- This topic has 18 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
What a fantastic bit of placing from Henry, so obvious, a class, talking horse
in the closing handicap, delighted I backed it, got 7s.Difficult horse, but as soon as Queally got him straightened up, there was only
going to be one outcome
Her…..got her straightened up!
Rounded off a good day for me (which has been a rarity of late!)
What a fantastic bit of placing from Henry,
How was it a fantastic bit of placing? Because it won?
In fairness, many were calling it an odd piece of placing before the event, but Henry knows his fillies well and he’s made the correct call – one that very few trainers would have made.
What a fantastic bit of placing from Henry, so obvious, a class, talking horse
in the closing handicap, delighted I backed it, got 7s.Difficult horse, but as soon as Queally got him straightened up, there was only
going to be one outcomeI know it’s not the done thing, but I got her at 8s.
Of course, sod’s law being the way it is, the two horses where I’d done some research (Glass Harmonium and Mull of Killoch) were dire, but this ‘ooh she’s running’ shits’n’giggles bet won. Isn’t it always the way?
BlueSky @pghenn.bsky.social
So don't run, just like the others always do
What a fantastic bit of placing from Henry,
How was it a fantastic bit of placing? Because it won?
Not gonna bite.
One word: –
yes
In fairness, many were calling it an odd piece of placing before the event, but Henry knows his fillies well and he’s made the correct call – one that very few trainers would have made.
Spot on Rory – I have to confess I was one of those wondering about running her in this race today – it looked like "WTF do we do next with her now?"
Full credit though – as you suggest another good call from Cecil.
Even though I did not back her I was pleased to see her back in the winners enclosure and Cecil received the biggest roar of the afternoon at the presentation.
Rather than being a fantastic bit of placing by Mr Cecil, I might suggest that, unusually for him, Timepiece is one filly he seems to have got all wrong up till now. I would have thought most people would have questioned whether she was good enough for the Oaks, she seemed to struggle with 12f at Lingfield and her overall form was nothing special having scraped home in a listed event last Autumn.
Perhaps this is her right level and distance, and Henry has now, reluctantly, seen the light of day.
Having been the first to question the excuses for her Lingfield defeat,"She went to quick" Erm right! I stayed loyal in the Oaks,it was blatantly obvious she failed to stay there,so today having seen the draw bias i was keen on her coming good,particularly with Safina being drawn low,she still wandered under pressure but her Class won the day,its a step forward in redeeming her tall reputation but i would have doubts about just how good she really is!
It wasn’t Henry who made her ante-post jolly for the Oaks.
Henry had made it quite clear this filly was as good as any he has had in her homework,so i would say he certainly influenced her Oaks price.
It wasn’t Henry who made her ante-post jolly for the Oaks.
But he did continuously say that she was his main Oaks hope… didn’t he? Or if he didn’t say it, all the vibes over the winter certainly led the public to believe this was the case.
As I’m sure you know, bookmakers don’t generally price ante-post races like the Oaks and Derby up on form alone, and most market moves in the months leading up are because of ‘vibes’. I think it’s no secret that Cecil thought Timepiece was his Oaks horse, so as UM says, it looks like he got this one wrong.
Id be with those suggesting it was in fact this time finally getting it right rather than a fantastic placing.
But as we all know when things fall into place its easy to think genius and when they dont its a bad move.
Well done to all those who backed.
- Total Posts 17716
Had Pollenator won the race, would similar praise have been heaped upon Richard Hannon for the remarkable placement of a one-time Classic hope?
I somehow doubt it.
Henry Cecil is perhaps the most admirable, affable, endearing and gentlemanly figure in racing, but such characteristics don’t entitle him to unreserved applause when a horse he trains turns out to be less talented than he believed.
That said, let’s not pretend that this thread was meant to be anything other than an excuse for Matthew to after-time. Again.
That said, let’s not pretend that this thread was meant to be anything other than an excuse for Matthew to after-time. Again.
What on earth is wrong with some of the people on here recently ? … why the need to pillory certain contributors just because they happen to mention they’ve backed a horse after the race is run.
Is it some sort of unwritten forum rule that I’m unaware of that "after-timing" has to be punished with sarcasm and ridicule ? … I’ve not been on here all that long but seems to me that some people think this forum exists solely for the benefit of massaging their own egos and are so far up their own **** you can barely see the soles of their shoes.
Get over yourselves for heaven’s sake … it’s a racing forum and not, as several people seem to believe, some sort of literary BGT equivalent to find the next Mark ruddy Twain.
I joined because I thought it would be fun, informative and insightful … more like a bitching session at the Women’s Institute at the moment.
Rant over
- Total Posts 17716
Had Matthew taken a trip to the ‘Lays and Plays’ section, used his thread-starting powers to initiate a discussion on the Sandringham and put Timepiece up as his selection before the race, he would be due a hearty pat on the back. As it is he’s waited until after the race, for the upteenth time, and heaped praise upon a jockey who just so happens to have ridden the horse he claims to have backed.
What is such a revelation bringing to the conversation?
When a horse Matthew has backed wins, the jockey is a genius and when a horse Matthew has backed loses, the jockey is a cheat (so much so that A P McCoy went from supposedly stopping two horses trained by Gordon Eliot in so-called ‘brown envelope jobs’, to being an absolute hero in only a couple of days).
I, for one, am sick and tired of wading through pointless comment after pointless comment when the author lends absolutely no credibility to what he or she is saying. Who cares what someone may or may not have done when they haven’t seen fit to bring it up beforehand? Why refer to bets that have (allegedly) been placed at all if the intention is to congratulate Henry Cecil and Tom Queally on a job well done?
May be it’s just me, but stimulating debate isn’t built on a foundation of after-timing and pocket-talking and if holding such an opinion isn’t perceived to be the TRF way, then so be it.
That said, let’s not pretend that this thread was meant to be anything other than an excuse for Matthew to after-time. Again.
What on earth is wrong with some of the people on here recently ? … why the need to pillory certain contributors just because they happen to mention they’ve backed a horse after the race is run.
Is it some sort of unwritten forum rule that I’m unaware of that "after-timing" has to be punished with sarcasm and ridicule ? … I’ve not been on here all that long but seems to me that some people think this forum exists solely for the benefit of massaging their own egos and are so far up their own **** you can barely see the soles of their shoes.
Get over yourselves for heaven’s sake … it’s a racing forum and not, as several people seem to believe, some sort of literary BGT equivalent to find the next Mark ruddy Twain.
I joined because I thought it would be fun, informative and insightful … more like a bitching session at the Women’s Institute at the moment.
Rant over
Spot on Burrough Hill, I accept that sometimes I can be very enthusiastic when Ive backed a winner and it’s been given a cracking ride, that’s surely why someone has a bet? For the excitement of winning and unfortunately, usually, the downside of losing. Highs and Lows etc.
I took note the other day when David (Cormack) advised me that ‘some’ members may not take to too many threads congratulating a certain jockey or
horse on a magnificent display, but on this occasion, I felt Timepiece was well worthy of a mention as it felt to me, that Henry Cecil had performed a minor miracle, placing a previous Oaks fancy In a mediocre Handicap and winning so easily.With regard to aftertiming, I can cross my heart and confirm that any previous thread started by myself, which has referred to a Winner I’ve backed is 110% true and although, I shouldn’t need to prove myself, I’d be quite happy to post up a Ladbrokes/Willliam Hill or Stan James print-out on here of any of those horses backed previously, which I’ve highlighted on here.
Thanks Burrough Hill
Matthew
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.