|
By:
Moore was being crucified by plenty on here a few weeks ago. I think with 600 odd rides a year most of the top jocks will have a duffer now and again in the same way many of us don't have a perfect day at work every day.
|
|
By:
The problem with jockeys is too many people on here think jockeys *do* have a perfect day every day, so that any perceived inadequacy is due to corruption. If Wayne Rooney hits one over the bar, no-one says he's laid Man Utd, but if a jockey misses the break or gets boxed in, they must be at it.
|
|
By:
morning Ram as usual I agree, ryan m. race errors are rare and really i ought resist but rooney getting into fights with barstaff again?....
|
|
By:
Rooney is a scouser, enough said.
|
|
By:
It's like this. If you saw a good claimer riding one in a handicap you'd take notice because of the weight allowance. In these top races Moore is worth 3 or 4 pounds before they even start. When there's not much difference in ability between many of the horses in the big races that advantage is absolutely huge and is why he's been top jockey at Royal Ascot so many times. As shown this week he's not always on what is clearly the best horse either.
As regards what Ramruma has said too many people on here automatically put failure to get a run down to a poor or awful ride. That is quite patently nonsense. Just because a decision taken by a jockey doesn't work out it doesn't automatically mean it was a bad decision. The people who expect jockeys to have perfect days every day certainly wouldn't expect the same of themselves as punters. When you bet there'll be some bets that come off just the way you planned, some that will lose but you'll be happy with the thought process that led you to make the bet and there'll be some that have you thinking what the ruddy hell was I doing there? Same thing can be applied to jockeys and just as there are punters who are more successful than others, the most successful jockeys are the ones with the least amount of what the hell was I doing there moments. |
|
By:
The Pies is spot on - all humans make mistakes at one time or another. What separates the very best is that they make fewer than the average. Whilst I wouldn't for one minute think that all bad rides are genuine mistakes, it's probably fair to say that any errors in judgement at Royal Ascot are just that rather than anything nefarious.
What does get me a little bit with Moore is the eulogising and unbalanced view on his riding in the media. I don't know whether it's because he's quite sullen to start with that the media are reluctant to criticise but his errors of judgement seem to be glossed over a little more. He has had 8 winners so far this meeting, but it's fair to say that Gleneagles, Washington DC, Acapulco, Curvy, Waterloo Bridge and War Envoy would probably still have won with other top jockeys on too (I'm not belittling his rides at all - a pace misjudgement on the 2 year olds in particular would have resulted in a different outcome - but a number of others would have pulled them off in my view). There have been though in my view 4 horses who lost at the meeting who should have won (or at least got a lot closer). These are Sir Isaac Newton, The Grey Gatsby, Always Smile and Kingfisher. Moore was responsible for two of these. If you judge a jockey by the number of races that he wins that he is not entitled to (ie not on the best horse) and the number of races he loses which he should have won (ie on the best horse) then Moore's performance this week is not as far ahead as the 8-2 score has you believe. There is very little comment on the poorer rides though, just a lot of noise about all the wins, the majority of which have come from being on the best horse of the day. Don't get me wrong, if I had to select a jockey to ride for my life it would be Ryan Moore. However, just because he is the best should not make him immune to criticism. (To declare my hand, I backed Fadhayyill, Free Eagle, Touchline and Kingfisher in the races mentioned above). |