- This topic has 16 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Martin Lane on Cafe Society, an absolute shocker, it’s hard to believe the trainer was aparty to such a poor ride.
He must have thought he was on Pegasus when setting the horse such an impossible task, the horse did remarkably well to be beaten less than two and a half lengths, should have hacked up.
One of the consequences I’m afraid of all these top meetings being run on a Saturday and the shortage of good jockeys to go around, be amazed if he gets the ride on the beast again.
Disappointing response here as this thread clearly has the potential to become one of the longest ever on the forum. Hope this isn’t a case of being scared off by those who amuse themselves by assuming every bad ride can somehow be explained by ‘pocket talking’.
Personally, I am on the verge of drawing stumps regarding Flat racing. The game has become too unpredictable. I could just about cope with the ridiculous imbalance of racecards, ground changes even watering issues but it is the general mediocrity/inconsistency of jockeys that has tipped things over the edge. What has happened to the jockeys who could set a decent pace? The other day I highlighted a couple of rides by Gerald Mosse on Somewhat and Amazing Maria purely because the idea of just keeping it simple has become such a rarity. Yes, the races might have been relatively uneventful but as a punter I couldn’t give a monkeys. So many races at all levels, not just small fields either, are blighted by jockeys in behind allowing the front runner to dawdle and stack the field up. False results are a natural consequence and it is happening more and more.
I will give one example from Haydock on Saturday. As far as I know nobody said a word but in my opinion Joe Fanning gave Statutory a joke of a ride sitting behind a slow pace in the last race. When asked to quicken the horse who was dropping back in trip could only find one pace eventually plugging on for fourth. I strongly suspect that either upped in trip or ridden more positively (perhaps Fanning was influenced by the horlicks he made of front running in the previous race) Statutory will turn out comfortably to be the best horse at the weights.
Not sure what the betting turnover is Flat compared to National Hunt but I can only see the latter percentage increasing.
Disappointing response here as this thread clearly has the potential to become one of the longest ever on the forum. Hope this isn’t a case of being scared off by those who amuse themselves by assuming every bad ride can somehow be explained by ‘pocket talking’.
Personally,
I am on the verge of drawing stumps regarding Flat racing
. The game has become too unpredictable. I could just about cope with the ridiculous imbalance of racecards, ground changes even watering issues but it is the general mediocrity/inconsistency of jockeys that has tipped things over the edge. What has happened to the jockeys who could set a decent pace? The other day I highlighted a couple of rides by
Gerard Mosse on Somewhat and Amazing Maria
purely because the idea of just keeping it simple has become such a rarity. Yes, the races might have been relatively uneventful but as a punter I couldn’t give a monkeys.
So many races at all levels, not just small fields either, are blighted by jockeys in behind allowing the front runner to dawdle and stack the field up. False results are a natural consequence and it is happening more and more.
Not sure what the betting turnover is Flat compared to National Hunt but I can only see the latter percentage increasing.
I agree Stilvi, there are quite a lot of races where the leader/s is/are given too much rope. But why consider giving up betting on the flat when you could make a profit from that knowledge?
They were excellent rides from Gerard Mosse, both horses were likely to be suited by a test of stamina at the trip, so did the right thing getting out in front and setting a good gallop. But often when a prominent runner may have plenty of speed, it won’t be in the jockey’s best interests to make a good pace. And when not taken on by others wanting to race prominently – a front running jockey’s best interests is served by setting slow fractions. Having a length head start over some and anything up to around 5 lengths head start over the hold up horses.
Why not go through a race beforehand making notes of those who normally front run, race prominently, track pace, race mid-field, held up and dropped out? If there is only one runner of the first two categories GET ON! Particularly if that likely pace setter has form at the trip concerned, but also enough speed to do well at shorter trips. ie Likely to be in the right place for the sprint for home and having more speed than its rivals to remain there.
Value Is EverythingI have no problem with those who put the most effort in reaping the most reward. It shouldn’t be easy to make a profit but at the same time there is something wrong if that is only possible if you are treating the battle as a full-time profession. Most people don’t have that chance/luxury.
Even if I did as I have said much of the data is flawed and the most important factor, the jocks, are increasingly unreliable.
Ginger, we touched on the Aegaeus win on the other thread and you could have done every bit of homework possible but only inside knowledge would have told you the horse was going to be ridden from the front let alone go on to win.
Stilvi
I could not agree more. I did post a reply recently with regards jockeys and their level of ability these days.The likes of Moore, Buick, Dettori is really a poor standard compared to 30 years ago IMO.
Eddery, Carson and the great Lester Piggott would ride this current lot into a daze.
I was at Ascot on Saturday and I have to say, I said to my wife with 4 furlongs to go that the jockey must have thought he was on a flying machine to win from where he was. It was impossible to win and I was surprised the stewards did not call him in. I did not back the horse by the way so not pocket talking
I too have given up on the flat as it is impossible to predict. Some of the results sometimes beggar belief.
Jwala winning the Nunthorpe just one that springs to mind.
So many seem to pull or get boxed in, in 5/6/7 runner races, extraordnary.
Roll on the jumpsMosse not so good on Saturday in the G3 Superior Mile at York though. Tracked Hughes on the odds on fav Montiridge. Unfortunately Hughes’s mount wasn’t going and Mosse gave his mount to much to do in the ground.
I agree that there have been some bad flat rides this season. Hughes and Spencer overcomplicated things at Royal Ascot (Hughes at least had the good grace to own up and apologise). Spencer also gave his mount too much to do at Beverley Sat before last.
Moore tends to ride simpler races but admitted he should have won outright on Integral at Sandown.
Pundit Graham Cunningham has promised to highlight "bad rides"- let’s wait and see!My tweet just after the race: "I hate criticising jocks but Lane must have thought he was on a Group 1 horse there – he took a pull when last 5 out!"
I very rarely have a go at jockeys, and yes, I had what for me was a pretty big bet on the horse, which, to be fair to the animal was smarter than his rider as he realised at the 5f point he should be getting into it, then Lane hauled him back – one of the oddest manoeuvres I’ve seen on a racecourse.
I think G Cunningham is fairly astute most of the time, but his dismissive comment ‘Cafe Society was out in plenty time and just couldn’t get there’ was nonsensical.
Given the substantial gamble on the horse, why wasn’t Lane in front of the stewards to explain the ride?
Not the biggest expert on the flat but watching more closely this year and it has struck me just how tactical it is. It has also struck me how some jockeys really do like coming from off the pace while the likes of Kinane were always pretty uncomplicated.
Interestingly some people used to call Eddery pockets because he wasn’t afraid to hold one up either. Perhaps the problem is that too many are trying it these days??
Maybe I’m being harsh but I thought Kenhope got a poor ride at leopardstown. The jock just seemed a bit lost
SHL
Ginger, we touched on the Aegaeus win on the other thread and you could have done every bit of homework possible but only inside knowledge would have told you the horse was going to be ridden from the front let alone go on to win.
That is BS Stilvi.
My homework before the 4:40 Goodwood gave each horse’s usual style of racing as:Mutual Regard: Held up/tracks pace
Broxbourne: Held up
Mawaqeet: Held up/dropped out
Arch Vilain: Held up/dropped out
Waterclock: Held up
Martin Chuzzlewit: Held up/tracks pace
Ray Ward: Held up/dropped out
Aquilonius: Front Runner
Argent Knight: Held up/tracks paceNo need for "inside knowledge" to tell you Aquilonius was probably going to be "ridden from the front" Stilvi. He’d made the running on all his latest 4 starts and raced prominently before that. No other horse in the race was suited by even racing prominently, let alone leading. So there was a large probability Aquilonius would be able to dictate the pace and be in the right place to kick for home. Of course that does not mean he was going to win; but it did mean his chance was much greater than the market suggested.
Check the runners out for yourself if you don’t believe me Stilvi.
Value Is EverythingNo harm in connections trying a change of tactic, worked for Margot Did.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Not the biggest expert on the flat but watching more closely this year and it has struck me just how tactical it is. It has also struck me how some jockeys really do like coming from off the pace while the likes of Kinane were always pretty uncomplicated.
Interestingly some people used to call Eddery pockets because he wasn’t afraid to hold one up either. Perhaps the problem is that too many are trying it these days??
Maybe I’m being harsh but I thought Kenhope got a poor ride at leopardstown. The jock just seemed a bit lost
It is what the horse likes to do that dictates how it is ridden and/or how its rivals like to be ridden. Not what the jockey wants to do. However, some jockeys are better than others at adapting to different pace circumstances and/or not afraid to go against orders if needs be. eg A good jockey may know the horse likes to be held up for a late run; but if it turns in to a slowly run race he/she will try and get closer to the front before the pace quickens.
I totally agree with your assessment of Jarnet on Kenhope SHL. Although known as a hold up horse should’ve got closer earlier and still on the bridle as others had already kicked for home.
Value Is EverythingI think G Cunningham is fairly astute most of the time, but his dismissive comment ‘Cafe Society was out in plenty time and just couldn’t get there’ was nonsensical.
Correct, despite having tipped it on the Morning Line I think it highly likely he didn’t back it and was just pleased it was out of the frame. Hard to envisage anyone backing it would be satisfied with the ride let alone connections.
I’d be gutted if I owned it for it to receive to such a bad and hard ride for nothing.
Even croc noticed the slow pace during the race, the last place you want to be in a slowly run race is where Cafe Society was, did David Simcock really tell the jockey to drop him out a long last whatever?
To make your effort at the start of Ascot’s short straight was ridiculous, despite an uninterrupted passage he didn’t even get close or placed, Cafe Society’s legs literally couldn’t go quick enough.
"So much to do so little time to do it"Stewards should have definitely had trainer and jockey in and asked them to explain the ride, why shouldn’t punters and racegoers know the reasons or excuses for the ill judged ride?
Ginger, we touched on the Aegaeus win on the other thread and you could have done every bit of homework possible but only inside knowledge would have told you the horse was going to be ridden from the front let alone go on to win.
That is BS Stilvi.
My homework before the 4:40 Goodwood gave each horse’s usual style of racing as:Mutual Regard: Held up/tracks pace
Broxbourne: Held up
Mawaqeet: Held up/dropped out
Arch Vilain: Held up/dropped out
Waterclock: Held up
Martin Chuzzlewit: Held up/tracks pace
Ray Ward: Held up/dropped out
Aquilonius: Front Runner
Argent Knight: Held up/tracks paceNo need for "inside knowledge" to tell you Aquilonius was probably going to be "ridden from the front" Stilvi. He’d made the running on all his latest 4 starts and raced prominently before that. No other horse in the race was suited by even racing prominently, let alone leading. So there was a large probability Aquilonius would be able to dictate the pace and be in the right place to kick for home. Of course that does not mean he was going to win; but it did mean his chance was much greater than the market suggested.
Check the runners out for yourself if you don’t believe me Stilvi.
Always best to read posts properly before sounding off. I think you will find I haven’t referred to the above race at all.
Since you mention it I believe you backed four of the nine runners which to most people would suggest you really didn’t have particular confidence in any of your selections. How long do you think Pricewise would last if he did something similar? On this occasion you benefitted from inept jockeyship – well done. My view is on a daily basis and given the time they have available the vast majority of punters will not and they would be better off swerving the Flat.
All the information you needed for my race was:-
Aegaeus – Held up
Mosse not so good on Saturday in the G3 Superior Mile at York though. Tracked Hughes on the odds on fav Montiridge. Unfortunately Hughes’s mount wasn’t going and Mosse gave his mount to much to do in the ground.
I agree that there have been some bad flat rides this season. Hughes and Spencer overcomplicated things at Royal Ascot (Hughes at least had the good grace to own up and apologise). Spencer also gave his mount too much to do at Beverley Sat before last.
Moore tends to ride simpler races but admitted he should have won outright on Integral at Sandown.
Pundit Graham Cunningham has promised to highlight "bad rides"- let’s wait and see!Interesting you should mention that Haydock race. On any previous form it looked a match between the two at the head of the market. For me alarm bells were ringing very loudly for the chances of both after not much more than a furlong. The favourite has ultimately run a shocker and Tawhid although not best positioned has never really travelled despite the expectation he would like the ground. I would file him firmly in the bookmaker’s friend category. As for the winner he had previously been beaten by Breden who was subsequently beaten when a heavily backed favourite in another farcical race at Sandown. What price would he have been had Top Notch won this beforehand and indeed what price would Saturday’s winner have been if Breden had justified favouritism?
Spencer, Hughes, and Moore are essentially hold-up jockeys although Hughes in my opinion will do so from a position closer to the pace. I think Moore is often rescued by a strong book of rides allowing the odd winner to overshadow the poor rides from off the pace. I don’t think I could name one jockey who is consistently effective riding from the front.
Not the biggest expert on the flat but watching more closely this year and it has struck me just how tactical it is. It has also struck me how some jockeys really do like coming from off the pace while the likes of Kinane were always pretty uncomplicated.
Interestingly some people used to call Eddery pockets because he wasn’t afraid to hold one up either. Perhaps the problem is that too many are trying it these days??
Maybe I’m being harsh but I thought Kenhope got a poor ride at leopardstown. The jock just seemed a bit lost
It is what the horse likes to do that dictates how it is ridden and/or how its rivals like to be ridden. Not what the jockey wants to do. However, some jockeys are better than others at adapting to different pace circumstances and/or not afraid to go against orders if needs be. eg A good jockey may know the horse likes to be held up for a late run; but if it turns in to a slowly run race he/she will try and get closer to the front before the pace quickens.
I totally agree with your assessment of Jarnet on Kenhope SHL. Although known as a hold up horse should’ve got closer earlier and still on the bridle as others had already kicked for home.
Im aware of the concept and Im sure thats what the jockeys would say but really is there enough evidence for many of these drop out horses to show they really should be that far back?? Im dubious about that. Also anchoring yourself last of 15 is a different drop out than 8 of 15 i imagine. Is that an interpretation that differs among some of the jocks?
I think what Im saying is that alot of these horses are being ridden like they are Dancing Brave in the Arc or in the assumption that the big hold up is the best chance of getting them a place. Jockeys will often talk about riding a horse to get a place which doesn’t contradict the rule of achieving the best possible place but would make me uneasy as a punter.
SHL
Mosse not so good on Saturday in the G3 Superior Mile at York though. Tracked Hughes on the odds on fav Montiridge. Unfortunately Hughes’s mount wasn’t going and Mosse gave his mount to much to do in the ground.
I agree that there have been some bad flat rides this season. Hughes and Spencer overcomplicated things at Royal Ascot (Hughes at least had the good grace to own up and apologise). Spencer also gave his mount too much to do at Beverley Sat before last.
Moore tends to ride simpler races but admitted he should have won outright on Integral at Sandown.
Pundit Graham Cunningham has promised to highlight "bad rides"- let’s wait and see!Totally agree re Mosse. Tawhid is a horse that doesn’t have a turn of foot but stays well why the hell he was held up at the back of the field I will never know. Either Mosse was riding to orders or he didn’t know his horse.
Ginger, we touched on the Aegaeus win on the other thread and you could have done every bit of homework possible but only inside knowledge would have told you the horse was going to be ridden from the front let alone go on to win.
That is BS Stilvi.
My homework before the 4:40 Goodwood gave each horse’s usual style of racing as:Mutual Regard: Held up/tracks pace
Broxbourne: Held up
Mawaqeet: Held up/dropped out
Arch Vilain: Held up/dropped out
Waterclock: Held up
Martin Chuzzlewit: Held up/tracks pace
Ray Ward: Held up/dropped out
Aquilonius: Front Runner
Argent Knight: Held up/tracks paceNo need for "inside knowledge" to tell you Aquilonius was probably going to be "ridden from the front" Stilvi. He’d made the running on all his latest 4 starts and raced prominently before that. No other horse in the race was suited by even racing prominently, let alone leading. So there was a large probability Aquilonius would be able to dictate the pace and be in the right place to kick for home. Of course that does not mean he was going to win; but it did mean his chance was much greater than the market suggested.
Check the runners out for yourself if you don’t believe me Stilvi.
Always best to read posts properly before sounding off. I think you will find I haven’t referred to the above race at all.
Since you mention it I believe you backed four of the nine runners which to most people would suggest you really didn’t have particular confidence in any of your selections. How long do you think Pricewise would last if he did something similar? On this occasion you benefitted from inept jockeyship – well done. My view is on a daily basis and given the time they have available the vast majority of punters will not and they would be better off swerving the Flat.
All the information you needed for my race was:-
Aegaeus – Held up
My apologies Stilvi.
It was indeed difficult for punters to predict Aegaeus front running. It is true that the horse had often been held up, but last time out at Newcastle despite "dwelt" was raced prominently, tracking pace
and
took it up some way out. But after taking a "
keen hold
" that day in
first time blinkers in a strongly run race
– not surprisingly had nothing left, weakening to finish last. Probably was in
better form
than last of 9 suggested.
With blinkers left off, settling far better, front running in a slowly run race – brought about a return to form.
Having now
gone through the 8:30 Kempton: Although you would not at first think Aegaeus was a likely pace setter Stilvi, who else was going to lead? May be Tingo In The Tale was more likely, had front run twice before, but it wasn’t a usual thing, normally tracks pace. But being drawnwidest of all
, connections probably thought they’d better take a pull, not wishing to expend energy getting around the whole field to lead. Infinite Hope usually "tracks pace", but had
never
actually front run. And Royal Dutch had tracked pace last time out, but that was not his normal style.
All
other horses were usually held up or dropped out. So there was
NO
confirmed
front runner
in the race. Someone had to lead and from
stall 1
Ryan Moore took the bull by the horns.
I am not saying punters should have known Aegaeus would do what he did, but at least it was a possibility. What is evident is anyone backing a hold up horse in the race should have taken in to account the likelyhood of likely pace not suiting. When there is no confirmed front runner in a race there is a strong probability of a slowly run race which will be against those held up.
I do believe there are more horses capable of changing their styles of racing than many trainers seem to believe. In my opinion it is the pace of race that is important. ie When a horse wins a strongly run race by being held up for a late run – they seem to believe the horse needs to be held up to show its form. Of course there are some that do; but how many times is it the strongly run race it needed, not necessarily the "held up"?
Jockeys are given orders, they may be told by a trainer/connections "she needs to be held up for a late run, so settle her in". Except for the top jocks – most up and coming jockeys are reluctant to go against orders, otherwise they could lose the ride or even their job. After doing what the trainer has told him/her – they’re in a poor position. But what is the jockey then supposed to do? There are horses in front so nowhere to go, or does he sweep around the outside, giving away valuable ground? If doing the latter and the pace picks up (as often happens) he’s then done the wrong thing again.
So to blame the jockeys is not always fair. Sometimes, yes the jockey could have done better. But sometimes we as punters should accept the pace was not in the horse’s favour. And sometimes (though may be not in Aegaeus case) we should be able to predict horses that will be favoured by how the pace will go.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.