Jun 4, 2016 -- 11:09AM, Figgis wrote:
Not Moore's finest ride and even though I'm a fan of him in general I prefer the Piggott method of riding the Derby, being handy at Tattenham Corner. Admittedly Moore has ridden two Derby winners in similar style from the rear before in Workforce and Ruler of the World, but they ended up having very hard races and both horses put up pretty lifeless displays on their very next starts.Probably Harzand was a worthy winner anyway as he was going away again at the finish but it's impossible to know how much the effort USAR put in to get so close took out of him. Possibly if he'd have been ridden closer early he would've used up just as much energy and still would've been wanting at the finish. Whatever the truth it was a nice run for such an inexperienced horse and I still like him for the future.Well done Howellsy (hard luck on the tricast) and other backers.
Yes I thought a quick first two furlong to three furlongs followed by a visually slow next two was possibly the downfall of the second, they should have been closer, + horrific traffic problems at a crucial time.
I rate the race winner around 125 after today, not sure circumstances for the second have been ideal this year, I would never send a good horse to Chester(it seemed rushed), they all remain a suspect bunch in my eyes, but we have what we got, a cracking race none the less
Jun 4, 2016 -- 12:27PM, kincsem wrote:
Derby draw warningI noticed this year, 2016, they loaded 8 in stall machine 1, and 8 in stall machine 2. The horse in the best draw therefore was stall 8.I'm posting this to warn people against backing stall 10 blindly. Stall 10 produced a lot of winners in the past when the field was 15+ runners.In recent years the Derby fields have been smaller (average for last seven years was 12 runners.)There is a draw for stall places, but they have been freestyling it a bit recently as to where a drawn horse is placed.For example, a horse draw 8 in a field of 12 could be in stall machine 1, or in stall machine 2.In the two banks of stalls they have in recent years done this:Stalls machine 1 / Stalls machine 2:2015: 7+5 ..... 2014: 10+2 ..... 2013: 6+6 ..... 2012: 9 only ran ..... 2011: 6+7 ..... 2010: 10+2 ..... 2009: 10+2I haven't looked at videos for 2008 and earlier.This is some info on the famous stall 10 draw. It produced many winners. Many of the abysmal failures for stall 10 were big outsiders.1986 WIN - STALL 101987 WIN - STALL 101988 Maksud 200/1 - 13th/141989 WIN - STALL 101990 WIN - STALL 101991 WIN - STALL 101992 Twist And Turn 12/1 - 5th/191993 Tenby 4/5 fav - 10th/161994 Ionio 50/1 - 11th/251995 Maralingo 200/1 -15th/151996 Portuguese Lil 500/1 20th/201997 Fahris 12/1 -6th/141998 Second Empire 5/1 - 8th/141999 Glamis 40/1 6th/182000 Beat Hollow 3/1jf - 3rd/162001 WIN - STALL 102002 Where Or When 66/1 - 6th/122003 Shield 20/1 - 10th/202004 Massif Centrale 100/1 - 11th/142005 Oratorio 8/1 - 10th/142006 WIN - STALL 102007 Archipenko 13/2 - 19th/192008 Casual Conquest - 3rd/172009 Fame And Glory - 2nd/12 (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=2 loaded)2010 Stall 10, Buzzword 40/1 8th/12 (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=2 loaded)2011 Stall 6, Memphis Tennessee 4th/13 (stall 1=6 loaded, stall 2=7 loaded)2012 n/a …. only 9 runners2013 Stall 6, Galileo Rock 3rd/12 (stall 1=6 loaded, stall 2=6 loaded)2014 Stall 10, Our Channell 50/1 13th/16 (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=6 loaded)2015 Stall 7, Storm The Stars 3rd/12 (stall 1=7 loaded, stall 2=5 loaded)2016 Stall 8, Idaho 3rd/16 (stall 1=8 loaded, stall 2=8 loaded)
What rationale do you attribute these statistical results to ?
Jun 4, 2016 -- 6:26PM, kincsem wrote:
ffsWhen the 2016 Derby draw was announced someone on the forum said draw 1 has no chance (Moonlight Magic).Moonlight Magic finished last in 2016 so he may have had a point.I had it in my head for years that the draw has no effect in the Derby, so I decided to test his assertion.After inputting the draw and finishing position of every runner from 1952 to 2015 into a spreadsheet I found no draw bias.When reviewing the spreadsheet I noticed draw 10 and 20 combined produced 12 winners, but draw 11 and 21 combined produced zero winners.All of the 9 wins from draw 10 are since starting stalls were introduced in the Derby in 1967. (there was always a draw for starting position in the tape start days)Did the introduction of starting stall that gave runners drawn in stall 10 a massive advantage?There were 9 wins from draw 10 in the 35 years from 1977 to 2013 from an average field of 16.5. (I don't have data for two years)589 runners in those 35 years: drawn 10 produced 9 winners from 35 runners (25.7%); the other stalls produced 26 winners from 554 runners (4.6%).The reason draw 10 and 20 are different is they are the furthest right stall on the stalls machines.When a horse exits stall 10 (and stall 20 if there are 20+ runners) he exits into the free space in from of his stall and in front of the wheels that transport the stalls i.e. he has a double space.Horses out of stalls 10 (and 20) will naturally go for the free space i.e. go right, and the jockey will also be keen to go right as the first slight bend if on the right.This movement probably does two things (1) give stalls 10 (and 20) an easier stalls exit (2) blocks off the horse in stall 11 (and 21).Unfortunately, this "system" has stopped working as Derby field have got smaller, now averaging 12. With only 12 runners they still need two stalls machines (each holds ten horses), but the course management (clerk of course, handlers) now tend to put half the field in one set of stall and half in another.In other words they do not fill the stalls as in earlier years with stall 1 at the very left of the first stall machine filled first.Of course the horse in stall 10 does not automatically win.Among those drawn in stall 10 who failed were:1988 Maksud 200/11993 Tenby 4/5 fav1994 Ionio 50/11995 Maralingo 200/11996 Portuguese Lil 500/11999 Glamis 40/12002 Where Or When 66/12004 Massif Centrale 100/1Stall 10: 9 winners from 35 runners 1977 to 2013.Remove 1 winner (2013) as stall 10 had no advantage that year.That leaves 8 winners from 35 yearsTakeaway the above "no hopers" (sorry Tenby)That leaves 8 winners from 27 years where the horse in stall 10 was a goer = 29.6% win rateIt might just be luck of the draw, a statistical anomaly, small numbers producing odd results.(The 2016 Kentucky Derby had 20 starters:- 14 in stall machine 1; and 6 in stall machine 2.)(The 2013 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe had 17 starters:- 14 in stall machine 1; 3 in stall machine 2)Does that answer your question?
YES, that's a v good analysis, ty and well done !
Jun 6, 2016 -- 2:20PM, harry callaghan wrote:
i find it very interesting that no one that i can see has questioned US Army Rangers attitude, considering moore was only really going for the full out drive just outside the furlong and just when he got upside the winner, he seemed to back out of it very quickly in my book...i know the winner stayed on well and just kept finding but usar found little under the maximum drive and although moores ride has been critized and i can see why considering where he came from, he did however sit out of the early pace and settled lovely one off the rail, whereas the winner was rousted for an early position... anyway i just thought he found little when he looked certain to pick the winner quite easily, it is to early to start calling him names but in my book that is twice he has found little off the bridle, the irish derby will tell us more
For the last ¼ furlong , I can''t decide if Harzand accelerated away or if USAR just lugged left and just didnlt want to go by either .prob a bit f both.
Jun 8, 2016 -- 4:10PM, Figgis wrote:
Sint, At First Sight was probably not the best comparison I could've made, but there were others like Masterofthehorse and Astrology. That is just from the O'Brien yard but there have been plenty of other placed horses in the Derby that didn't do much afterwards at Gp1 level. From what I've seen of Idaho he just doesn't have the gears to be a genuine Gp1 horse and producing him for a later effort is unlikely to change that. To be honest I don't rate it great Derby form anyway. It wasn't amongst the poorer Derbys but I would only rate it medium level. I think both the winner and second will need to improve to win the better all age races later this year. Maybe one of those who finished behind could surprise me but I don't hold out much hope for them.
I'd agree with that sentiment - probably Harzand, simply because he found again for pressure, was the only one to make any real positive impression at the level you'd expect of these horses - i.e. in terms of the Eclipse / International / Champ Stakes / Arc
Seamie Heffernan put it best before the racing "I guess all our horses have impressed me at some time but also disappointed me" ...
Obv Harzand won't be dropping back in trip, and they'll all go at it again in the Irish Derby when we might learn more, but for the sake of the Arc only Harzand for me could make an impression, and I think this year's race is relatively open.