The Derby

[jinnyj]

I think Telecaster being a fairly big horse ran flat as a result of the three quick runs. I hope it hasn’t bottomed him but I would imagine Morrison will give him some time now. I don’t blame connections as there is only one Derby (Bloodstoock wise most important). I dearly hope that the three quick runs don’t catch up with Sir Dragonet too. He too is a fair size and he’s had to cope with a lot in a very short space of time. He had come on a huge amount since Chester which was no mean feat, as in both previous races it was easy for him and he had to learn to battle and gallop down a hill on fast ground, all of which he coped with. Added to that I hope he (and others aren’t jarred up on the quicker ground). I don’t think North Light ever really recovered. When he ran in the Irish Derby, he never stopped changing legs and looked v uncomfortable.

[LUKE]

The race reminded me of the year that Sir Percy won but ultimately Dylan Thomas was the best horse by far to come out of the race.Is AVD a brave and courageous battler or did he benefit from a pace collapse.

[reet hard]

Be interesting to see the sectionals, but I'd doubt there was a pace collapse, with questionable stayer Madhmoon finishing so well in 2nd.
For mine, they finished pretty quickly, and Telecaster - who ran well up to a point - just couldn't keep up with them from about 2 out. Maybe he lacked the speed, or was just plain knackered.

[wilsonl]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/memb...g-power/383733

Good article from the invariably excellent Lee Mottershead

[Desert Orchid]

According to Simon Rowlands, it looks like I was on the money with Pink Dogwood but he's saying AVD ran the sectionals pretty much spot on.

https://www.attheraces.com/blogs/sectional-spotlight

If I get some time this week I might see if I can get a comparison between Pink Dogwood and Kew Gardens.

[edgt]

Jim McGrath on Luck On Sunday this morning quoted Ryan Moore on C4 years ago saying Epsom Friday being a more difficult track to ride than Saturday owing to the false rail keeping horses further out the track from a mile out , exaggerating the peaks and troughs of the undulations.
make of that what you will but add in the possibility of over watering for Friday which was burnt off for Derby Day and it might all add up.
On Epsom more than anywhere else though inches matter due to the unique nature of the track.
Aiden often said and Seamie repeated it yesterday " Some horses are made by their Epsom experience while more are finished by it."

P.S. Art and me had a lease in In Bloom for her juvenile hurdling career a few years ago; she too is a descendent of Sex Appeal so Ruby may be correct in calling AVD as an NH sire of the future though her first foal, a Westerner filly has not lit up the world yet after 2 p2p starts for Coiln Bowe.

[reet hard]

According to Simon Rowlands, it looks like I was on the money with Pink Dogwood but he's saying AVD ran the sectionals pretty much spot on.

https://www.attheraces.com/blogs/sectional-spotlight

If I get some time this week I might see if I can get a comparison between Pink Dogwood and Kew Gardens.

What the sectionals don't tell is that Anapurna had much the better trip from her inside draw, and PD was shuffled back, leaving RM with little choice but to start his run from where he did.
But then, if you've convinced yourself he's just a bad jockey?

[Frankel]

Sectionals are just part of the jigsaw and back up my take on the race and how it unfolded.

Time will also tell what the optimum trip is of PD.

[Desert Orchid]

What the sectionals don't tell is that Anapurna had much the better trip from her inside draw, and PD was shuffled back, leaving RM with little choice but to start his run from where he did.
But then, if you've convinced yourself he's just a bad jockey?

Let me put it this way, reet.

When I see Moore on something I've backed it's a bit like having McCoy booked. It should be a positive because he's the go-to guy for trainers and agents who know much more than me but I'm never convinced. I'm not sure why. Is it because I've seen him lose races he should have won? I could say that about every jockey. Maybe because he's got this superstar reputation I'm less forgiving of things not going right in a race but if he's so good he should make sure as little goes wrong as possible.

Honestly, I don't see Dettori getting it wrong anywhere near as often. And again honesty, I probably don't look as hard with other jockeys, maybe because I expect less of them. But at Epsom, I want to see my jockeys ride tactically like Piggott - and I was always wary of Piggott in anything other than the top races because he always had his own agenda - by being no more than a few lengths off the lead and one off the rail.

Watching the Oaks, I was convinced Anapurna was getting a better tactical ride than Pink Dogwood. Circumstances didn't dictate that; jockey decision-making dictated it. Moore could have sat on Anapurna's withers but presumably felt he had the best filly in the race so it wouldn't really have mattered too much. He probably still felt he was fine when he swept through to lead. Take Anapurna out of the race and he'd have been right. Or maybe that should say put a different jockey on Anapurna and he'd probably have been right. I remain convinced that a better tactical ride and PD would have won tidily. And I backed Anapurna.

I'm not trying to be controversial, in all honesty. It's a forum and I'm just expressing an opinion. In this case, it appears that the sectionals are supporting my opinion (unlike in the Derby).

[Colin Phillips]

Perhaps he's pissed with getting on the wrong one of Aiden's.

[moehat]

Let me put it this way, reet.

When I see Moore on something I've backed it's a bit like having McCoy booked. It should be a positive because he's the go-to guy for trainers and agents who know much more than me but I'm never convinced. I'm not sure why. Is it because I've seen him lose races he should have won? I could say that about every jockey. Maybe because he's got this superstar reputation I'm less forgiving of things not going right in a race but if he's so good he should make sure as little goes wrong as possible.

Honestly, I don't see Dettori getting it wrong anywhere near as often. And again honesty, I probably don't look as hard with other jockeys, maybe because I expect less of them. But at Epsom, I want to see my jockeys ride tactically like Piggott - and I was always wary of Piggott in anything other than the top races because he always had his own agenda - by being no more than a few lengths off the lead and one off the rail.

Watching the Oaks, I was convinced Anapurna was getting a better tactical ride than Pink Dogwood. Circumstances didn't dictate that; jockey decision-making dictated it. Moore could have sat on Anapurna's withers but presumably felt he had the best filly in the race so it wouldn't really have mattered too much. He probably still felt he was fine when he swept through to lead. Take Anapurna out of the race and he'd have been right. Or maybe that should say put a different jockey on Anapurna and he'd probably have been right. I remain convinced that a better tactical ride and PD would have won tidily. And I backed Anapurna.

I'm not trying to be controversial, in all honesty. It's a forum and I'm just expressing an opinion. In this case, it appears that the sectionals are supporting my opinion (unlike in the Derby).

Didn't Piggott, when asked which jockey currently riding would be the one that he'd want on his horse, say 'Dettori'? [going back a while here, though...]

[G-G]

Didn't Piggott, when asked which jockey currently riding would be the one that he'd want on his horse, say 'Dettori'? [going back a while here, though...]

Thought Lester would have gone for Fallon myself.

[Desert Orchid]

Me:

From the top of the hill to the 3f pole AVD was no more than a length behind SD and Madhmoon. As the latter nudged into Circus Maximus the latter rolled towards Telecaster and the gap in front of AVD closed so Heffernan had to bide his time and look for an alternative route through. While this was happening, SD and M were going fully three lengths, maybe four, in front of him and dragging Broome and Japan after them. Then AVD got rolling again as he moved to the rail. Maybe having the rail helped him but I think being checked when the others were making their move has won him the race. I think the occasion and/or maybe the lit-up Madhmoon has got to the others and got them going those 50 yards too soon.

Kevin Blake:

While Seamie didn’t get the splits he was looking for just inside the three-furlong pole, that may well have proved to be a significant blessing in disguise, as while he was waiting, conserving and switching for room, his main rivals were playing their hands. That delay, coupled with a bit of luck when Madhmoon edged right rather than left to open a gap for him, allowed him to deliver his challenge last of all down the inside and seize victory.

[reet hard]

Let me put it this way, reet.

When I see Moore on something I've backed it's a bit like having McCoy booked. It should be a positive because he's the go-to guy for trainers and agents who know much more than me but I'm never convinced. I'm not sure why. Is it because I've seen him lose races he should have won? I could say that about every jockey. Maybe because he's got this superstar reputation I'm less forgiving of things not going right in a race but if he's so good he should make sure as little goes wrong as possible.

Honestly, I don't see Dettori getting it wrong anywhere near as often. And again honesty, I probably don't look as hard with other jockeys, maybe because I expect less of them. But at Epsom, I want to see my jockeys ride tactically like Piggott - and I was always wary of Piggott in anything other than the top races because he always had his own agenda - by being no more than a few lengths off the lead and one off the rail.

Watching the Oaks, I was convinced Anapurna was getting a better tactical ride than Pink Dogwood. Circumstances didn't dictate that; jockey decision-making dictated it. Moore could have sat on Anapurna's withers but presumably felt he had the best filly in the race so it wouldn't really have mattered too much. He probably still felt he was fine when he swept through to lead. Take Anapurna out of the race and he'd have been right. Or maybe that should say put a different jockey on Anapurna and he'd probably have been right. I remain convinced that a better tactical ride and PD would have won tidily. And I backed Anapurna.

I'm not trying to be controversial, in all honesty. It's a forum and I'm just expressing an opinion. In this case, it appears that the sectionals are supporting my opinion (unlike in the Derby).

That's the whole point though,DO; Sectionals do not take account of the trip a horse had (Nor Simon Rowlands, seemingly). It is quite clear from the replay that Pink Dogwood was nearer last than first at SR's point of measure (3.5f, where the path crosses the course immediately after Tattenham Corner), so when RM exricated her he had little choice but to ask her to finish quickly. To check her impetus, once she'd started her run, would have been borderline lunacy, so he had no other choice but to sit, and hope she lasted home.
Sectionals are a wonderful tool (be much more useful if they were equal sections,mind), but still need interpreting properly, and watching a clockface rather than the race will never suffice as form reading, IMVHO.

[edgt]

James Willoughby and sidekick on The Verdict did not know what to make of The Derby either so we are not alone !
They were not impressed by the time of the race but it was still below standard .
The first five were nearly five lengths clear of the sixth finisher so cannot be that bad.
Time will tell.

[Desert Orchid]

That's the whole point though,DO; Sectionals do not take account of the trip a horse had (Nor Simon Rowlands, seemingly). It is quite clear from the replay that Pink Dogwood was nearer last than first at SR's point of measure (3.5f, where the path crosses the course immediately after Tattenham Corner), so when RM exricated her he had little choice but to ask her to finish quickly. To check her impetus, once she'd started her run, would have been borderline lunacy, so he had no other choice but to sit, and hope she lasted home.
Sectionals are a wonderful tool (be much more useful if they were equal sections,mind), but still need interpreting properly, and watching a clockface rather than the race will never suffice as form reading, IMVHO.

My point is to question whether PD should have been as far back early on as she was. If Dettori could get Anapurna on the heels of the pace within a furlong or two why couldn't Moore do likewise with PD. Nor had he done so with Kew Gardens. Having watched those two races again simultaneously, I can forgive Moore to some extent on Kew Gardens as the pace was clearly faster in that race. If PD just didn't have the pace to get prominent then clearly Moore can't be at fault for not getting her there.

As for when her finishing effort started, I would argue that rather than get her going then check her he could have held on to her for the half-furlong that Weaver (and Murtagh implicitly) suggested but I accept these are the split-second decisions that jockeys have to make under the immense pressure of riding in the very biggest races.

I'm sure Greville Starkey would wish to have ridden Dancing Brave again in the Derby, despite remarking to the contrary at the time. El Gran Senor should have won his Derby. The examples are innumerable.

The whole point, though, about looking back and analysing with the benefit of the tools and tech available to us is being able to work out why the race panned out how it did and how each horse truly compares with each other rather than what result the history books will show. It isn't an exact science but it's closer to an exact science that mere visual interpretation.

[reet hard]

''Mere visual interpretation'' would have shown you (and SR) that Ryan Moore was where he was by dint of his outside draw and - short of using a bunch of energy to pass the whole strung-out field - had little opportunity to improve that position until switching in the straight.
The 'science' obviously tells sfa in that context.

[Maruco]

Sectionals are a wonderful tool (be much more useful if they were equal sections,mind), but still need interpreting properly, and watching a clockface rather than the race will never suffice as form reading, IMVHO.

Correct. Too many people seem to take sectionals literally. For me they are a prompt to go back and view a race in the broader context of current race, along with a host of other information on all horses in a race. Use sectionals in isolation and you may as well be pinsticking.

[Desert Orchid]

''Mere visual interpretation'' would have shown you (and SR) that Ryan Moore was where he was by dint of his outside draw and - short of using a bunch of energy to pass the whole strung-out field - had little opportunity to improve that position until switching in the straight.

Grasping at straws, I reckon.

[Desert Orchid]

Correct. Too many people seem to take sectionals literally. For me they are a prompt to go back and view a race in the broader context of current race, along with a host of other information on all horses in a race. Use sectionals in isolation and you may as well be pinsticking.

I don't take sectionals literally. I use them to help me understand what went on in a race.