blame the handicapper for his crafty use of words to maximise sexy publicity for racing on the back of Tiger Roll’s effort, however, I continue to believe they deflect from the horse’s actual feat of winning consecutive GNs (for which I have given him due credit) at the expense of denigrating the ability of better animals from the past.
I do agree with you, Ginger, that TR can generally be lumped in a group with several other worthy horses, some of which you mention. Hairs can be split regarding the exact figure appropriate for each creature within this tight band. However, the handicapper is rather gilding the truth by saying “…best GN winner in at least 46 years”. His words are born of a comparison of his acutely specific numerical opinion of TR’s performance arrived at by honed modern methods with faulty ratings arrived at when systems were in their infancy and, furthermore, his utterance excludes better performing beasts who did not win. His statement is akin to a clever counterfeit piece of art.
In fairness, much of the blame can be attributed to mistakes of the past. The handicapper himself, not unreasonably, compares TR with Gold Cup types, Al Boum Photo and Kemboy, however, much better horses have won the GC. L’Escargot, for instance, was a great dual winner and because horses generally become slower and develop more stamina as they age there is every reason to think he ran as well if not better when winning the 1975 GN, at the age of 12, the only year in which he was specifically trained for the race. Simply, he by then needed 1 1/4f further to be at his best. And there is no automatic reason why ratings for GN performances should be lower than those for the GC based upon distance, if anything the GN should be seen as the truer test historically. The demands and challenges of each race are vastly different, the latter being a handicap is part of them. The ratings should be based on merit alone. The trend over the last 60 years has been one of the vast majority of top class horses failing to contest the GN, had Kauto Star or Desert Orchid done so (and stayed) I would have expected them to put up a performance in the low 190s, therefore, consistent with their GC efforts. Horses of that ability rarely come along, however, L’Escargot was of that ilk and his form is closely tied in with Red Rum and Crisp (I have touched upon their form in this and other threads). I strongly suspect that a deliberate or accidental bias based upon distance (i.e. against 4 1/2m) was present by the advent of NH rating services and that has thrown the current handicapper out.
The subject of how pace (whether measured sectionally or by observation and analysis) relates to time and performance is an interesting one. Mike swears by mathematical calculations based exclusively on time to determine merit. I view time comparison not as showing very little but as a vital though junior companion to collateral form (and it plays a bigger role when there is none of the latter). A winning time may be on the slow side if the pace was too fast and collapsed, or if the quality of runners is below average, or if the pace was slow and the race developed into a sprint. I allow for the above but also for the degree to which a fast time indicates above average quality. In the case of Crisp, his time is simply evidence of him putting up a very great performance to be able to run that fast under 12st, leading all the way.
TR could not have gone much quicker and stayed. He is not remotely the best performer during the time span the handicapper refers to because being 20+ below Crisp, Red Rum and L’Escargot IS remote.April 11, 2019 at 20:27 #1417068
I think you’ll do yourself a favour if having a fresh look at how you’ve rated races, GM; before publication of your Grand National site.
If a significant number of horses are 20 lbs plus different to all other ratings organisations – then it’ll run the risk of bringing down what am sure will be an otherwise excellent site.
How much have you looked at previous form of each horse – including in other races leading up to the race/s in question?value is everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.