Galileo- Danehill cross

Go to RP, search Galileo - Stallion - Stud Record - nicks - Dam Sire

Think you'll see that most dams do well with the worlds best sire but then he gets a lot of the best mares.  The danehill cross thing is overstated due to some very notable successes but it clearly works.  Fact is the stud fee being so high artificially limits the variety of mares going to him.  If you add Mark of Esteem then Darshaan mares are better with him than Danehill.

Duncan,
Now, as you correctly point out, the sample size is too small for accurate statistical analysis. Nevertheless, here is the data to date.

Looking at it from the probability of the cross producing a 100+ rated progeny you get the following statistical probabilities. With the level of fee, and broodmare quality, a 100+ rated performer should be the aim.

The actual pedigree correlation is not statistically significant at the 1% level, but is at the 5% level. So you can see at present, from that perspective no conclusions should really be drawn. However, the inference now is that the success ratios are down to chance. I always prefer the tighter 1% band, especially when you consider the financial investment required for a Galileo/Danehill cross.

In terms of pure racecourse performance. As a guideline the probability, based upon their performances as sire and broodmare sire, there is a theoretical probability of getting a 100+ rated three year old of 9.23%. Danehill in reality as a broodmare sire has a 9.95% probability.

Yer Ma refers to the RP stats. Unfortunately, they can be both inaccurate and misleading. For example, the stats they show against a broodmare sire as their AWD, is actually their stat as a sire not a broodmare sire, so irrelevant and misleading.

The famed Sadler’s Wells/ Darshaan cross, was in general statistically significant. What it also showed is that Darshaan in reality was/is an average broodmare sire.

As I said the sample size is currently too small, one or two either exceptionally or good, or bad, progeny would skew the figures.

Hope that in part answers your question.

I'm sure I'm not alone in having no idea what the previous post means.

I think one needs to be careful about what one asserts. For example I can say with some degree of confidence the following: I look at 100 light bulbs I see the time till they fail and I assign an exponential distribution to their failure times. Equimine.co.uk without meaning to be flippant in the general betting thread you pertain to a basic understanding of statistics at best. Please refrain from talking about significance levels when a) you couldnt tell me a galileo/danehill statistical distribution relating to 100+ RPR (i assume you are assigning some sort of normal type arguement where as an extreme statistics weibull/gumbull etc maybe more appropriate). b) you have hardly any data in fact hardly enough to speak about the mean (average value) yet you are inferring about the tails. In summary a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and quoting percentages like they mean something on entirely spurious data is misleading. In summary you cant compare apples and oranges. It is statistically daft to bring together X stallion with Y broodmare stallion and expect to be measuring similar quantities. Aside from the fact you have at best 10's of measurements.

Galileo,
£1.1 million clear of his nearest rival Montjeu, with his 2011 earnings currently over £2,709,718
. The latest local  Gr1 success with Treasure Beach and Seville whom ran one two in the G1 Irish Derby,
Igugu the most recent Gr1 winner in Greyville (SAF) ,the filly won the Vodacom Durban July (Grade 1) (Open to all Horses) is out of a Intikhab mare (Intikhabs sire line goes ...Red Ransom,Roberto,Hail To Reason,Turn-To,Royal Charger a son of Nearco.
Galileo now has nine group/graded 1 black-type winners this year, with five Group 1 winners--all 3-year-old Classic winners--and which have now won eight Group 1 races this year among them.
The much talked about Galileo/Danzig cross, which  has produced the serious racehorses Frankel, Golden Lilac and Roderic O Connor this season.
The reality of Galileo as a sire is he works varoius broodmare sires:
Dual 2011 G1SW Misty For Me is out of a Storm Cat mare, and G1 Irish Derby winner Treasure Beach is out of a mare by Darshaans son, Mark of Esteem.
Over 10% (18) of Galileos 168 runners this year have won or placed in group/graded stakes; In Gr1 company he has a winners-runners of 6-24 25% impressive and the 6 winners won 9 Grade 1s thats pretty impressive, too.
The cross with high class sprinting mares seems to be the diamond ore that produces the best diamond and the one the bigger outfits are mining for presently.
Galileo has such an impressive pedidree and was an outstanding runner himself winning six in a row as a 3 yld inc the 3 Gr1s ,The Epsom and Irish Derbys and the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes (all 1,1/2 miles)
His Dam dam Urban Sea was a three quarter sister to the English 2,000 Guineas winner King's Best (by Kingmambo). She raced over four seasons, a career which saw her win eight of her twenty-four stars. At three she won a couple of listed events over 2,000 metres in France, and was third in both the German 1,000 Guineas (G3) and Prix Vermeille (G1), as well as runner-up in the E. P. Taylor Stakes (G2) in North America. The following season, Urban Sea gained her first Group successes by taking the Prix Exbury (G3) and Prix Gontaut-Biron (G3), before causing a surprise in the autumn by winning the prestigious Prix de L'Arc de Triomphe (G1) by a neck from White Muzzle and Opera House. She was kept in training as a five-year-old in a bid to repeat this triumph, but after winning the Prix d'Harcourt (G2) and being placed in both Prix Ganay (G1) and Coronation Cup (G1), was retired due to a fetlock injury.
At stud from ten foals of racing age, the mare, has been represented by eight runners - and, amazingly, all are black-type performers, seven of them winners,four were 4 Gr1 winners.
His Sire Sadler´s Wells (USA) foaled in America, he was a son of Northern Dancer, the most successful sire of the last century. Vincent O'Brien trained him to win the Irish 2,000 Guineas, the Eclipse and the Phoenix Champion Stakes in 1984, and he was runner-up in the French Derby, splitting Darshaan and Rainbow Quest.
At his first season at stud, he produced six individual Group One winners including Old Vic and In The Wings. He was champion sire in Britain and Ireland 14 times, a record, and his progeny won every British Classic,also he was champion sire in France three times, and once in North America.He sired 74 individual Group One winners.

Boba,

Without being flippant.
I have thousands of data points to calculate Gailieo & Danehill stats.
It is perfectly possible to assess the correlation of pedigree performance profiles.
If you have the correct genetic data, not an RP rating, it is possible to calculate theoretical ratios.
I will leave it at that.

Not a debate that really gets me going but regardless of performance probabilities, the fact is breeders / owners / trainers know that Darshaan & Danehill crossed to Galileo = dream of champion = good sales. Anyone coming out with Darshaan is an average broodmare sire is swimming against the tide.  I'd also be intrigued as to which are the above average ones and are they deemed so simply because they have not had enough matings to 'fail' with more horses.

'Leaving it at that' Equimine is of course your perogative.

However without being flippant.
For your posts to be of any interest to others on here, you've got to single out some of your 'thousands of data points' and explain your 'theoretical ratios' to us mere mortals.

P.s. some 'practical' ratios might be of some help too!

GALILEO's GROUP 1 WINNERS and WINS
Name       Damsire       YOB Se      x Place Race Racecourse             Age   Dist (f)
Allegretto     Caerleon    2003    F      1st   Prix Royal Oak Longchamp    4         16
Nightime     Indian Ridge  2003    F      1st   Irish 1000 Guineas Curragh 3           8
Red Rocks    Machiavellian 2003    C      1st   Breeders' Cup Turf Churchill Downs 4   12
Red Rocks    Machiavellian 2003    C      1st Man O' War Stakes  Belmont    5          11
Sixties Icon  Diesis       2003    C       1st St. Leger York               3          14
Soldier of Fortune Erins Isle 2004 C       1st Irish Derby Curragh          3          12
Soldier of Fortune Erins Isle 2004 C       1st Coronation Cup Epsom         4          12
Teofilo      Danehill      2004    C       1st Dewhurst Stakes Newmarket    2           7
Teofilo      Danehill      2004    C       1st National Stakes Curragh      2           7
Alandi       Darshaan      2005    C       1st Irish St. Leger Stakes Curragh 4        14
Alandi       Darshaan      2005    C       1st Prix du Cadran Longchamp     4          20
Cima De Triomphe Danehill  2005    C       1st Derby Italiano Roma          3          11
Lush Lashes   Anabaa       2005    F       1st Coronation Stakes Ascot      3           8
Lush Lashes   Anabaa       2005   F        1st Yorkshire Oaks Newmarket      3          12
Lush Lashes   Anabaa       2005   F        1st Matron Stakes Leopardstown   3           8
New Approach Ahonoora      2005   C        1st Dewhurst Stakes Newmarket     2          7
New Approach Ahonoora      2005   C        1st National Stakes Curragh       2          7
New Approach Ahonoora      2005   C        1st Derby Epsom                   3          12
New Approach Ahonoora      2005   C         1st Irish Champion Stakes Leopardstown 3    10
New Approach Ahonoora      2005   C        1st Champion Stakes    Newmarket  3          10
Rip Van W inkle Stravinsky 2006   C        1st Sussex Stakes Goodwood        3           8
Rip Van W inkle Stravinsky 2006   C        1st Queen Elizabeth II S. Ascot   3           8
Rip Van W inkle Stravinsky 2006   C         1st Juddmonte International York 4          10
Sans Frontieres Shirley Heights 2006 C      1st Irish St Leger Stakes Curragh 4         14
Cape Blanco Presidium      2007 C           1st Irish Derby Curragh           3         12
Cape Blanco Presidium      2007 C            1st Irish Champion Stakes Leopardstown 3   10
Lily of the Valley Pennekamp 2007 F         1st Prix de l'Opera Longchamp     3         10
Frankel Danehill            2008  C         1st Dewhurst Stakes Newmarket     2          7
Frankel Danehill            2008 C          1st 2,000 Guineas Newmarket       3          8
Frankel Danehill            2008 C          1st St James's Palace Stakes  Ascot 3        8
Golden Lilac Danehill       2008 F          1st Poule d’Essai des Pouliches Longchamp 3  8
Misty For Me Storm Cat      2008 F          1st Moyglare Stud Stakes Curragh  2          7
Misty For Me Storm Cat      2008 F          1st Prix Marcel Boussac Longchamp 2          8
Roderic O'Connor Danehill   2008 C          1st Criterium International Saint-Cloud 2    8
Treasure Beach Mark Of Esteem 2008 C          1st Irish Derby Curragh           3         12

Potentialmillionaire,

Firstly, please accept my heartfelt apologies for boring you.

I would just point out that my comments regarding “thousands of data points” were addressed to a previous poster in relation to an assumption they had made. Equally, the question posed by the OP is of a technical statistical nature thus the attempt, on the limited information, to give a technical answer.

Having said that you have inspired me not to “bore” you again, not just on Betfair but also to ensure that anything I do in life I assess for a “Potm Bore Factor” beforehand. It will be my goal in life.

I can just imagine the conversation:

“I am sorry Your Highness; I cannot investigate those possibilities for you. I am concerned that potentialmillionaire may find it boring.”

“Don’t worry  Equimine, what does increasing the likelihood of us breeding a Derby winner compare to the risk of boring potentialmillionaire”

Obviously, I do not want to risk your being bored, I wondered if you could put up a Template of non-boring matters. Then I thought about days of yore. Quite often Kings or Emperors would employ “food tasters” to ensure nobody was trying to poison them. Ah Ah I thought, potentialmillionaire might consider the services of a “Bore Tester” to check posts for any likelihood of you being bored into a little nap, or heavy eyed state.

What do you think?

I assume that note means your not going to tell us which are the above average broodmare sires and on what basis.  I'd like to breed a Derby winner so if you have the answer I'm keen to hear it and I've a Galileo mare so presumably Danehill line is out.

Equimine what I think PotM was trying to say is not that your post is boring but whether it could be simplified for those of us on here who are little bit on the slow side (me included).  I don't believe it was an attempt to ridicule you but merely an attempt to ask whether you could channel your knowledge into a form that we can understand.

I've read your original post a number of times and for example your line,

"The actual pedigree correlation is not statistically significant at the 1% level, but is at the 5% level. So you can see at present, from that perspective no conclusions should really be drawn. However, the inference now is that the success ratios are down to chance. I always prefer the tighter 1% band, especially when you consider the financial investment required for a Galileo/Danehill cross"

still confuses me, I don't understand the 1%, 5% level thing.  I'm not being patronising, I'm not being rude, I genuinely don't know what 1% and 5% levels are.

I think boba has a valid point / concerns but could probably have put it a little more tactfully. 

Lets face it the B&B forum doesn't have that many posters and certainly even less with something knowledgable to contribute (me not included).   Can we all just calm down and discuss the topic?

Another Gr1 winner yesterday for Galileo at Belmont Park: Man o' War Stakes (Grade 1) 1m3f, turf trained by Aiden O'Brien  and ridden by Jamie Spencer
Cape Blanco Galileo (IRE)  (11.1f) — Laurel Delight (Presidium (8.3f))
This brings the colts earnings to over the £2 million mark.

Good Lord. I've just emerged from a darkened room with a cold compress after that roasting from Equimine.

Boba, Posh Paddy (thanks for your support - and for the 'correct' interpretation of what I meant!) and Yer ma, I think perhaps it must be us who are thicker than even we imagined. Equimine doesn't seem to feel the need to give us any more help with his stats so I for one shall accept my limitations.

Equimine I know that the adverb To Interest can be technically opposed by the one to Bore but I really did mean it as an invitation to engage me/us as opposed to leaving me scratching my head.
Apols. for the offence.

Oh dear![smiley:crazy]

I will try to address the points as I can, in no particular order:

Posh Paddy,

Re:
“I've read your original post a number of times and for example your line,

"The actual pedigree correlation is not statistically significant at the 1% level, but is at the 5% level. So you can see at present, from that perspective no conclusions should really be drawn. However, the inference now is that the success ratios are down to chance. I always prefer the tighter 1% band, especially when you consider the financial investment required for a Galileo/Danehill cross"

still confuses me, I don't understand the 1%, 5% level thing.  I'm not being patronising, I'm not being rude, I genuinely don't know what 1% and 5% levels are.”

The original poster asked, “can anyone tell me if the results are statistically significant.” This indicates to me that, as the question is about technical statistical measurement that the original poster had knowledge of, or understanding of statistical significance. Thus, a response in a similar vein would be appropriate.

To put it another way, if somebody on this forum asked the following question:

“I saw some baby horses today, their father was Danehill Dancer I am told. They all looked to have skinny legs, is that usual?
Would you answer them in the same way as if the question had been put thus “ I saw a number of Danehill Dancer foals for the first time today, they all looked light of bone, is that a DD trait, or just coincidence?”

About 1% and 5% levels, I thought it better to post the under Wikipedia link for the subject, I did not want to post explanations in case it comatosed Potm.[;)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Concerning the general subject of Galileo over Danehill. I feel that it will, from a factual/statistical perspective, become virtually impossible to tell if there is a significant correlation, or nick. To take the SW/Darshaan cross as comparison. This started becoming known at a time that SW and Darshaan had for some time, and most importantly, were still covering. Thus, their coverings were being assessed by both the breeder, and stallion owner, from a neutral commercial, or progeny potential, perspective. Because of this, the control group was neutral.

The neutral case would be much like an average, or benchmark. To use a medical example when trials are being conducted on a new drug, human guinea pigs are tested against a “control group,” these control group members do not take the new drug or any drug just a placebo. The control group for assessing the G/D cross could be one of three really. The first would be the “probabilities” for all crosses for which we have data (in other words all stallions and mares), alternatively some might want to compare against all Galileo progeny that are not Danehill mares, and others might prefer all Danehill mares that are not by Galileo.

In the case of Galileo over Danehill, I am not convinced we can get a truly reflective control group. There is of course a major pitfall with the G/D cross that nobody can overcome. We have a finite number of Danehill mares due to the death of Danehill in 2003. There may be some Danehill mares still to be bred from, but they cannot be many in number? Furthermore, the G/D cross has been highlighted from a very small sample size, as the OP and I mentioned before. This in my opinion, you could also add in Galileo’s fee as a factor, means views will not be neutral. We will get, or are getting already, a disproportionate number of Danehill mares going to Galileo because of the current view. By nature of the “investment value” and existing records of the cover and the broodmare it just should be successful, but impartial analysis of whether it is statistically significant will be extremely difficult. Sorry, thinking about the last part. That isn’t really true. It will not be any more difficult, but it would be a leap of faith to have too much credence in the result.

The next thrilling answers and instalment to follow.

I may have misread this but surely this basically suggests statistical analysis of Galileo cross with any mare is not possible (given its not possible with Danehill the second most popular cross).  And if thats true then statistical analysis of virtually any other current stallion is impossible for the same reason (ie. lack of sample size).

Potm,

Re:
For your posts to be of any interest to others on here, you've got to single out some of your 'thousands of data points' and explain your 'theoretical ratios' to us mere mortals.

P.s. some 'practical' ratios might be of some help too!

Below is a brief summary of how our studies work, and the data they are based on. Please remember this is a commercial offering, the detail outlined is basic for that reason, and that reason alone. I have tried to highlight what might be points of interest.[;)]

We have a database that started out life as the racecourse performances of individual horses and their basic first generation pedigree as a rating. This database covers nearly 2 million performances. It includes racecourse, race distance, going, etc. It covers GB and Ireland, together with major European races.

The next step was to extend the pedigrees of all the performers to at least third generation, ideally five generations, though this has not been possible in all cases. That was pretty time, and money, consuming I can tell you.

The next step was to create a “median” rating that reflected equally RPR, Official Handicap, and Timeform.

The following procedure was to arrange these new “median” ratings into three primary categories. Horse age, Race distance, and Going. There are also three additional categories for National Hunt (Chase, Hurdle and Bumper).

These were then subdivided.

The going was subdivided into 11 categories from Hard to Heavy , and all stations in between.

The distance categories were subdivided into 7 groups from sub 6 1/3 furlongs to 15 furlongs plus (different categories for National Hunt), they are also age specific.

The age group for flat was split into 2, 3 and 4 plus (again different ages for NH).

There is a “precocity” category and “robustness” as well. We can also split by progeny gender, and previous age performance.

From all these sub categories, we could then assign a rating for each part of a horse’s pedigree based upon any, or all of the above applicable combinations. We could then collate them against that individual based upon their pedigree position. For instance a 3 year old base rating (which covers a number of results, not an average). In other words we establish "ratings" for Mr. Prospector as a Paternal Great Grand Sire. These ratings covers all the sub categories detailed above.

As you may have gathered by now, it was not done overnight after a session down the pub!

From these data points, as I call them, or ratings might be better ,we can assess many statistical factors. These include probability (using a number of established probability distributions), correlations etc. We also just churn out the averages, sample size etc.

As an example, we can assess the theoretical probabilities etc. of a horse being a 90+ rated three year old say where Rainbow Quest (one for PD) is the sire of the second dam, and Danzig being the grand sire over 71/2 to 9 furlongs. We always test this against a control group, and can test against reality where practical.

If was into marketing speak or political sound bites, you might say we can create the “Statistical DNA” of a hypothetical horse.

Establish strong points, and probably more importantly, weak points.

Yer Ma,

I am not saying that. It is, and will be possible to analyse G/D crosses as we see more performances. The numbers are nearly high enough now.
What I meant to say, is that I feel (as an opinion) that because the number of Danehill mares is limited, and breeders with Danehill are chasing Galileo the analysis produced will be technically accurate but could be flawed due to these circumstances.

Yikes, for sure very interesting.  Ignore my point - you are coming from an entirely different viewpoint to me.  You could churn your numbers and suggest (for example) my Lear Fan mare has a 2% greater chance of a 90+ performer going to Avonbridge but I still go to Showcasing as I want to sell it.   I'm not sure where the conformation / size of the mare fits into your analysis either.  I suppose your work would make for a bit more rational decision-making in breeding and sales but imo thats going to very hard to achieve.

Yer Ma,

Firstly I am pleased I am “swimming against the tide” in thinking Darshaan, without Sadler’s Wells is an average broodmare sire. I am a believer in the view that the majority swim with the tide, and the majority cannot win. I suppose therefore, I hope more people disagree with me than agree.

I wouldn’t advise you on a Derby style breeding based purely on the fact your mare is by Galileo, I would need her name if raced, or dam if not. Also, I am sorry to say I would not produce a report free of charge. I doubt you would give me a “leg”, or even a "hoof" in a foal from your Galileo mare for free?

Darshaan broodmare figures are, in my statistical based opinion, skewed by anecdote. There is no doubt Sadler’s Wells over Darshaan was/is extremely successful. This has, in my opinion, blinkered people’s views on Darshaan as a broodmare sire other than crossed with SW.

I have run basic stats for Sadler’s Wells and Darshaan, the probabilities are just for a 100+ rated three year old . These are obviously  “real” figures not  theory.


The “Control Group” ( I have outlined this in an earlier post) probability is 6.48%.

The actual probability for Sadler’s Wells over Darshaan, is 24.57%, clearly substantially ahead of the Control Group.

The actual probability for Darshaan, excluding Sadler’s Wells, is 6.62%, which in my opinion makes him pretty average.

Yer Ma,

I would not comment on size, confirmation or anything similar.

I think I can tell a decent looker, who walks okay in the paddock before a race, but that is without doubt my limit. Horses for courses as they say.

Holy cow.

I'm looking forward to getting stuck into all the below, but I think I'm going to need my spinach and a spare moment or two.

Well done to you all and your typing. Apologies again Equimine as I had forgotten the commercial aspect of your research and of course the natural impact that must have on what you would or would not want to put on here.

Not really getting this tbh but one final question, how do you test your model with the reality of actual covers by todays stallions (if, as I interpret, the lack of matings prevents most current stallions being measured) or is it all theoretical?  You suggest Galileo to Danehill numbers are almost big enough but thats more horses of two 'types' than most current stallions have and more than most will ever have.

If I've missed the point again I apologise and bow out.

Yer Ma,

I am going to sort of answer, and not answer, your question.

There is enough data to measure a vast majority of current stallions, including Galileo of course.

What at the moment is lacking is enough "real racecourse" data on Danehill mares that have Galileo progeny on the racecourse. More of that data is needed to use as comparison safely, against the theory.What i was referring to as "almost big enough"is the real facts of racecourse performances.

To put it another way.Suppose we only had two Galileo progeny from Danehill mares who had actually raced. The first was Frankel rated 130, the other was Donkey rated 40. Do you think it correct to say that typically Galileo/Danehill progeny are rated 85?

I entirely agree thats not a sensible sample but thats my point - the majority of broodmare sires will only every have maximum of tens of matings with most stallions (and this will only become moreso with the decreasing 'lifespan' of successful stallions).  How is this overcome 'statistically'

MAYBE (IRE)2 yld filly by Galileo (Ire) ex  Sumora (Ire) (SW-Eng), by Danehill
wins the SILVER FLASH S.-G3, €47,500 Leopardstown
Quotes ;
"She's very good and wasn't doing a stroke [once in front]," O'Brien told irishracing.com. "They didn't go very quick in front and then they sprinted. It didn't suit her, but she still won easily. She's as good as there is." Maybe retains entries in the Aug. 7 G2 Debutante S. and the Aug. 28 G1 Moyglare Stud S., both at The Curragh.

MAYBE (IRE)2 yld filly by Galileo (Ire) ex  Sumora (Ire) (SW-Eng), by Danehill pedigree;
A€340,000 Arqana ylg to Demi O'Byrne,
The third foal and first winner ex Sumora a Listed St Hugh's Fillies' Stakes winner , Sumora was a  75,000 gns yearling and a $500,000 gns broodmare as part of the Swettenham Stud dispersal at Keeneland 2007. Sumora is one of four winners out of an unraced half sister to Derby winner Dr Devious, Group Three-winning sprinter Archway and Group Three-winning middle distance colt Royal Court.

Yer Ma,

You can analyse any type of data from very small samples. However, the smaller the sample either the less confidence you can have in the results, or the larger the margin for error.

You can test for the probability of your results being accurate.

Fascinating reading... especially Equimine's number crunching, and don't think I'm being flippant if I say does it help me decide if Frankel will stay a truly run mile in the mud at Goodwood next week and if so, receiving 8lb, I should absolutely wade in?!!

Joking, really, but I'd be interested to hear what your stats reveal thus far on Frankel, Equimine...

I note there's a full brother in the PKA stable at home, so the (Stats) picture may well become clearer

Frankel is a freak occurence that will confound statistics I'd have thought, although if Queally wasn't riding him like a stolen moterbike of late we might know a bit more. Any horse that looks to have the speed to win over 5 and possibly stay a mile and a quarter....... what can you say?

Frankel is a freak occurence that will confound statistics I'd have thought, although if Queally wasn't riding him like a stolen moterbike of late we might know a bit more. Any horse that looks to have the speed to win over 5 and possibly stay a mile and a quarter....... what can you say?

Dam was Kind the 6 furlong horse of Charltons and sire was Gallileo who can clearly throw up plenty of speed so he is where he should be I suppose

Frankel the great!!!!!!!!!


WOOOOWZZAAAAAAA

I am a breeder who mainly breeds to sell.
I have been fortunate enough to have experience of both Galileo and Danehill and there is one point which I feel has not been dealt with on this topic, which is the physical makeup of the 2 stallions and their progeny.

As a very general rule:

Galileo throws horses that are on the light side,little light of bone have quality, a little slack in the pastern, good temperament, a little backward and can lack a little speed if you were to be very critical.

Danehill throws horses that can be strong, good bone, back at the knee\upright pasterns, good temperament, quite precocious and have plenty of pace.

Both stallions are beautifully bred and were top class racehorses.

In his later years especially, Danehill covered very good mares whose female progeny are the broodmares of present times.

Whatever one's opinion of nicks, you already would have a potential formula to produce a good looking, well bred, well conformed foal with the temperament to make a top class racehorse by using this cross.

Thanks for all the replies, fellas. The racing is so busy at this time of year that i'd forgotten i'd started this thread! Will have to find an hour to go through what look some fascinating replies, with a pot of Earl Grey and an Eccles cake (nap). Cheers, duncan.