If you read my two series on pace and its implications, you should be acutely aware of the relationship between even pace and optimal time.
With tonight's Kentucky Derby in mind, now is the time to put that learning into action. Let's look at the individual splits of several key horses and think about how they relate to the final times earned in each case.
I will be using Beyer speed figures strictly for this exercise, though I do feel they are less potent as an analytical tool than the new US Timeform ratings devised by Simon Rowlands.
Anyway, for your information and analysis, here we go with the number-crunching:
Dialed In (Florida Derby): 24.9 - 23.3 - 23.7 - 25.1 - 13.1 = Beyer 93
Shackleford (Florida Derby): 23.3 - 23.1 - 24.3 - 25.8 - 13.7 = Beyer 93
Soldat (Fountain of Youth): 24.3 - 23.7 - 24.4 - 24.8 - 13.0 = Beyer 96
Soldat (GP allowance): 24.3 - 24.0 - 23.9 - 24.5 - 12.6 = Beyer 103
Archarcharch (Ark Derby): 24.2 - 23.5 - 24.2 - 24.7 - 12.8 = Beyer 98
Nehro (Ark Derby): 24.2 - 23.8 - 24.6 - 24.5 - 12.4 = Beyer 98
Brilliant Speed (Blue Grass): 26.7 - 25.0 - 24.6 - 23.0 - 11.6 = Beyer 93
Twinspired (Blue Grass): 25.5 - 25.2 - 24.3 - 24.0 - 12.0 = Beyer 93
Twice The Appeal (Sun Dy): 23.5 - 22.4 - 25.2 - 26.4 - 13.5 = Beyer 89
Animal Kingdom (Spiral): 24.7 - 22.6 - 25.7 - 26.0 - 13.4 = Beyer 94
Decisive Moment (Spiral): 23.8 - 22.8 - 25.9 - 26.4 - 13.9 = Beyer 89
Midnight Interlude (SA Derby): 23.2 - 24.4 - 24.3 - 24.4 - 12.3 = Beyer 97
Comma To The Top (SA Dy): 22.8 - 24.5 - 24.2 - 24.5 - 12.7 = Beyer 97
Pants On Fire (LA Derby): 23.6 - 24.1 - 24.4 - 25.2 - 12.7 = Beyer 94
Nehro (LA Derby): 24.0 - 24.0 - 24.8 - 24.9 - 12.3 = Beyer 94
Mucho Macho Man (LA Dy): 24.0 - 23.9 - 24.7 - 24.6 - 12.8 = Beyer 93
Mucho Macho Man (Remsen): 24.5 - 23.3 - 23.5 - 26.0 - 13.0 = Beyer 99
If it wasn't clear already, this must be one of the most open renewals of the Kentucky Derby ever. If you look at the numbers above, Animal Kingdom appeals as a horse who ran a final time competitive with the rest, while doing so more unevenly.
At this stage, we need to take a look at the stamina profile of the contenders - mostly according to their pedigree, with a little interpretation of how the individual is turning out. Here is my assessment of each, classified by 'stay', 'not stay' or 'improve':
1 Archarcharch - stay
2 Brilliant Speed - improve
3 Twice The Appeal - not stay
4 Stay Thirsty - improve
5 Decisive Moment - not stay
6 Comma To The Top - not stay
7 Pants On Fire - stay
8 Dialed In - improve
9 Derby Kitten - stay
10 Twinspired - stay
11 Master of Hounds - stay
12 Santiva - not stay
13 Mucho Macho Man - stay
14 Shackleford - not stay
15 Midnight Interlude - improve
16 Animal Kingdom - improve
17 Soldat - stay
19 Nehro - improve
20 Watch Me Go - stay
With none of the runners having achieved either a form rating of speed figure within 7lb of that required on average, it seems likely that this year's race will go to a horse improving for the test - rather than merely handling it.
The shortlist is:
Brilliant Speed - thrashed on two starts on dirt but bred to handle it
Dialed In - vulnerable one-run plodder but will surely go well
Stay Thirsty - sweated freely in first-time blinkers latest, left off
Nehro - carries head high but no denying his promise
Midnight Interlude - unraced as 2yo and has improved a lot in short time
Animal Kingdom - turf-bred but won dirt-style on deep Turfway poly
Dialed In and Nehro are solid contenders whose chance has been captured by the market - and even a little overestimated.
Brilliant Speed and Animal Kingdom are highly intriguing synthetic horses who could go very well, if they can handle dirt.
Midnight Interlude has star quality and could easily prove this year's superstar 3yo colt - if he can overcome lack of seasoning and everything which the race demands.
Stay Thirsty has a ton of stamina in his pedigree, had the Wood Memorial winner behind him two starts ago and is easily the most interesting of those at a massive price.
Good luck to all and please join me from 8pm on Racing UK for the live broadcast. It is an interactive show - as always.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Sunday, 1 May 2011
It might have been run on a strip of England's green and pleasant land, but the 2000 Guineas followed an energy dynamic more in common with races on dirt.
Frankel's brazen display of early pace turned the generally expected slow-fast pattern of turf races on its head. And it thereby put the emphasis on conditioning - a factor usually discussed more with regard to the first colts' Classic in the US, the Kentucky Derby.
The placed horses all came into the Guineas with the edge of fitness. Frankel had maintained his unbeaten record in Newbury's Greenham Stakes; runner-up Dubawi Gold had won twice in 2011 for new trainer Richard Hannon; while Native Khan had landed the Craven Stakes over course and distance, having come to hand earlier than trainer Ed Dunlop expected.
At this early stage of the season, the strong pace took the rest of the field out of their comfort-zone. Neither Pathfork, Casamento, Roderic O'Connor nor Fury had been given a prep race - understandable, perhaps, as this is normally not of overwhelming importance in grass races run at less than full tilt.
On this occasion, however, the physical demands of the race may have been too much for horses without the necessary foundation.
Of course, the order of merit expressed by the finish of the 2000 Guineas may well persist to the end of the Flat season. But the magnitude of the 11-length gap which separated Native Khan from the rest is likely explained by something other than the equivalent margin in ability.
Immediately after the race, two conclusions seemed to be drawn on Channel 4 from the outlandish manner of Frankel's victory. I disagree with both.
First, that the winner had a punishing race which will limit his potential.
Why? I find myself strongly opposed to this view. I think Frankel will get a lot out of the race and move forward off it.
This is a very talented horse who was asked to run outside his envelope for far less a period than the horses who finished behind. The inherent stress of this effort cannot be judged by his relativity to the rest of the field.
And, even when tiring, he showed clear signs of expressing some control over his exertion. (I wrote about this principle in my series on Equine Flow Psychology and believe it to be important.)
Second, that we should be more negative about Frankel's chances of winning the Derby.
Frankel was allowed to run at a tempo suitable to the tactical demands of the Guineas - as conceptualised by his trainer and executed by his jockey. In the event, jockey Tom Queally was somewhat generous in the freedom he allowed his mount.
Like many trainers, Henry Cecil believes in conditioning his horses to run hard, but he has the intuition to judge their psychological needs far better than the vast majority.
Queally made little attempt to restrain Frankel because Cecil believed that was the right course of action for the colt. And Frankel's single-furlong ability is miles better than the horses who took him on. It is easy to see that the corollary of these two statements would land the horse in a clear early lead - without it being the result of a headstrong tendency which cannot be curbed.
The race might have looked startling to the eye accustomed to watching only races on grass, but it would have been considered a perfectly natural performance on dirt. It would be understood that Frankel's style of running was an attempt to reduce the uncertainty of victory for the best horse in the race.
To my mind, the free-going tendencies which Frankel displayed during his two-year-old season were a response to his being restrained behind horses in tight quarters. And that view is evinced by his extreme reaction to catching a bump in the Dewhurst.
It appeals strongly that Frankel is a horse who wants or needs to ration his own effort and to have his own space - in other words, to stride on. But that does not mean he wants to run off.
Riding tactics are not binary; they are not just push or pull. If Frankel is buried at the back of the pack at Epsom, he would resent it; he would pull hard and may ruin his chance.
But, if he is allowed to race close to the pace and his speed just a little more rationed, he may settle sufficiently well.
Derby candidates regarded as doubtful stayers are often compromised by the way they are ridden at Epsom. They allow more stamina-laden horses to be kicked on running down Tattenham Hill, while they idle this section of the race away. In other words, they give lengths away cheaply then try to buy them back more expensively in the closing stages.
Frankel's two-year-old exploits told us that he tends to pull hard when restrained and in behind horses; the Greenham seemed to confirm this impression. But, if the Guineas threw any more light on his chance of winning the Derby, I don't think it was negative - and that's the point I am trying to make.
Frankel is a horse of monstrous talent who was asked - or at least allowed - to express his superiority over the Guineas field in the first part of the race, rather than the last.
When Hawk Wing's jockey Jamie Spencer employed the opposite tactical approach to achieve the same result in 2002, his mount ran on strongly at the end of the race. And, perversely, he was regarded as having run a much better Derby trial - even though he was beaten and Frankel won easily.
But, the contrasting impressions created at the end of the Guineas by Hawk Wing and Frankel were only a function of riding tactics.
Hawk Wing went on to run a huge race when second at Epsom; he would have won the Derby in most years. He was beaten only by a great middle-distance stayer in High Chaparral.
I would bet a lot of money that Frankel could run at least as fast as Hawk Wing over the Derby course. Perhaps, if he did, he would also be defeated. But he is nothing like the forlorn hope some are portraying.
You, of course, may disagree. And, more to the point, so may Henry Cecil. There is always a doubt sending any horse over a trip 50 per cent further than before.
But the confidence in him to achieve the task could change as the race approaches. Do you really want to bet against easily the best horse at Epsom?
Posted by James Willoughby at 03:03