Superior Strategy By Team Blame

[how cliche]

Many a fantastic post on this forum have detailed the winning strategy for closers in 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 races at Churchill. Street Sense, Monarchos. Get the lead at the 8th pole, the 8th pole, the 8th pole.

Stall & Hancock: These guys are good. Astute post-race press conference answers were made when asked about their pre-race strategy going in. This was prior to Gomez exiting the Jocks room so they were alone. They'd continually drawn it up to the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole. After that they could plan no more and let the chips fall. It was brilliant. It's how you win at that distance over that track. An example of home field advantage & course knowledge utilized to perfection.

Over the weekend look back at Blind Luck's and Zenyatta's tries. Their strategies to win anywhere else provide a blueprint for how you finish second at Churchill. They ran good, good races but in my opinion were traveling uphill against the track profile.

Hats off to the connections of Blame for employing a strategy that gave their charge the best chance to win.

[Market Mover]

Many a fantastic post on this forum have detailed the winning strategy for closers in 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 races at Churchill. Street Sense, Monarchos. Get the lead at the 8th pole, the 8th pole, the 8th pole.

Stall & Hancock: These guys are good. Astute post-race press conference answers were made when asked about their pre-race strategy going in. This was prior to Gomez exiting the Jocks room so they were alone. They'd continually drawn it up to the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole. After that they could plan no more and let the chips fall. It was brilliant. It's how you win at that distance over that track. An example of home field advantage & course knowledge utilized to perfection.

Over the weekend look back at Blind Luck's and Zenyatta's tries. Their strategies to win anywhere else provide a blueprint for how you finish second at Churchill. They ran good, good races but in my opinion were traveling uphill against the track profile.

Hats off to the connections of Blame for employing a strategy that gave their charge the best chance to win.


Perfectly put. A perfect example of utilizing homefield advantage and knowledge of track configuration and track bias to maximize strategy in beating a one-run closing beast.

Sometimes, the best horse does not win. But the horse who gets the best trip and takes advantage of the best running style and most favorable pace scenario that wins.

[Stillriledup]

Many a fantastic post on this forum have detailed the winning strategy for closers in 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 races at Churchill. Street Sense, Monarchos. Get the lead at the 8th pole, the 8th pole, the 8th pole.

Stall & Hancock: These guys are good. Astute post-race press conference answers were made when asked about their pre-race strategy going in. This was prior to Gomez exiting the Jocks room so they were alone. They'd continually drawn it up to the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole. After that they could plan no more and let the chips fall. It was brilliant. It's how you win at that distance over that track. An example of home field advantage & course knowledge utilized to perfection.

Over the weekend look back at Blind Luck's and Zenyatta's tries. Their strategies to win anywhere else provide a blueprint for how you finish second at Churchill. They ran good, good races but in my opinion were traveling uphill against the track profile.

Hats off to the connections of Blame for employing a strategy that gave their charge the best chance to win.

So, you're saying that Zenyatta might have been the better horse, but strategy got Blame the win?

[cpitt84]

On that day, Blame was the best horse. Is he the better horse out of the two? I dont think so.

If this race was on poly, Zenyatta probably wins it. At least to me, it is her preferred running choice. And I dont think the dirt allows for a full extension.

[Spiderman]

Many a fantastic post on this forum have detailed the winning strategy for closers in 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 races at Churchill. Street Sense, Monarchos. Get the lead at the 8th pole, the 8th pole, the 8th pole.

Stall & Hancock: These guys are good. Astute post-race press conference answers were made when asked about their pre-race strategy going in. This was prior to Gomez exiting the Jocks room so they were alone. They'd continually drawn it up to the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole, the 1/8th pole. After that they could plan no more and let the chips fall. It was brilliant. It's how you win at that distance over that track. An example of home field advantage & course knowledge utilized to perfection.

Over the weekend look back at Blind Luck's and Zenyatta's tries. Their strategies to win anywhere else provide a blueprint for how you finish second at Churchill. They ran good, good races but in my opinion were traveling uphill against the track profile.

Hats off to the connections of Blame for employing a strategy that gave their charge the best chance to win.

Except for Dakota Phone coming from far back, none of the other dirt winners were more than 4 lengths back. Zenyatta ran the same race as in 2009, but was a bit too far back to hit the wire first.

[Linny]

Blind Luck was hurt by an inexplicable lack of pace. With some of the speedballs in there, anyone would have expected a sharper 6f split. (Life at Ten's absence from her usual forward spot was part of it, not all of it.) The Distaff is not 10f but 9, but she wasn't in the lead at the 1/8 pole of any of her races, including the one she won at Churchill, the Oaks. She's earned most of her wins in the final 2 jumps.
Blame was fairly far back as well. Z was much farther back than usual because the front runners were so much faster than any she'd run against. She pretty much ran the same early race as usual but against modest fillies on synthetics where slow paces dominate, she could run that slow early and still be with 6 or 7 lengths of the lead.

[JustRalph]

On that day, Blame was the best horse. Is he the better horse out of the two? I dont think so.

If this race was on poly, Zenyatta probably wins it. At least to me, it is her preferred running choice. And I dont think the dirt allows for a full extension.

So you agree that Poly has enhanced her reputation, assisted her in the winning streak and invalidates her being compared to any great runners over the last fifty years. Yep, I think you are right.

[cpitt84]

So you agree that Poly has enhanced her reputation, assisted her in the winning streak and invalidates her being compared to any great runners over the last fifty years. Yep, I think you are right.

I think poly allowed her to grip the surface more and in this most recent case, dirt was-AT LEAST- a small reason in lowering Zenyatta's patented, extended stride.

She didn't have to extend in her two previous wins on dirt. Like I said, I dont know 100% if dirt is the reason but I am only going by what I saw.

[PaceAdvantage]

But the horse who gets the best trip and takes advantage of the best running style and most favorable pace scenario that wins.Something Zenyatta's connections and fans were all too familiar with until Saturday.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think poly allowed her to grip the surface more and in this most recent case, dirt was-AT LEAST- a small reason in lowering Zenyatta's patented, extended stride.

She didn't have to extend in her two previous wins on dirt. Like I said, I dont know 100% if dirt is the reason but I am only going by what I saw.All I know is Shirreffs said she was better on dirt...that's good enough for me.

[FenceBored]

All I know is Shirreffs said she was better on dirt...that's good enough for me.

Yeah, to quote a Zenyatta fan from last week:
Shireffs says Zenyatta is better on dirt than synthetic in the press conference today, I'll take his word rather than totally clueless chatboard guessers
-- http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=996806&postcount=18 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=996806&postcount=18)

[cpitt84]

All I know is Shirreffs said she was better on dirt...that's good enough for me.

From her 2 previous dirt races, she looked to be that way. Do you think she looked better on dirt?

I am not saying shirreffs is wrong. What I am saying is that maybe she didn't run her best race and MAYBE dirt was a factor in this particular race.

[how cliche]

So, you're saying that Zenyatta might have been the better horse, but strategy got Blame the win?

No. Blame won it fair and square & was best. I will say this: I think in order to prevail in the fashion that team Zenatta attempted to Saturday or team Blind Luck tried to Friday you must not just be best, but much the best. Similarly in order for Curlin to have won the classic at Santa Anita utilizing his normal running style he needed to not just be best, but much the best. An argument can be made: Zenyatta won the '09 classic by her connections utilizing home field advantage and course knowledge to their advantage much like Blame did in '10. Gio Ponti might've won had he tried to make the last run.

In May I played Evening Jewel heavy to win in The Oaks and heavy in the Oaks/Derby doubles as well. I played her for exactly the reasons we're discussing here. Fact: Blind Luck was much the best on Oaks day. I acknowledge this in spite of a bitter nose defeat. You don't win that way on that track unless you are.

I don't entirely view horse racing as a horse vs. horse sport, however. I view it as a team effort. The horse is more than 50% of the equation but the folks around the animal can aid him or hinder him. Team Blame did everything you should & I give them credit for managing an outstanding campaign.

Team Zenyatta made two errors from my perspective.
1) Shirreffs tips his hand in the mornings when his distance horses are going to run a new personal best. They also tip their hand when he's doing little more than maintaining their established form.
1A. Based on her worktab heading into Saturday I thought she was going to run poorly. Incorrect.
1B. I also deemed it nearly impossible, should she fire, that she'd post a new personal best. Correct.
1C. Conclusion: Shirreffs surmised that her previous best was good enough. Almost.

2) Both Smith and Shirreffs believed they could get up in the final strides to win going 1 1/4 at Churchill.
2A. With Giacomo prevailing in the derby for them it's understadable that they saw no need to modify anything.
2B. Conclusion: It was their asessment going in that no modification in running style was needed. I disagree.

[Robert Goren]

When you live by the photo finish camera, you die by the photo finish camera. How many times did she win in a photo. But it was her running style that drew so many casual horse racing fans to her.

[cj]

I rarely even mention jockeys, but I don't think Garrett Gomez is getting near enough credit. His ride was a very good, especially his sense of pace. He took him twice as far behind the leader as he had ever been at the first call of a route race.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I agree that Gomez' ride was very good. With 200 to go in the Classic it looked like Zenyatta had Blame and the rest covered. But Gomez had not asked Blame for a serious effort yet and he found plenty in the last 200

[GregReinhart]

I rarely even mention jockeys, but I don't think Garrett Gomez is getting near enough credit. His ride was a very good, especially his sense of pace. He took him twice as far behind the leader as he had ever been at the first call of a route race.

I think one of the remarkable things about not just Garrett's ride in the Classic but his excellent weekend in total is that I'm pretty sure he did it basically with one arm. I get the impression from his post-race comments that the shoulder he hurt in the spill on Thursday was really bothering him (he said on ESPN that it was really messed up) and yet he was able to lay it all on the line both days.

[SmartyLane]

I agree. I would like to know the amount of cortisone he took to that shoulder early Saturday morning. Those jockeys are some tough ole boys.

[JustRalph]

From her 2 previous dirt races, she looked to be that way. Do you think she looked better on dirt?

I am not saying shirreffs is wrong. What I am saying is that maybe she didn't run her best race and MAYBE dirt was a factor in this particular race.

The numbers show that this might have been her best race ever. At least top 2 in her career. I am not an expert, but if I read them right........she used that extra gear that we heard so much about. The one I thought was there when I posted before that we had not seen the bottom on her. We saw the bottom of her Saturday......and it was a foot short. I love the damn horse. I think she was grossly mishandled. But I also realize I don't know shit about horses and racing them. But what the hell, I am allowed an opine.

I stated a couple of days before that if she runs the same race as last years classic, she can win it. In fact I manipulated the pacelines in one of my software programs using just her classic win and ran several different scenarios. I ended up kind of settling on the scenario in the pic attached.

I did bet against that scenario in a way. I was hoping the Jocks would try to take advantage and slow the pace down some so as to maybe not give her the advantage of closing into hot fractions. I got three out of four in the top four in my selections. The pace scenario I wanted to really cash in, did not develop.