Menangle Review

[Richard prior]

Yep Monarkmac got a lucky split and Brave Wiggy run them off their legs.

[Pena]

It has got nothing to do with the personalities it just my opinion. I thought Laurens drive on Liberitius the week before shows how much she has improved and does not need to lead at all costs although it seemed to change again last weekend. IMO if Brave Wiggy goes 28.4 and 27.1 it still wins so why was the 27.1 and 28.4 so good. The horse went fantastic but the drive was just a drive. Of course you need luck the way Monarkmac was driven but making the right moves to get that luck is what makes it a good drive.

Notice only one person has discussed the COT. Below is the way SSL was driven when a McCarthy horse was in front. Mmmmmm. The COT rule is basically sactioning not giving some horses a chance. Its a blight on the industry and the sooner its gone the better.


http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=PC280913&rn=7

[Messenger]

It has got nothing to do with the personalities it just my opinion. I thought Laurens drive on Liberitius the week before shows how much she has improved and does not need to lead at all costs although it seemed to change again last weekend. IMO if Brave Wiggy goes 28.4 and 27.1 it still wins so why was the 27.1 and 28.4 so good. The horse went fantastic but the drive was just a drive. Of course you need luck the way Monarkmac was driven but making the right moves to get that luck is what makes it a good drive.

Notice only one person has discussed the COT. Below is the way SSL was driven when a McCarthy horse was in front. Mmmmmm. The COT rule is basically sactioning not giving some horses a chance. Its a blight on the industry and the sooner its gone the better.


http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=PC280913&rn=7

Jack you are not thinking tactically.
The biggest advantage a leader has is that they are already winning and they can set the pace. And other than a horse having the drop on you, one of the biggest disadvantages is that you do not have eyes in the back of your head (you cannot be looking around the whole time)

Let's say I am a driver who knows their horse well and knows their opposition well too.
I know that my horse and his main opposition are capable of running a final half of 54 provided nothing too crazy has happened in the first half
We are inside the half mile and I know that I have a handy gap on my main opposition (they have been caught out) and I know that before they will react to my move I will have a couple more metres (the nature of initiator v reactor)

I could forfeit this extra advantage of surprise and just do a rubber neck and try building the pace to maintain my gap on them, knowing I am still a 70% chance of winning. There is also that slight chance that when you take your eyes off them, they put in a spurt and close the gap (gaining the initiator meters)
OR
I could take advantage of their mistake and my knowledge of how fast I can get to the finish and how fast they are capable of going and increase my winning chance to 90%.

It makes me think of the brilliant drive of Glen Craven on Keayang Steamer when he beat Smoken Up in the Horsham Cup this year. It was a reverse of this situation in that Keayang was right with Smoken but Glen caught Lance out by taking the initiative by accelerating quickly earlier than Lance expected which has become the recipe for beating SU since (the champ does have a fair excuse - 11 of them)

[brent_L]

Notice only one person has discussed the COT. Below is the way SSL was driven when a McCarthy horse was in front. Mmmmmm. The COT rule is basically sactioning not giving some horses a chance. Its a blight on the industry and the sooner its gone the better.


http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=PC280913&rn=7

I understand what u r saying but surely there would be an equal amount of disgruntlement in the SSL instance even without the COT. At least with the notification, punters (smart ones anyhow) know to steer clear of wagering him. Doesn't help those who bet early though.

[HaroldParker]

I understand what u r saying but surely there would be an equal amount of disgruntlement in the SSL instance even without the COT. At least with the notification, punters (smart ones anyhow) know to steer clear of wagering him. Doesn't help those who bet early though.

As I'm sure you're aware Brent, Mach Beauty was very heavily supported with the corporates and then with TAB fixed odds when they went up, well before the COT.

As I said in the other thread, the policing of the sport by stewards is a joke at present.

We won't be getting on for two bob shortly. Once the corporates write off Harness Racing and trust me they're not far away (can you blame them ?) turnover / the industries take will get hit hard.

The integrity of the sport begins and ends with the Stewards and they're too poorly resourced.

SSL was, as they used to say in the Red Hot days, pulled up on Saturday night. It was given no hope and at the discretion of the Stewards.

With the avalanche of support for Mach Beauty, in layman terms, the COT = "we're driving SSL dead because we've got the kitchen sink on Mach Beauty". This example is so obvious that the Stewards (given the support for the stablemate) they should of denied the request.

[HaroldParker]

How close are we to seeing stablemates coupled up (or more) in the betting ?

[HaroldParker]

although I'm singling out SSL from Saturday night there's been a boat load of similar examples involving many of the leading barns.

[brent_L]

How close are we to seeing stablemates coupled up (or more) in the betting ?

Not a terrible idea....wonder if it is successful in the states??

On the COT, again I totally understand your view, but I honestly CANNOT see a way around it. If I were Tritton, I'd have done the exact same thing. No way am I going to a) give SSL an unnecessary gut buster sitting outside of a 'primed' grand circuit campaigner or b) have a fresh MB pressured by a stablemate undermining his upcoming campaign. I'm just surprised they didn't try for a bigger slice of the pie......have SSL lead, then hand up which I'm sure would have also caused consternation.
We see it week in week out....chilli palmer the other week, bathurst regularly within the families, perth with snr's team, mildura/cramp, luke mac all over the countryside and so on and so on. Death, taxes & team driving.
Finally, whilst I love that the two corporates are continually going up early with their fixed prices, it doesn't seem like good business practice to me. Listed races yes, but if they are going to 'guesstimate' a market on a C3 three days out they deserve to be pillaged. As u and many more know, they go up the wrong price, get burnt, then limit clients.......expletive expletive.

[Pena]

Kevin, based on your theory then the drive yesterday on Im Supersonic must have been disgraceful. Led with ease and went a 61first half only to be outsprinted over the last 2 quarters. I assure you the first 2 advantages of leading such as controlling the pace, not having to obtain a run and thirdly covering the shortest distance to me are far more substantial advantages than not knowing whats going on behind you and I am sure the statistics would show the largest number of race winners lead. I am not saying that it was a bad drive but hardly the drive of the night.
As for bracketing runners I am pretty sure this will never happen.
Brett, everything you say makes sense but Mach Alert was in the same category and this did not stop them hammering it with SSL.

[brent_L]

Brett, everything you say makes sense but Mach Alert was in the same category and this did not stop them hammering it with SSL.

Totally different IMO Jack. They weren't stablemates.