- This topic has 104 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yep he’d have won on sheer class. Ability wise he had so much in hand he’d have won comfortably.
He reminds me a little bit of El Gran Senor who came so close to winning on class alone in 1984, only Frankel had even more class.
If there was a direct link between class and stamina, every dominant 2000 Guineas winner would go on to win the Derby. Frankel never did anything that suggested anything other than a mile was his best trip, and in the race that tested his stamina most he looked ordinary by his own imperious standards.
I suspect that if Henry Cecil sat down and told Khalid Abdullah that they were going to take Frankel to Epsom because he thought "sheer class will get him through it" then he would no longer be the trainer by Monday morning of the next week.
Please give Sir Henry a little bit of credit for knowing what was best for the horse. This carry on about hosing the race makes as much sense as Big Mac giving Twiggy tips on weight loss.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Having made the trip down from Scotland to Ascot to witness the great horse himself in his last ever race, I feel that I can offer a little first hand perspective on this issue.
The ground was very soft that day, so a stamina sapping 10f.
Frankel cruised to the front, but his speed was blunted slightly by the mud. He cruised past Cirrus but then as soon as Queally asked for more he came off the bridle for the first time. By the line he was close to running on empty. He did not have much in reserve, and had this race been over 12f Cirrus would have stayed on and beaten him I reckon.
Having said all that, the Derby was not run on soft ground, but on firm. And it did not have a horse the calibre of Cirrus. Personally having seen him run a soft ground 10f I doubt he had the class to compensate for a lack of stamina over 12f. Over a mile the horse was great, but lets not pretend he could have been great over a distance he never tried, and for good reason.
Just my observations
I was also at Ascot that day and I would beg to differ. Cirrus Des Aigles didn’t make any ground on him in the last furlong. If anything, if you look closely, the distance between Frankel and Cirrus at the line was actually bigger than what it was at the last furlong pole albeit very slightly. This is further supported by the time sectionals from RUK (12.68-12.26-12.07-11.91). Frankel went quicker for every single furlong, with the last one being the quickest. So, he was hardly running on empty. In fact, that last furlong was even quicker than what Cirrus and So You Think finished in the same race the year before, and that was on good ground (I was there for that one as well, Champions Day is my new favorite racing day). I can see your point from a visual impression perspective, but I don’t think visual impression paints a very accurate picture in this case.
And, as you said, that race was run in stamina-sapping conditions and in that respect was a bit more than your usual 1m2f. It must also be noted that Frankel won on around 2100m at York, going further and further away from a confirmed 1m4f horse in St Nicholas Abbey. But coming back to the Ascot race, Cirrus Des Aigles was arguably the best heavy ground horse in the world up to that point having won his last three races in such conditions by around 9 lengths every time. Yet, that day, Frankel got the better of the second highest rated horse in the world on his favorite ground and trip, making Frankel the best soft going horse around in spite of the fact he didn’t really relish such ground. We shouldn’t forget that Nathaniel, a confirmed 1m4f and soft going horse, was well beaten in third. Nathaniel was from the same classic season as Frankel and in my mind would have won the Derby had he shown up. After all, he did win a much better race than the Derby in the King George against St Nic, Workforce and the ill-fated Rewilding a few months later. Yet, even if there were two more furlongs in that testing ground on Champions Day, there was absolute no chance of Nathaniel coming back to beat Frankel.
So, to sum up, I do think Frankel would have won the Derby that year. It might not have been his best trip but he’s so far ahead of the likes of Treasure Beach that I cannot possibly imagine the latter reversing the 11 lengths beating he received in the Royal Lodge, irrespective of the distance. Even Carlton House ,who did not really stay the trip and is hardly a third the horse Frankel is, finished a decent fourth. As someone mentioned, I believe the only reason Frankel could have lost that race is not due to pulling or not staying but possibly the hard race he had in the Guineas, which is the very reason he could have lost the St James Palace in my mind. I know Queally came in for a lot of criticism that day, but tbh had they ridden that way without the Guineas beforehand, he would have completely routed them. If anything, the Guineas ride was probably the more suicidal ride of the two and did take a fair bit out of the horse. But, it’s a credit to the horse exceptional ability that even after these two hard races, he did what he did to Canford Cliffs in the Sussex.
Similar comments apply to the idiot who calls it a "shame" that he didn’t run. A senseless comment from someone with absolutely no understanding of the sport. What a pitifully stupid comment.
Did Dawn Approach’s spectacular fall from grace teach you nothing?
Steady on. Did Sea The Stars spectacular rise to fame teach YOU nothing?
Its all guesswork Jonibake as we agreed earlier, so theres no need to get personal with someone who would have liked the best 3yo to run in the best 3yo race.
I happen to think its a bit of a shame too, and although I’m no genius I understand the sport alright I reckon.
Similar comments apply to the idiot who calls it a "shame" that he didn’t run. A senseless comment from someone with absolutely no understanding of the sport. What a pitifully stupid comment.
Did Dawn Approach’s spectacular fall from grace teach you nothing?
Steady on. Did Sea The Stars spectacular rise to fame teach YOU nothing?
Its all guesswork Jonibake as we agreed earlier, so theres no need to get personal with someone who would have liked the best 3yo to run in the best 3yo race.
I happen to think its a bit of a shame too, and although I’m no genius I understand the sport alright I reckon.
Woah woah woah PC! There is a helluva difference between you saying that it was "a bit of a shame" from someone who comes on here and says that connections should have been "ashamed of themselves" no?! Pleeeease!
Is that not getting personal? Is that not a case of "steady on?"
Perhaps I should rein myself back when I read comments like that but I am sorry they do make my blood boil.
As for STS – well we have already been through that no? He had a very different racing style to Frankel. I think we can all say that he was a better middle distance horse than miler with much more of a Derby profile than Frankel. I think it is more sensible to compare two Dewhurst winners who were blessed with lots of speed than a horse who achieved by far his best ratings over further.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
What a bizarre comment Gladiateur. Why would anyone want a ready made excuse to avoid the Derby?
I think that the decision to try to retire the horse unbeaten was taken very early in his career.
Having made the trip down from Scotland to Ascot to witness the great horse himself in his last ever race, I feel that I can offer a little first hand perspective on this issue.
The ground was very soft that day, so a stamina sapping 10f.
Frankel cruised to the front, but his speed was blunted slightly by the mud. He cruised past Cirrus but then as soon as Queally asked for more he came off the bridle for the first time. By the line he was close to running on empty. He did not have much in reserve, and had this race been over 12f Cirrus would have stayed on and beaten him I reckon.
Having said all that, the Derby was not run on soft ground, but on firm. And it did not have a horse the calibre of Cirrus. Personally having seen him run a soft ground 10f I doubt he had the class to compensate for a lack of stamina over 12f. Over a mile the horse was great, but lets not pretend he could have been great over a distance he never tried, and for good reason.
Just my observations
I was also at Ascot that day and I would beg to differ. Cirrus Des Aigles didn’t make any ground on him in the last furlong.
If anything, if you look closely, the distance between Frankel and Cirrus at the line was actually bigger than what it was at the last furlong pole albeit very slightly. This is further supported by the time sectionals from RUK (12.68-12.26-12.07-11.91). Frankel went quicker for every single furlong, with the last one being the quickest. So, he was hardly running on empty. In fact, that last furlong was even quicker than what Cirrus and So You Think finished in the same race the year before, and that was on good ground (I was there for that one as well, Champions Day is my new favorite racing day). I can see your point from a visual impression perspective, but I don’t think visual impression paints a very accurate picture in this case.
And, as you said, that race was run in stamina-sapping conditions and in that respect was a bit more than your usual 1m2f. It must also be noted that Frankel won on around 2100m at York, going further and further away from a confirmed 1m4f horse in St Nicholas Abbey. But coming back to the Ascot race, Cirrus Des Aigles was arguably the best heavy ground horse in the world up to that point having won his last three races in such conditions by around 9 lengths every time. Yet, that day, Frankel got the better of the second highest rated horse in the world on his favorite ground and trip, making Frankel the best soft going horse around in spite of the fact he didn’t really relish such ground. We shouldn’t forget that Nathaniel, a confirmed 1m4f and soft going horse, was well beaten in third. Nathaniel was from the same classic season as Frankel and in my mind would have won the Derby had he shown up. After all, he did win a much better race than the Derby in the King George against St Nic, Workforce and the ill-fated Rewilding a few months later. Yet, even if there were two more furlongs in that testing ground on Champions Day, there was absolute no chance of Nathaniel coming back to beat Frankel.
So, to sum up, I do think Frankel would have won the Derby that year. It might not have been his best trip but he’s so far ahead of the likes of Treasure Beach that I cannot possibly imagine the latter reversing the 11 lengths beating he received in the Royal Lodge, irrespective of the distance. Even Carlton House ,who did not really stay the trip and is hardly a third the horse Frankel is, finished a decent fourth. As someone mentioned, I believe the only reason Frankel could have lost that race is not due to pulling or not staying but possibly the hard race he had in the Guineas, which is the very reason he could have lost the St James Palace in my mind. I know Queally came in for a lot of criticism that day, but tbh had they ridden that way without the Guineas beforehand, he would have completely routed them. If anything, the Guineas ride was probably the more suicidal ride of the two and did take a fair bit out of the horse. But, it’s a credit to the horse exceptional ability that even after these two hard races, he did what he did to Canford Cliffs in the Sussex.
So was I and I make you 100% correct.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/ChristopherPHammond/champion3_zps5d7120d8.jpg
I think it is more sensible to compare two Dewhurst winners who were blessed with lots of speed than a horse who achieved by far his best ratings over further.
Ok – lets add Sir Percy and New Approach in to the mix then too if we are cherry picking.
What a bizarre comment Gladiateur. Why would anyone want a ready made excuse to avoid the Derby?
I think that the decision to try to retire the horse unbeaten was taken very early in his career.
Oh I see. I suppose that is why they kept him in training then.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I think it is more sensible to compare two Dewhurst winners who were blessed with lots of speed than a horse who achieved by far his best ratings over further.
Ok – lets add Sir Percy and New Approach in to the mix then too if we are cherry picking.
You and I seem to clash a lot PC. Not sure why.
Who is cherry picking? The question in this thread has clearly been asked in light of what happened to DA and the comparisons that have been drawn between those two specific horses. That is why I am talking about DA. And anyway how can you compare two horses who were beaten in the Guineas and then stepped up in trip to win the Derby and who never ran over a mile again in their careers to horses like Frankel and DA?
Listen you can throw hundreds of horses at me if you like. There have been many who have run in the Guineas and then in the Derby. Some have done well others have failed. What does it matter? There were grave doubts that Frankel would get the trip and Sir H was saying that long before the Guineas. The Guineas confirmed to him that, at that point in time, his horse was not going to be suited to a mile and a half. I am sure he would have LOVED that not to be the case and have a crack at the Derby because, as you say, it is the best 3 yr old race and a race I am sure he would desperately like to win for his owner. But Sir H did what he thought was the best thing for his horse. Not the best thing for him – he would want to win the Derby. Not for his owner – he would want to win the Derby. But for the horse. And he did that because he has over 40 years experience, because he saw that horse every single day and because he knew what was best for him at that time in his career.
If you don’t agree with it that is fine but for people to say that somehow Sir H should be ashamed of himself and for you to agree with that is a head scratcher for me. There were perfectly valid reasons for the decision and I am sure if you were to ask most professional observers they would say he did exactly the right thing.
Gladiateur now seems to be holding the fact that he retired unbeaten against Sir H as well! That he only ran him in races he was sure he would win I suppose. Well, apart from the Greenham, Frankel ran in 10 Group 1 races in a row. Group 1 races. He ran in The Champion against a mud machine on mud over 10f. Surely if there was so much riding on them preserving an unbeaten record he would have been withdrawn that day?
I like the questions raised by the OP of this thread but does it really mean we have to start judging and abusing those who made the decisions at the time? The question is would he have won the Derby? Not is Sir H a bottler or a shirker or someone who should be ashamed of himself.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I think it is more sensible to compare two Dewhurst winners who were blessed with lots of speed than a horse who achieved by far his best ratings over further.
Ok – lets add Sir Percy and New Approach in to the mix then too if we are cherry picking.
You and I seem to clash a lot PC. Not sure why.
Who is cherry picking? The question in this thread has clearly been asked in light of what happened to DA and the comparisons that have been drawn between those two specific horses. That is why I am talking about DA. And anyway how can you compare two horses who were beaten in the Guineas and then stepped up in trip to win the Derby and who never ran over a mile again in their careers to horses like Frankel and DA?
Listen you can throw hundreds of horses at me if you like. There have been many who have run in the Guineas and then in the Derby. Some have done well others have failed. What does it matter? There were grave doubts that Frankel would get the trip and Sir H was saying that long before the Guineas. The Guineas confirmed to him that, at that point in time, his horse was not going to be suited to a mile and a half. I am sure he would have LOVED that not to be the case and have a crack at the Derby because, as you say, it is the best 3 yr old race and a race I am sure he would desperately like to win for his owner. But Sir H did what he thought was the best thing for his horse. Not the best thing for him – he would want to win the Derby. Not for his owner – he would want to win the Derby. But for the horse. And he did that because he has over 40 years experience, because he saw that horse every single day and because he knew what was best for him at that time in his career.
If you don’t agree with it that is fine but for people to say that somehow Sir H should be ashamed of himself and for you to agree with that is a head scratcher for me. There were perfectly valid reasons for the decision and I am sure if you were to ask most professional observers they would say he did exactly the right thing.
Gladiateur now seems to be holding the fact that he retired unbeaten against Sir H as well! That he only ran him in races he was sure he would win I suppose. Well, apart from the Greenham, Frankel ran in 10 Group 1 races in a row. Group 1 races. He ran in The Champion against a mud machine on mud over 10f. Surely if there was so much riding on them preserving an unbeaten record he would have been withdrawn that day?
I like the questions raised by the OP of this thread but does it really mean we have to start judging and abusing those who made the decisions at the time? The question is would he have won the Derby? Not is Sir H a bottler or a shirker or someone who should be ashamed of himself.
I’m sure we clash when our opinions differ, but surely differing opinions is what makes for horse racing?
Its nothing personal i assure you – the above is a good post, and I generally feel you argue your case in a fair manner, as I hope you feel I do.
The fact is I completely disagree with your assertion that Dawn Approaches unfortunate flop, somehow gives Frankels connection further justification for not taking in either the Derby or The Arc. That is cherry picking, and is the reason I’ve chucked a few other examples back your way.
Cracking debate as usual. My two pence worth….
Who would you say were the top middle distance 3 year olds during that year ? Pour Moi ? Nathaniel ?
I too was there on Champions Day. Frankel finished 4+ lengths ahead of Nathaniel over 10F on very heavy ground. And that was after nearly falling asleep in the starting stalls. I can only think that that winning margin would have been greater on faster ground as it was at Epsom.
Although I appreciate that this all happened over a year after Epsom.
Nobody can be 100% certain. But if you were to put a gun to my head and I had to choose correctly, I’d say Frankel would have won The Derby.
The horse was an absolute freak !
Oh I see. I suppose that is why they kept him in training then.
A very facile line of reasoning.
Connections knew that there wasn’t a horse around to challenge Feankel at a mile, which he why he was kept to that trip for much of his career. I believe (and I may well be wrong, but I’m going by what I’ve both read and heard) that they always thought that the only thing which could beat the horse was a lack of stamina, hence the decision never to test him at a mile and a half and to only run him twice at a mile and a quarter.
There is no criticism implied here- Frankel is Prince Khalid’s horse and the owner makes the decisions, after all- but it would’ve been nice to have seen the most talented flat racehorse of the modern era at least attempt to win the Derby and I have no doubts that the Frankel we saw pre-Guineas would’ve settled well enough to have won the Epsom race comfortably.
I’m sure we clash when our opinions differ, but surely differing opinions is what makes for horse racing?
Its nothing personal i assure you – the above is a good post, and I generally feel you argue your case in a fair manner, as I hope you feel I do.
The fact is I completely disagree with your assertion that Dawn Approaches unfortunate flop, somehow gives Frankels connection further justification for not taking in either the Derby or The Arc. That is cherry picking, and is the reason I’ve chucked a few other examples back your way.
Fair enough PC! Nothing personal here either my friend and yes your posts are very well reasoned.
I was not trying to cherry pick. Was just making the comparison as I believe the thread was started because of what happened to DA. I don’t think the connections of Frankel need any more justification for the way they handled his career – certainly not from me. I suppose what happened to DA at least to me showed the dangers of believing that a horse can simply turn up and win over any distance just because he is by far the best horse. It is not as simple as that as we saw last week. Of course we have no idea if the same would have happened to Frankel but it was an eye opener – at least to me!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I defer to nobody in my appreciation of Sir Henry Cecil’s training ability but remain firmly of the opinion that the decision to let Frankel blitz his Guineas field was deliberately designed to give connections a ready-made excuse to avoid the Derby. Had Frankel been ridden from behind (as he had been in all of his previous races) at Newmarket and won going away, the world and his wife would have been clamouring for the horse to tackle Epsom. By making all in the first classic of the season, connections knew that the media would be saying that there would be no chance of the horse lasting the Derby trip.
Really interesting point and in many ways I tend to agree with you, if Frankel was trained by Hannon and ridden by Hughes, I’d expect Hughes would have
tried
to drop him out and do his famous swoop late winning by 2 or 3 lengths. If Queally had have done this there would be as you say little doubting that there would be a public outcry for him to run in the Derby. The issue then would have been had he won the Derby which I personally think he would have, he’d have then most probably have been sent to the Arc were I could see him being beaten.
I’ll be a bit controversial here and may get slated for this but it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the Queen having a fancied runner in the Derby also forced
Sir
Henrys hand? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that one of the Royals representatives would have a word with the Owner / Trainer? Maybe I watch to many movies, but lets be honest our country is not whiter than white as unlikely as the above is would it really be a surprise if it were true?
I agree with most that Cecil was the most knowledgeable man when it came to Frankel and 99% of the time he had the horses best interests at heart but even he must now and then wonder what if.
The pace would have been slow and Frankel would have hated it. Like asking Usain Bolt to go the pace of a pensioner. For the sake of the horse, it was a good decision. Look at Dawn Approach now, we may not see him again until August, if ever.
Instead, he may have won the Irish 2000, St James Palace, Eclipse etc and his lasting legacy might have him as one of the greats. now, they hope to repair his confidence as he is still a very young horse. Why risk that with Frankel? If they felt there was a good chance, they would have gone for it. The trainers instinct is usually right. Jim Bolger’s instinct was not to run Dawn Approach, until Sheik Mo decided he wanted to.
Having made the trip down from Scotland to Ascot to witness the great horse himself in his last ever race, I feel that I can offer a little first hand perspective on this issue.
The ground was very soft that day, so a stamina sapping 10f.
Frankel cruised to the front, but his speed was blunted slightly by the mud. He cruised past Cirrus but then as soon as Queally asked for more he came off the bridle for the first time. By the line he was close to running on empty. He did not have much in reserve, and had this race been over 12f Cirrus would have stayed on and beaten him I reckon.
Having said all that, the Derby was not run on soft ground, but on firm. And it did not have a horse the calibre of Cirrus. Personally having seen him run a soft ground 10f I doubt he had the class to compensate for a lack of stamina over 12f. Over a mile the horse was great, but lets not pretend he could have been great over a distance he never tried, and for good reason.
Just my observations
I was also at Ascot that day and I would beg to differ. Cirrus Des Aigles didn’t make any ground on him in the last furlong. If anything, if you look closely, the distance between Frankel and Cirrus at the line was actually bigger than what it was at the last furlong pole albeit very slightly. This is further supported by the time sectionals from RUK (12.68-12.26-12.07-11.91). Frankel went quicker for every single furlong, with the last one being the quickest. So, he was hardly running on empty. In fact, that last furlong was even quicker than what Cirrus and So You Think finished in the same race the year before, and that was on good ground (I was there for that one as well, Champions Day is my new favorite racing day). I can see your point from a visual impression perspective, but I don’t think visual impression paints a very accurate picture in this case.
And, as you said, that race was run in stamina-sapping conditions and in that respect was a bit more than your usual 1m2f. It must also be noted that Frankel won on around 2100m at York, going further and further away from a confirmed 1m4f horse in St Nicholas Abbey. But coming back to the Ascot race, Cirrus Des Aigles was arguably the best heavy ground horse in the world up to that point having won his last three races in such conditions by around 9 lengths every time. Yet, that day, Frankel got the better of the second highest rated horse in the world on his favorite ground and trip, making Frankel the best soft going horse around in spite of the fact he didn’t really relish such ground. We shouldn’t forget that Nathaniel, a confirmed 1m4f and soft going horse, was well beaten in third. Nathaniel was from the same classic season as Frankel and in my mind would have won the Derby had he shown up. After all, he did win a much better race than the Derby in the King George against St Nic, Workforce and the ill-fated Rewilding a few months later. Yet, even if there were two more furlongs in that testing ground on Champions Day, there was absolute no chance of Nathaniel coming back to beat Frankel.
So, to sum up, I do think Frankel would have won the Derby that year. It might not have been his best trip but he’s so far ahead of the likes of Treasure Beach that I cannot possibly imagine the latter reversing the 11 lengths beating he received in the Royal Lodge, irrespective of the distance. Even Carlton House ,who did not really stay the trip and is hardly a third the horse Frankel is, finished a decent fourth. As someone mentioned, I believe the only reason Frankel could have lost that race is not due to pulling or not staying but possibly the hard race he had in the Guineas, which is the very reason he could have lost the St James Palace in my mind. I know Queally came in for a lot of criticism that day, but tbh had they ridden that way without the Guineas beforehand, he would have completely routed them. If anything, the Guineas ride was probably the more suicidal ride of the two and did take a fair bit out of the horse. But, it’s a credit to the horse exceptional ability that even after these two hard races, he did what he did to Canford Cliffs in the Sussex.
Okay fair point about the timings, and yes technically Frankel had pulled a tiny bit further away by the end. But I still maintain that by the line Frankel was off the bridle. Queally was pushing and shoving him and he was not going away in his usual gliding fashion. His stamina reserves were at their limit there. Just my opinion.
Having made the trip down from Scotland to Ascot to witness the great horse himself in his last ever race, I feel that I can offer a little first hand perspective on this issue.
The ground was very soft that day, so a stamina sapping 10f.
Frankel cruised to the front, but his speed was blunted slightly by the mud. He cruised past Cirrus but then as soon as Queally asked for more he came off the bridle for the first time. By the line he was close to running on empty. He did not have much in reserve, and had this race been over 12f Cirrus would have stayed on and beaten him I reckon.
Having said all that, the Derby was not run on soft ground, but on firm. And it did not have a horse the calibre of Cirrus. Personally having seen him run a soft ground 10f I doubt he had the class to compensate for a lack of stamina over 12f. Over a mile the horse was great, but lets not pretend he could have been great over a distance he never tried, and for good reason.
Just my observations
I was also at Ascot that day and I would beg to differ. Cirrus Des Aigles didn’t make any ground on him in the last furlong. If anything, if you look closely, the distance between Frankel and Cirrus at the line was actually bigger than what it was at the last furlong pole albeit very slightly. This is further supported by the time sectionals from RUK (12.68-12.26-12.07-11.91). Frankel went quicker for every single furlong, with the last one being the quickest. So, he was hardly running on empty. In fact, that last furlong was even quicker than what Cirrus and So You Think finished in the same race the year before, and that was on good ground (I was there for that one as well, Champions Day is my new favorite racing day). I can see your point from a visual impression perspective, but I don’t think visual impression paints a very accurate picture in this case.
And, as you said, that race was run in stamina-sapping conditions and in that respect was a bit more than your usual 1m2f. It must also be noted that Frankel won on around 2100m at York, going further and further away from a confirmed 1m4f horse in St Nicholas Abbey. But coming back to the Ascot race, Cirrus Des Aigles was arguably the best heavy ground horse in the world up to that point having won his last three races in such conditions by around 9 lengths every time. Yet, that day, Frankel got the better of the second highest rated horse in the world on his favorite ground and trip, making Frankel the best soft going horse around in spite of the fact he didn’t really relish such ground. We shouldn’t forget that Nathaniel, a confirmed 1m4f and soft going horse, was well beaten in third. Nathaniel was from the same classic season as Frankel and in my mind would have won the Derby had he shown up. After all, he did win a much better race than the Derby in the King George against St Nic, Workforce and the ill-fated Rewilding a few months later. Yet, even if there were two more furlongs in that testing ground on Champions Day, there was absolute no chance of Nathaniel coming back to beat Frankel.
So, to sum up, I do think Frankel would have won the Derby that year. It might not have been his best trip but he’s so far ahead of the likes of Treasure Beach that I cannot possibly imagine the latter reversing the 11 lengths beating he received in the Royal Lodge, irrespective of the distance. Even Carlton House ,who did not really stay the trip and is hardly a third the horse Frankel is, finished a decent fourth. As someone mentioned, I believe the only reason Frankel could have lost that race is not due to pulling or not staying but possibly the hard race he had in the Guineas, which is the very reason he could have lost the St James Palace in my mind. I know Queally came in for a lot of criticism that day, but tbh had they ridden that way without the Guineas beforehand, he would have completely routed them. If anything, the Guineas ride was probably the more suicidal ride of the two and did take a fair bit out of the horse. But, it’s a credit to the horse exceptional ability that even after these two hard races, he did what he did to Canford Cliffs in the Sussex.
Okay fair point about the timings, and yes technically Frankel had pulled a tiny bit further away by the end. But I still maintain that by the line Frankel was off the bridle. Queally was pushing and shoving him and he was not going away in his usual gliding fashion. His stamina reserves were at their limit there. Just my opinion.
Frankel didn’t like soft / heavy ground, he won despite it, the ground blunted his speed a bit like it did on his racecourse debut, nothing whatsoever to do with stamina.
There are some people out there that STILL don’t realise just how good Frankel was. Frankel vs Pour Moi / Treasure Beach over 12f? Come on seriously, who the hell would’ve laid him?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.