Peter Thomas article

We've reached a time when it's almost not nonsensical to be obsessing over the Cheltenham Festival as though nothing else in the interim is worth talking about.

We have some idea of the make-up of the fields, the upcoming 'trials' meetings begin to look like cup semi-finals, and we're in the business of deciding what kind of races we'd like to see. Even that, though, is far from simple.

I'm hoping that everybody else is as chuffed as I am that Constitution Hill looks like making it to the gig; that (much as I'm delighted to see Brighterdaysahead mounting a feasible challenge for the Irish) he's ready to serve us up an exhibition.

We also have what looks like a copper-bottomed Gold Cup favourite in Galopin Des Champs, but I've noticed a rumbling and a grumbling in recent days about the dearth of the home challenge and the likelihood of a small-field, bloodless-win scenario.

I wonder if people grumbled when Arkle was duffing up a couple of horses here and there at long odds-on. He beat a grand total of ten horses in winning his three Gold Cups, in case you'd forgotten (at 7-4, 30-100 and 1-10), which these days would be cause for a lot of navel-gazing, if not a full-blown inquiry.

The point is, we can't dictate what kind of championship races we get, no matter how many rule tweaks we invent; no matter how many times we let down the tyres on Willie Mullins' horse box; so we have to enjoy what evolves organically in front of us.

Some years we'll have open, competitive races with plenty of runners – and people will moan about the lack of a genuine superstar.

Other years we'll have a genuine superstar and people – probably the same people – will moan that small fields and short prices are a turn-off, for the betting public and general public alike.

Me? I love a superstar. Superstars don't come along all that often, which is what makes them superstars and why we should enjoy them while we can. I don't care what price they are or how many horses they run against, I just want to see them flex their muscles.

As the dodgy, but occasionally apt, old sayings go, 'The horse doesn't know what price it is' and 'You can beat only what's in front of you'.

So, I'd be happy for Constitution Hill to win the Champion Hurdle by 20 lengths at 4-11, just so I can say I was there; and for Galopin Des Champs to land the Gold Cup at 1-3 with his head in his chest, so we have another hero to salute.

There'll be plenty of other races with 20-plus runners and 11-2 the field.

Thank you, Scooby. Much appreciated. I like Peter Thomas and just wondered what he had to say.

Some years we'll have open, competitive races with plenty of runners – and people will moan about the lack of a genuine superstar.

Other years we'll have a genuine superstar and people – probably the same people – will moan that small fields and short prices are a turn-off, for the betting public and general public alike.


I wonder which forum he's talking about ?

From the article: I wonder if people grumbled when Arkle was duffing up a couple of horses here and there at long odds-on. He beat a grand total of ten horses in winning his three Gold Cups, in case you'd forgotten (at 7-4, 30-100 and 1-10), which these days would be cause for a lot of navel-gazing, if not a full-blown inquiry.

I'd like a full-blown inquiry into Arkle's rating which so far as I can tell came from a Timeform hack's WAGuess years afterwards (Timeform did not cover jumps racing during Arkle's heyday). I'm not saying Arkle was the Quixall Crossett of the 1960s but I do suspect a touch of misty-eyed romanticism.

Excellent article in my opinion.

Your on safe ground Ramruna because you won't be laying him in a h'cap. Tell us if Constitution Hill is the GOAT hurdler.

Arkle's achievements in handicaps against top class horses should tell people all they need to know.

The biggest acolade you could give Arkle was by the IRHB who devised two different weight systems for the Irish Grand National, one for when Arkle ran and one for when he didnt! He won of course, giving away more than two stone!

The point is, we can't dictate what kind of championship races we get

Well, yes we can, do away with the Ryanair and the mares' hurdle, for example, and you potentially strengthen the Champion Chase and Gold Cup.

So the obvious example this year would be if Lossiemouth / Betterdaysahead take the easier option, then it weakens the Champion Hurdle.

Cant agree with the Ryanair Chase George I'm afraid, its a 20 furong race and the only Grade 1 Chase at that distance at the festival.

28 races is it and you can count the number of big field 11 to 2 the field  races on the fingers of one hand at the chelt festival

Tiger Tiger, take One Man, for example, if the Ryanair option had been there, he would have gone for it after they had given up on the Gold Cup, but as it was the only other option was the Champion Chase, and what happened, a great victory defeating the likes of Viking Flagship and Klairon Davis.

Or take for example, Flakey Dove, she'd won the Cleeve Hurdle 2m5f earlier in 1994 before going on to Champion Hurdle success, and if the mares' option had been there at the time she quite likely would have gone for it and we wouldn't have seen here defeat crack 2m hurdlers like Large Action in a championship race.

Accept they got it wrong and go back to three days.

* her defeat

No problem going back to three days George, but its right that there is a 20furlong option for those who have chasers suited to that distance.

The other good reason to do away with the extra races they've brought in is to try and deal with the Mullins / Elliott 'problem' / dominance.

Reduce the options to keep their best horses apart, and when owners see they're down the pecking order and easier pickings aren't there, then they may consider giving other trainers a chance.

I'm a massive fan of both those stables so its not really a problem for me. The dominance of those two has to be taken against the number of runners that they bring over every year, between them they have a strike rate of around 11% at the festival, you would be a poor man had you backed every one of theirs at the last four festivals and that includes backing the more fancied ones. It still comes down to backing the 'right one' which is no different to assessing any race. The main profit for punters from these two at the festival has been the outsiders from 6th in the betting market outwards to 20th place.

At Bfsp of course.

Be more interesting to see the strike rate if they have an entry. If Mullins has 6 in the same race, only one can win (dh aside). It's not the same as running in six individual races with the same expectation.

When Mullins has just one runner in the race his strike rate is 18% but quite a large level stake loss
Elliott has a 15% strike rate showing a profit over the years but not the last three years when he is 0/34

With just one or 2 runners in the race:

Mullins is around 15% and a large loss at Bfsp
Elliott however is 13% with a rather large Bfsp profit which over the years has a 94% ROI.

It would be tricky to run the query probably, but at the festival if Mullins has a runner in the race I'd estimate it to be close to 40% recently

Anyway to run it on the basis of individual runners would completely underestimate the dominance. He has runners that would win if he didn't already have the winner of the race!

interesting stat re elliot 0/34 with a single runner but profit with one or two runners

and yes i take it that timeframes are not the same