PDA

View Full Version : Jockeys More Relevant: Small Fields or Big Fields?


Onion Monster
05-05-2009, 01:12 PM
After watching the second at Philly today (a four horse field in the slop) and with the Derby fresh in everyone's minds, I began to think about rider tactics.

In today's Philly race, I witnessed a jock on an odds-on horse give one of the worst rides to a front-runner you'll ever see. Moncrieffe, a fast mare in declining form, broke alertly and was quickly in front. Two of her competitors were cheapish stalkers and the only legitimate threat was a decent closer named Rubbernecker. Moncrieffe's jock seemed content to slow down the pace and allow the stalkers to stack up along side and harrass her through slow splits. The jock on Rubbernecker sat chilly and watched until a lane opened up on the turn and went right on by. Moncrieffe finished last (no bridge jumpers drowned in the place pool, though).

46zilzal
05-05-2009, 01:16 PM
Moncreif was going off form big time and the rider would have had to have rockets to change that outcome. That one was a joke at those odds: NO HORSE

Onion Monster
05-05-2009, 01:27 PM
Well, I hope you cashed. Horses never reverse form at Philly.

It would have been interesting to see how she would have done with a good jock aboard today. One that would have let her run fast early, spurn her speedy rivals and build a big lead at the top of the stretch. In my opinion, it's not so much about splits or time as it is about space or distance within the field. If Rubbernecker would have been used earlier to stay within contact, I doubt she would have closed so alertly.

And I didn't lose any money on this mare. I'm upset that I didn't bet more on the closer (fears of the slop and speed made me halve my bet).

46zilzal
05-05-2009, 01:29 PM
No logical choice given the odds versus past performances so no bet