Good morning Imp123, methinks you are giving trolls a bad name.

I think you should read the Wings of Desire statement again F. It says nothing about his fitness or any improvement other than benefitting from, what was, a pre race gallop on the track. And has nothing at all to do with horses improving from a previous run.

I know evidence can be looked at in different ways but there is a lot of evidence out there now surrounding Cracksman to say he COULD not only win but win by a wide margin. I would be the first to confess I never believed I would be saying that but it is there.

At the moment I believe there is a growing mountain of evidence that points to the fact Cracksman could win this race very easily. Of course there is some evidence to the contrary, and it has some validity, but it is very limited and easily dismissed.

Added to the facts in the formbook there are the actions of some trainers.

JG clearly thinks this is his best horse, will act on the course and not mind any ground. And his other horses are not shabby.

He rates Cracksman a good deal higher than Glencadam Gold who finished well behind Best Solution.
Yesterday Khalidi thrashed Raheen Gold who had every chance and has form with Rivet. Similarly JG rates Cracksman a lot higher than Khalidi.
This brings in other horses with Rivet associated form. OrderoftheGarter, Cliffs of Moher, Benbatl, Eminent, Yucatan, Douglas McArthur, Capri, Rekindling.
Khalidi also easily beat Max Zorin who finished close up to CoM at Chester.
Premain beat Benbatl at York who has form with Rivet and Eminent.
Venice Beach has form with The Anvil who has form with Rivet.
Rivet has form with Yucatan who has form with Capri who has form with Waldgeist.

Added to that SMS who had two horses close up in the trials at York and Chester doesn't think they are good enough and they don't run.
AOB cannot seem to decide which horses he is going to run.
Sin Bin was going to run at least four.

And finally the 2000 Guineas form could be a red herring. Churchill may have only won the way he did because of the way the race was run. He has form putting himself a lot further ahead than he finished so, as this was his first race of the season and all he needed to do was win those behind could easily have been flattered. 

Of course that isn't how things usually work out but over recent weeks the evidence is mounting up and up.

If he gets beaten then he gets beaten. That, as they say, is horse racing. But as I have followed the form closely over recent weeks, and the points I have raised are valid points not my opinion, I didn't want to come on here after the race, should he win, and be accused of after timing.

Of course I have A_T, I was being sarcastic. The thread wouldn't be big enough.

With Yucatan, Mirage Dancer and best of days dropping out we might be getting towards a 16 runner derby. I am assuming no Finn McCool, churchill, fierce impact, The anvil, Tamleek, Thunder snow, salouen and crowned eagle.

I have no idea about Pealer and assuming that they run Benbatl which must be only 50%. its probably really only as Diore La finishes anywhere but last it will be a huge shock

Any chance for Capri lads?  Looks like a battler and Douglas Macarthur had the rail to help him in the Derrinstown.  Quite hard work chasing a leader for a whole race but with a decent pace in the Derby I can see him staying on into 2nd, maybe even grabbing the win.  Nice bits of 2yo form and the dam line suggests he'll improve at 12f.  But who rides?  Would prefer Seamie-  be sweet for him to go one better than Treasure Beach.

"never" engages in any long discussion or debate with "Figgis", why? He keeps moving the "goalpost"!

From someone who is adamant certain horses are unlikely to run, never mind win, only to reveal at a later stage that the said horse has already been added to his ever growing 'portfolio' of bets

I agree that this year's Derby does not compare with what many Derby's look like. The Epsom trial was won by a whisker, the Lingfield trial and the Dante by what appeared to be unfancied horses and the Chester trials were anything but conclusive. The 2000 Guineas and the Predominate winners are not running. And the Irish Derby trials look a bit of a mess. Normally we are looking at Group 1 type horses who have shown a good level of form and trying to sort one from two or three. This race is not like that. Where the clues are there for all to see this time they may need a little more searching for. It doesn't mean they are not there though.

I had expected Cracksman to run at Newbury then possibly Sandown but JG changed his mind and won both trials with other horses. This gave me a little encouragement.
Still in April he went to Epsom and the vibes were awful but he still won. It certainly wasn't what I believed to be Derby winning form.

Then we had Chester and the trials were far from inconclusive or overwhelmimg.
Followed by the Lingfield trial where the AOB horse got stuffed and Sin Bin appeared.
The French 2000 Gns made Eminent's form look a little better and the CoM form a little worse. Rivet ran well ish.
Then the Dante where the Epsom form was franked. The Eminent form was dampened a little and Stoute didn't seem to make the form look great by pulling his horse.
By now Cracksman's chances were rising, and his price was shortening without leaving his stable and for what looked like a good reason.
JG was making all of the right noises about his progress compared with earlier in the season.
With Khalidi for JG winning the last trial at Goodwood by a wide margin making Permian form look better and Rivet form look worse, therefore, enhancing Cracksman's form we are now where we are.

I have spent most of this year thinking he cannot win but actually he does seem to have, at the very least, at this moment in time, a favourites chance.

Figgis

Surely we've had this point raised before by you?

The only ratings available to most people are RPR's which have the additional advantage of going back some time. This helps with analysis and with debate. I have my own ratings which indeed are more sophisticated but nobody else has access to these nor to yours which I'm sure you consider also to be ben more accurate or at least more reliable.

The limitation with collateral ratings is that they are based on the relative merits of other horses in the race and whilst being reasonably reliable over time, they are especially behind the curve with lightly raced horses. Their predictive value is limited but still useful.

Like you I prefer to work with time based ratings but we must acknowledge that they are also subject to a wide range of potential errors and differences of opinion between compilers are therefore prone to be greater than with collateral ratings. I find that they add to insights especially when pace is considered.

I don't think that any rating is "correct" as you put it. Are TF ratings better than RPR's in that respect? Are TF's time ratings "better" than yours are mine? Are yours better than mine? I know that we can be at odds on occasions.Who knows?

If ratings were "correct" then indeed it would be hard to find bets which are not already discounted in the market.

The use of RPR's in discussing races like the Derby is still of value  imo.

I don't think that any rating is "correct" as you put it. Are TF ratings better than RPR's in that respect? Are TF's time ratings "better" than yours are mine? Are yours better than mine?

No but that is the point, occasionally there will be a wide range of differences where one horse is concerned. So one set of ratings cant be put forward as a standard for us all to accept and work from. That is one of the reasons why the Derby has been a favourite race of mine for years, actually my favourite race in the calendar. Form ratings are definitely limited where this race is concerned. Although I admit they've been less limited in recent times where Guineas horses have fared better than they did before New Approach's win.

So one set of ratings cant be put forward as a standard for us all to accept and work from.

I disagree. It is no different to using the market rankings which are perhaps  even more useful. It gives us a common focal point from which we can state our reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with both the order and the relative differences.

the current price with other factors still unknown (ground especially) I see no value at the price

Agree with this. Anyone who has backed Cracksman at bigger prices has done very well so far. However he has done nothing on the track since to suggest he's correctly priced at 4/1. Just as I admit that CoM has done nothing this year to make him so short, it is his win last year that I rate him on. Cracksman won his trial like he was expected to. Actually I'd say he was much less impressive than expected but there were possible excuses for that. His current price is based partly on his narrow beating of Permian and what Permian has done since, although nobody can be sure that Permian hasn't improved since Epsom. It is partly based around Gosden's comments, but personally I learned early on that trainers are inclined to find plus points for their horses. Look at how many horses run below par in any given race but I rarely hear a trainer predict this by saying beforehand that his runner has actually gone backwards since last time.

The other reason he's so short is simply he's there by default. He's a high profile runner with a two from two track record from a big yard, when people have been largely unimpressed with what they've seen from the other trials. Basically if you didn't fancy Cracksman before the trials there is very little reason to go in and take 4/1 now, unless you really must have a bet in the race and you've landed on him by a process of elimination. Likewise with CoM, if you didn't rate his 2yo form then he's done nothing since to show he's a 4/1 chance.

brigust1

Perhaps you can tell me one or more and why you think that.

Without wishing to appear rude, you should read what I have posted earlier

Kincsem, if he was alone in recording such splits then there may have been something in that, but Bay of Poets ran similarly. So I think we can say yes Cracksman can run pretty fast in those circumstances, a short distance off a slow pace, whereas maybe others would be more inconvenienced. What he did isn't that unusual though under those conditions. Unless we believe that Bay of Poets is also very good then I think it's safe to say that he'll need to do a lot more than that to prove he's a cut above.

I did read it S. I as just trying to tease something from you.

I'm watching racing coverage on RTE from The Curragh.
Plenty of rain.  It is bucketing down. 
They say it has gone from fast ground to good/soft.

Anyone only has to look at the standard, average or even median times for Epsom's 12f and about 6yds to realise it's probably the stiffest 12f a horse will face.

The downhill run at Epsom allows them to get a good breather in before the home straight which is also largely downhill unlike courses like Ascot. A lot of Derby winners are better at 10f. They may often go off too fast but not necessarily the fancied horses. Lester said Sir Ivor was a 10f horse, I think Mill Reef was a 10f horse, Willie Carson said the same about Nashwan and JG thought the same about Golden Horn. To name but a few.
We will have to agree to disagree about that one S.

If anyone can explain how a supposedly easier 12f takes longer to run than a supposedly stiffer one I'd be quite interested.

There's a bend on most of the 12f trips they're being compared with so that isn't valid. As for the downhill, that would have to be quite some pull they're taking if it accounts for a 6.5 sec average difference between there and Ascot, for example.

The bend at Epsom is at the bottom of a steep hill.Probably unlike many other racecourses. If you have ever walked the course you may be surprised.

Just to be clear, 6.5 sec wouldn't be far off equating to half a furlong on most courses. It's just not possible to explain that away by jockeys taking a pull.