Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Good stuff, VTC. I’ll be doing the race later in the week so in the meantime I hope it all goes as per your thinking.
By the way, I tried to watch the C4 programme at on-demand. What a disaster area that is!
First I had to register just to view then it took an age to load, then I had to suffer adverts that I could not skip, then when I tried to move the programme on a bit it just kept taking me to adverts that were due to last anything up to five minutes.
I fired an email off to C4 but don’t imagine I’ll get much satisfaction.
Well, surely they’ll only look stupid if he doesn’t win? In the meantime they’re maybe better described as optimistic.
I don’t recall Hannon using such strength of opinion regarding his previous Guineas runners, and he’s been involved with quite a few winners of the race.
Estidhkaar might not have the form in the book but what else does? And, having been involved with previous winners of the race, I would imagine he has a fair idea of what it takes to win it.
I read elsewhere that Hannon’s horses are all running as though they will improve a lot for their debut but there’s no doubt Estidhkaar is bred to be much better when he gets to race further. I reckon it’s as much to do with that as Hannon’s comments. While I agree it isn’t always the most prudent thing to do to follow a trainer’s remark, I think you have to put the remark into some kind of context.
Would I set any store by anything Tony Martin or Michael Stoute or Johnjo O’Neill said? No.
But when was the last time Hannon said something as categorical that turned out not to be the case. Last year when pressed about the relative merits of Ivawood and Estidkhaar he seemed genuinely unable to split them when everyone was apparently pushing for him to nominate Ivawood. He eventually said something along the lines of Ivawood being a horse for now while Estidhkaar was always going to be much better at three.
The quote about Estidhkaar wasn’t misheard. One of the C4 team – I thought it was Cunningham but it might have been Harding – seemed at pains to emphasise the importance of Hannon’s words. “Richard Hannon says Estidhkaar will win the Guineas.” I might go to 4od to check it again.
I took Estidhkaar at 25/1 after it won last summer (good rating backed up by a good time) and went in again on Saturday morning at the same price in anticipation of a win. Disappointed he didn’t win so Hannon’s comment certainly caught my attention and he appears to have developed quite an impetus in the market.
The bummer is that I also had him in an each-way double with Cursory Glance (20/1) for the 1000G.
The assertion (When a race is run at a faster speed (despite the longer trip) it can not be as stamina sapping) is wrong. The faster you run the more energy you expend therefore over a distance the more stamina you require (but most will run out of energy long before that and pull up).
Ever tried running on a treadmill at an even 8 mph? How long did you last? Try it if you haven’t. Then up it to 9mph and see how long you last.
Why do think Broadway Buffalo stopped as if shot late on in the race on Saturday when at Cheltenham he was finishing strongly? He was reserving energy – stamina – last month by racing conservatively. On Saturday he was given a more prominent ride and fell apart. He ran out of energy/stamina.
The average speed per furlong at Aintree is slower anyway. Plus, there are fewer bends on the GN course so the pace doesn’t slow up as much as at sharper tracks. The round mile at Ascot, for example, is slower than the straight one. Despite this, the pace is still slower at Aintree.
Here are the old Standard times for the marathon trips at a number of courses. I’ve been using these times (tweaked for the subsequent variations in distances) rather than the current ones which are inaccurate and still evolving. (I was losing money when I switched to them and got back in front when I went back to the old times.)
Aintree 4m 4f: 9m 2s (15.47 spf)
Ayr 4m 1f: 8m 6s (14.72)
Bangor 4m 1f: 8m 11s (14.87)
Carlisle 3m 4f: 7m 2s (15.07 – a notoriously ‘stiff’ course)
Catterick 3m 6f: 7m 47s (15.56)
Cheltenham (O) 4m: 7m 56s (14.87)
Cheltenham (N) 4m 1f: 8m 11s (14.87)
Chepstow 3m 5.5f: 7m 20s (14.91)
Exeter 3m 6f: 7m 20s (14.66)That’s just A-E. Catterick has the reputation of being a very sharp track – lots of sharp turns – hence the slower average speed.
Newcastle, since you mention it, 4m 1f: 8m 16s (15.03)
Only 0.44 spf of a difference with Aintree, I hear you say. That’s equivalent to more or less two lengths. Per furlong. Over 32f that’s over 60 lengths. 180-ish yards. Not far off a furlong. That’s how far ahead they’d be at Newcastle at the 4m mark compared to Aintree.
If that were the case, why doesn’t the handicapper make similar allowances in races such as the Scottish and Welsh Nationals, Eider Chase etc.?
It seems crazy that he is allowed to effectively ‘play God’ for this one race every year.
Apologies for taking so long to get back on this one. The reason similar allowances aren’t made in the other marathons is that we aren’t comparing like with like. The Welsh national, for example, is only 3m5f. That’s a sprint by comparison. The Scottish National and the Eider are only 4m on easier tracks with easier fences.
At Aintree, the nature of the track means they are galloping without breathers round bends for much longer than on more conventional tracks. That requires more stamina. The Aintree fences are bigger and broader than elsewhere, requiring more energy – therefore stamina – to negotiate all of them at the stronger gallop. Every pound carried in the last half-mile in the Grand National requires more stamina than in the last half-mile of the other marathon races. That’s why the handicapper makes the allowance for them.
This has always been my understanding anyway but I see this debate is also taking place on other fora so I intend writing directly to Mr Smith to ask him to publicise his rationale in treating this one race differently.
If he says it is simply to tempt better class horses to run then I will concede he is being unfair but he isn’t the type to act on a whim.
I’ll let you know if he replies.
Ayr 2.00 Top Gamble
Ayr 2.35 Sign Of A Victory (nap)
Ayr 3.10 Strongpoint
Ayr 3.45 Broadway BuffaloThanks, folks. I wasn’t aware. I backed her last year ante-post singly and in an ew double with Estidkhaar for the 2000.
Anyone heard anything about Cursory Glance? Just noticed she isn’t in the betting for the Guineas.
Fair point, moehat. Age is a matter of perspective, though. I don’t consider myself old but many others might!
Most Grand National winners don’t have the same scope for further improvement that the progressive 8 year old Many Clouds has. It’s precisely the fact so many punters are put off by stats like this that makes Many Clouds a good value bet @ 25/1.
The last 8yo to win was also deemed progressive, Bindaree, but he went up 11lbs, was beaten 40L off 7lbs higher (MC territory) the following year and had to come back down another 9lbs to win again.
The one before that, Party Politics, won off 153 and went up 9lbs for it. He was PU in his next two runs before returning to winning form off his new mark and went into the next National off 166 and was sent off 7/1f (!). That, I presume is where many people see Many Clouds’ future. Party Politics was PU in what was the void National. He did win the following season’s Rehearsal Chase off 159 but didn’t run again that season and never won again off lower marks.
I’m more inclined to believe Many Clouds will be campaigned with the 2017 National in mind rather than next year’s. I reckon a year off to rest, recuperate enjoy life and return with a hurdles campaign ahead of the national could see him get back in off the same or even a lower mark.
if he were mine, that would be the plan.
Ask the owners of Suny Bay how they feel having lost out under top weight when they’d get in nowadays off 5lbs lower.
Ask the owners of Wayward Lad how they feel about the mare’s allowance that allowed Dawn Run to beat the best 3m chaser of his generation. (And nowadays it’s 2lbs more.)
Ask any loser of any big handicap how they feel if they’re beaten by a horse ridden by a brilliant claimer worth more than his allowance.
I disagree that it’s “the subjective whims of the handicapper” at play. As I said earlier, the nature of this one race historically disadvantaged the higher weights because the weight has a greater impact the further they go. Try holding a can of beans straight out at arm’s length. For the first wee while it won’t be a problem. See how long you can keep it there before the pain gets too much to bear. It’s physics. The handicapper is trying to address the issue this phenomenon creates, which makes it fair.
I’m staying at home (near Hamilton) this year. I was at the meeting either last year or the year before and hated the place. I hate what they’ve done to the area under the stands, turning it into a massive bar with squelchy carpets and guys in Next suits two sizes too small and size 16 women trying and failing to get into size 12 outfits, all of them seemingly the worse for wear and tear by race 2. These people make My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding look like a high-class fashion show.
Shame, ‘cos the racing is usually good fare but I suppose these people are where the real money comes back to the course from, whereas I’ll have a bite either in Macdonalds or Tesco just outside the course before I go in and don’t drink (‘cos I drive), so all they get from me is the admission money (which is extortionate that day anyway).
By the way, despite this rant and the alleged downer I have on Many Clouds, I’m actually quite a cheery chappie!
Something that occurred to me in bed last night (!) is that I think you have to go back a very long way to find a Grand National winner that won another race. I’d be pretty certain someone on here will know the exact situation. As I said, I’m very dismissive of stats but there’s probably a very good reason for this one. I think the Gold Cup takes its toll too.
“Although Many Clouds weight carried will only be 1 lb more (11-09 to 11-10), his mark will need to be put up significantly and the difference in weight much greater. Will be interesting to see if Phil Smith can get away with putting Saint Are up more than Many Clouds!
How silly! How can that be justified Maurice? “ [Gingertipster]Brilliant question.
Many Clouds can’t be asked to carry any more than 11-10 as that’s the ceiling. If he’s still rated 167 next year he’ll probably get into the race off something like 164 to tempt him to run. If he was raised 7lbs for Saturday, I imagine Saint Are will be raised 4lbs so the question is entirely pertinent and is one which no doubt Mr Smith will spend some time debating with himself. I don’t imagine there’s any way Saint Are will be worse off with Many Clouds next year but there’s a lot of racing to be done in the meantime. What if Saint Are comes out and maintains its curve to the point that it’s already rated a stone higher than now at the time the weights are to be announced. Saturday’s race will then be irrelevant. Then again, suppose MC improves and SA doesn’t? What if MC comes out and wins the Hennessy off top weight? That would put him in the 175+ bracket. That would most certainly make the National handicap interesting as he’d probably have to let him in off 170, which would send many out of the handicap and would probably work in MC’s favour again. That would make the 25/1 more attractive (to me) than it is at the moment.
But given that there are so many imponderables in the meantime, a policy of wait and see is probably the prudent one.
Thanks to everyone for rescuing the discussion and bringing it back to an absorbing analytical debate.
A few more observations in answer to some of the point raised:
My detailed analyses of the Grand National go back many, many years. On the scale I use – and I would emphasise at this stage that we’re talking about the scale I use – it would be rare for a winner of the race to run less than 12lbs above its OR. Pineau De Re, for example, ran 16lbs above last year but the handicapper only put him up 8lbs (still more than MC so arguably rated him a better winner) and even the third, Double Seven (anyone remember him?), the 10/1jf, ran 13lbs better.
The year before, Auroras Encore was 13lbs well in on my figures and won the race by running to the same mark as when beaten in a photo in the Ayr National off 4lbs higher. RPRs went 2lbs better!
It would have been hard to imagine anything bettering those two marks so I wouldn’t conclude that the race ‘fell into their lap’ regardless of what may have happened to others during the race.
Looking back through the history of the race, right now I can’t think of any winner who didn’t hit a mark of 12lbs or more above its OR. I tend to hold off on my final figures until I’ve got the paper copy of the form book in front of me but my initial reaction is that Many Clouds has run 10lbs better than its OR, which is bang on what I anticipated. I just anticipated three or four hitting 12 or more. That’s why I can’t help but conclude that it was a substandard result – hence taking a step beyond that and using the phrase ‘fell into its lap’. I can’t help thinking if they ran the race again in six months time off the exact same weights, Many Clouds probably wouldn’t win.
Another thing I should add is that my approach to this race is different from any other. It is a unique test and requires a unique approach so I don’t use ‘normal’ handicapping methods. At the same time, though, I’m not a great believer in trends. The one thing I’ve argued for many years is that you can forget the trends; if a horse is badly handicapped no trend will make it win. Surely anyone who follows trends will have dismissed Many Clouds very early in their deliberations. He was a very late dismissal for me purely on that ’10lbs’ figure. To me it just wasn’t enough given the class of opposition.
As for First Lieutenant, the jockey had nothing to do with it for me but there’s no doubt that was a factor in his price (I was on at 33/1). This was a horse who once had an OR of 170 but was now off 154 and who had looked on the way back around Christmas time. I attributed his subsequent moderate run to connections’ desire to get him into the race off a good mark and his one run after the weights came out was over hurdles to keep him fresh. In fact, strip out that run and twelve of his previous 13 races were Grade 1s.
How silly! How can that be justified Maurice? “ [Gingertipster]