Glad to have you back brigust,hope you had a great vacation,for what it's worth,I feel the standside were at a slight disadvantage,based on the way Noozah set the pace(far side) early and did not fade away,they all raced pretty close to the rail on the  far side,Austrailia slow coming across had no cover.

yes suspect the plan was to follow Toormore,some sympathy with that view mind,the ground was good and noozah being spanish maybe expected to blow out earlier than most?

It was an odd sort of result I must admit. AOB is getting a bit of a history of not getting his horses fit for the day I'm staggered Coolmore seem to go along with the set up. I know the Hannon's were not happy with Toormore's run but whether it was because Hughsie used him too much on slower ground I have no idea. As I said too many questions for my liking. Did the CoC give any going stick readings before racing for across the course?

TF rate the winner 126,hard to get enthusiastic for the figures for the race ,most finishing within close proximity.

oh! and young joseph got a whip ban.

Having just watched the Chester Cup, brig, there are worse jockey options

and quite rightly they sacked him.
Pity he didnt learn from it.

Talk about hanging on by your finger tips Sin. The betting on the day, AOB's comments on the day and before, The claims he was pee ing over everything in the televised gallop. Ryan Moore rode when he could have possibly ridden the winner all point to the fact that he was fit and ready to run. I don't think AOB is convinced he stays a mile and that puts him right in the mix with a bunch of decent horses. Best of luck with your project but not for me I'm afraid.

brigust1

All you have got right so far is that Australia did indeed run in the 2000 Gns. Everything else is still to be proven i.e just how good is Australia and how good is WC.Incidentally, just to demonstrate how iffy it is to rely on what AOB says, you may remember that he said WC was going to France. Didn't turn out that way. A little early for any smugness I would suggest.

Wash your mouth out Felt. Richard Hughes an Lester Piggott ffs.

Where have I been smug? I backed Australia and lost. I put and ante post bet on for the 2000 Gns, Derby and Arc and lost. All I argued was that the way AOB was talking THIS TIME as opposed to EVERY OTHER TIME was that he HAD TO RUN AUSTRALIA IN THE 2000 GNs. And if he was to be believed THIS TIME then War Command WOULD NOT win the 2000 Gns. That was all I was arguing about. Instead of wrongly accusing me, and others I may add particularly and most vigorously Figgis who though C would not win the 2000 Gns and was arguing exactly the same thing, why don't you just accept that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong about War Command? Now that would be a step forward.

Sint, maybe so at 9/4 but he was only beaten a head by a horse going off at 6/4 and already being talked of as possibly being close to Frankel. It's not a bet I'd have considered value beforehand but those who were on at 4/1 got a good run for their money, looking at the prices and finishing positions I wouldn't say it was a worse bet than Kingman.

As for War Command, I certainly wouldn't rule him out winning the Irish 2000 Guineas at this stage, which is sometimes a decent Gp1 but more often than not a substandard one. You only have to look back at recent winners like Power and Roderic O'Connor, decent enough horses but in the Gp1 scheme of things, mediocre. Anything more than that looks most unlikely to me.

That is exactly what a forum is about Sandown. As a punter I know all about getting it wrong but you either concentrate on the positive or dwell on the negative.
You think the jury is still out on War Command but not about Australia. I disagree. You only have to read this thread to see how difficult this race was for Australia to win. This was no Camelot Guineas. There were several Group 1 winners in this race and Australia will likely now be aimed at races he would be fully expected to win. All is definitely not lost.

You accuse me of being smug again wtf. I got some things right, you concentrate on, and others wrong, you ignore. Loads on here thought Australia was poor value and aimed to lay him, they were right. I never had any intention of backing him but talked myself into it and I was wrong. How the flying f you think that makes me smug means you obviously have a problem yourself. Try dealing with the issues Sandown and not the posters. All too often those who cannot deal with the points try to insult the poster.

A compliment indeed, albeit a back-handed one

So you'd rate those winners as typical Gp1 standard horses?

Getting back to the point the reason it was important he ran Australia in the 2000 Gns fully backed up what he had said about Australia and only enhances his Derby claims imo. Had he swerved the 2000 Gns then I think that would have detracted from his view and had he easily won a trial race, a formality surely, he may have even been shorter for the Derby.

What horse did I talk you into backing?

There seems to be some backtracking going on as far as WC is concerned. I always said he could win a Gp1 but he was at the lower end of the scale, those were my words, he was no star based on his Coventry win, imo. He did win a Gp1, the Dewhurst, which most people and ratings firms agreed was a moderate renewal and the form substandard.

The opposing argument put forward after the Coventry was that WC was an above average Gp1 horse in the making, his final time and finishing splits all pointed to this. It was also said that because of his physique he was almost certain to improve.

Brigust's position was that O'Brien might actually mean what he said about Australia, he was therefore most likely to run in the Guineas and finish ahead of War Command. The opposing arguments rubbished both prospects.

Sometimes you just have to accept you were wrong, as I was about Toormore

So you'd rate those winners as typical Gp1 standard horses?


I don't know about typical but below average for sure. I'm not expecting WC to prove any better than mid 120@s so no superstar for sure, but unless he was unfit he is proving below my expectations so far. |What I do know is that if a horse has shown once that he is capable of a run like his Coventry run then he can repeat. When? Don't know that.

The opposing argument put forward after the Coventry was that WC was an above average Gp1 horse in the making

G1 horse yes. Above average? Don't think that was ever mentioned although mid 120's possibly even 127 potential, yes indeed. That was mid-June remember, so not too bad a call.