2012 Galway Plate: Likeliest Winner?

Out Now

A proper chaser. He’s got size, without approaching the ‘big police horse’ range. In the main he jumps very well: he has the ability to jump fast and fluently meaning no ground is forsaken, and sometimes a little gained. This is important as he travels comfortably through races with his size offering power and rhythm. In the 40k Leopardstown Handicap Chase in January he was prominent in 7th most of the way. He finished 2nd off 128; notable that the winner was Seabass running off 131 - that horse went on to win a Grade 2 Chase on his next start (beating Zaarito) and then finished 3rd in the Grand National beaten only 5L. He ended the season rated 154, shedding some light on Out Now’s efforts to chase him receiving only 3lbs.

Out Now then ran in the Irish National off 131. At Leopardstown he was ridden on the inside but here he was in the middle of a big-field in about 12th. There was not a bother on him and he was still travelling powerfully 4 and 3 out. Rounding the bend he still hadn’t been shaken up as the front four moved on and going to the 2nd last he stormed into second and almost the lead, taking off a stride before the leader and eventual winner, who jumped it marginally better. The question then is, did he stay? It is a punishing trip of 29f if not yet physically complete: perhaps still maturing into his frame? Perhaps not. The winner, a 10yo giving weight away, slightly lesser in stature but thoroughly lion-hearted, fought best. A long run to the last and barely nothing had changed: this time Out Now jumped one stride ahead of Lion Na Bearnai, who rallied and kept on to the line as Out Now finally gave in, bested.

Two stellar performances in defeat that give strong indications about his chances over 22f with a testing finish. He has of course climbed to 138 from his last win off 119 but his overall profile is one of a talented staying chaser with something of an engine about to come into his prime. It is therefore interesting in itself (if he’s an intended runner) that he has been aimed here rather than given the summer off for a winter campaign and an allotted weight of just 10-2, or 10-9 if Follow The Plan comes out, should see him with an excellent chance.

The Queen Mother Champion Chase 2013

5/4 for one race or 9/2 for the lot? Potentially one of the best two mile chasers ever. Certainly one of the most impressive Arkle winners ever. Sprinter Sacre put any amount of hurt into those brave enough to face off with him in his novice season. His Game Spirit win was nothing short of absolutely breathtaking; his Arkle win was stamped indelibly with superb fencing, shape, rhythm and power. Aintree offered a summation of all that had gone before. Five victories accruing a collective winning margin of 66 lengths leaving no doubt that we are in the midst of greatness.

Hill's offer of 9/2 didn’t stick around.

Among a constellation of stars, sometimes the youngest burn the brightest. Sizing Europe will be 11 in March: a stunningly talented 2m chaser, winner of the Greatwood Hurdle, all over the winner of a Champion Hurdle but for injury, Arkle winner, a Champion Chase winner and a Champion Chase runner-up denied only by a pulsating battle. Those are achievements that make good the words ‘class’, ‘brilliance’ and ‘durability’. At 11, however, the legs will no longer match the heart’s desire.

That titanic and somewhat controversial tussle at Cheltenham saw Sizing Europe eyeball Finian’s Rainbow and lose. Not many would have thought that possible. The horse that moved through his Arkle like, well, Sizing Europe, only to be brushed aside by the subsequently injury and error prone Captain Chris managed to turn another season of potential into a fine top notch win. Finian’s rainbow was snug at Kempton, beaten at Ascot, victorious, finally, at Cheltenham. He will be 10 in March, ever the late starter.

173, 171, 169. Champion, former Champion, Champion in Waiting.

In that Game Spirit, Geraghty wanted to restrain Sprinter Sacre. Try to settle, switch off; work among and behind horses. The request was met with disapproval. Hurtling over the first, pull, head thrown about repeatedly. Approaching the second Sprinter Sacre attacked his fence with relish in a way that would have overtaken everything had Geraghty not restrained him for a second time. More disapproval, perhaps bewilderment. Sprinter Sacre was still throwing his head around whilst clearly eyeballing the water fence and pinging it, slowly gaining the upper hand in his battle. By fence six, he was in front and gone: destruction.

Whilst two very good champions should never be cast aside, nor will they be, perhaps the most interesting of rivals is the horse that couldn’t be tamed over a hurdle: Sanctuaire. I’m not totally sure if a reason was ever given for the mandatory policy of starting Sanctuaire off in a race plum last. He rarely enjoyed it, often refusing to settle. For his wins, he got into the race largely due to the raw inferiority of his rivals. Persisted with over hurdles – again for no real reason – the late season switch to fences brought about a front-running sensation, culminating in a rating of 166, three shy of Sprinter Sacre. His victories were of the sunset season type: a fresh, invigorated horse against inferior opposition and although he slammed Somersby by 17L hard-held, that horse had had his day in the sun against Finian’s Rainbow (again, how did Finian’s Rainbow conjure up such defeats?)

Paul Nicholls also has the electric but injury bedraggled Tataniano in his care. The Nicholls pair and both the current and former Champion Chaser lie in wait for Sprinter Sacre: it is a measure of his talent that an unbeaten season bet makes any amount of appeal should it resurface between now and October. 

The Arkle 2013: Initial Inspection

My initial reaction when Simonsig was put in at 4/1 for the Arkle was a mixture of surprise and mild amusement. It’s a price that takes some getting used to and then some work to place in context. On surveying the Arkle landscape more closely, however, 4/1 was fair. Plenty of people agreed, he’s now best price 100/30.

The price is largely immaterial though. I remember very well being amused – prices clearly amuse me a fair bit – by the reaction to Big Buck’s’ price of 7/2 for the World Hurdle of 2011 some eight months before the race. It was a very nice gift. William Hill offered a similar gift for the 2012 renewal, effectively giving Big Buck’s away at 3/1 under the tagline of being unbeaten for the season. What tends to happen when such prices surface is betting people on social media sites start to pick apart the technicalities of the price: often, this exercise lacks reference to the race in the round. Some even start to cast around with mathematical formula regarding the likelihood of so and so and the risks of this or that. Such an approach is by and large a waste of time. To talk of the greatest staying hurdler ever, to remain briefly with Big Buck’s, is to talk of a racehorse with no weaknesses whatsoever. As such unless there is an opponent in the ranks with similar characteristics or the potential to develop them the prices are irrelevant as a discussion point (like most prices, I would contend) and are only of substantial interest as a subjective aspect of betting for a nominal reward. The price is the reward for correct analysis, not a clearly definable aspect of an abstract, metaphysical equation. (There will be an article at some stage on the ‘value myth’.) Perhaps the greatest wild goose chase ever to wreak havoc in people’s minds stems from the formulation of a question that has no definitive answer, that cannot be answered, and should therefore never have been posed in the first place: it is most commonly found in the format of “Is (price) value?” for whatever horse. Posed that way the question offers two possible answers, neither of which have any bearing on the actual race outcome, which strikes me as completely pointless. The aim is to find the likeliest winner of the race in question and only then assess whether the nominal reward figure, displayed as potential via the price on offer, appeals.

Last year’s Arkle, as it would happen, was a perfect illustration of the above. Sprinter Sacre won the race easily at 8/11 having first been offered at 10/1. In the very initial phases, it seemed he would have two hugely talented chasing rivals: the Supreme Novices winner and a Champion Hurdle runner up. Both those rivals unravelled fairly quickly and correspondingly Sprinter Sacre’s price fell in direct correlation to his ascent to superstar novice status not only with his performances but the expectation that accompanied them. At every turn, Sprinter Sacre’s price was questioned, examined, critiqued and occasionally derided. The value myth shone bright: precisely because he was by far the likeliest winner as every month passed, whether or not he was ‘value’ was completely irrelevant. Focus on the physical characteristics and raw talent needed to win the race meant his opponents were leagues below him (one even failed to make the race): to what extent were backers prepared to invest for the nominal reward was the only pertinent issue derived from analysis of the runners and the demands of the race. The prices were merely over generous for far too long, regarding the eventual winner at least.

Which leads us to Simonsig. The easiest thing to do is start with the potential level of opposition he is likely to face in March at this stage. On so doing it becomes clearer to see that 4/1 may well have been a good/fair price. The second favourite in the market is Overturn, a lionheart who will be a nine year old in March having raced 37 times before seeing a fence. Peddler’s Cross was not an Arkle horse and neither, one fears, is Overturn. Oscars Well made a strong impression in the Neptune novices hurdle because he ran with the choke out and clattered the last: in open company he registered no wins to rack up seven consecutive defeats leaving his only victories recorded on soft or heavy ground. Captain Conan, a huge police horse, did well to win on debut but looks to lack any kind of raw travelling speed that is essential in an Arkle. He’d need to be an electric fencer to figure but looks likely to be aimed elsewhere given his stable have the favourite.

The horse I would have thought most likely to become a true Arkle contender is Montbazon. Subject of glowing talk from his trainer his strapping yet elegant build was matched by an ability to cruise through races without being overly flashy. Unfortunately, he cannot hurdle well. Looking a huge threat in the Supreme Novices hurdle despite a couple of altercations with his hurdles he was also a little keen and the exertions all told saw him obliterate the last obstacle and fade into fourth. It is not only a little surprising that connections intend keeping him to hurdles where he will face razor-sharp technicians of the art not least his conquerors from that Tuesday, Darlan and the winner Cinders and Ashes. That leaves Trifolium as the more interesting candidate but he has raced almost exclusively on heavy ground despite his meritorious third placing in the Supreme on good ground and it is open to question as to whether he will feature heavily in Irish novice chases and thus the Irish Arke with Cheltenham as an after-thought (see Realt Dubh). That said, his ownership was recently pointed out to me as a core reason why Cheltenham is likely to be on his agenda again in March.

Overall then, there doesn’t appear to be any real depth of challenge. That’s not always indicative of the end result, as Captain Chris somehow besting Finian’s Rainbow despite their subsequent campaigns showing the Arkle face-off to be all wrong, but not on the day that mattered. Simonsig himself (deeper analysis of him not required yet) has form, reputation, natural ability and the right trainer to go off odds-on come March. How ‘big’ would 4/1 be then? 

Euro-World-Euro: Spain dance to their own heartbeat as flawed critics fall in a heap

For a more exclusive competition, Euro 2012 gave rise to two waves of proclamation and acclaim whereas the World Cup 2010 managed only one. As discussed earlier, in South Africa the attacking energetic vibrancy of the Germans grabbed the headlines before they were brushed aside in the semi-final. The emotional attachment of many (English) fans towards their brand of football persisted into Poland and Ukraine, where they were seen as the more exciting, more likely (more deserving?) team to win the tournament. They were again brushed aside in the semi-final, this time by Italy. Forza Azzuri.

Italy themselves, however, were already being prepared as the new team that would cause terminal problems to the reigning European and World Champions. If Germany had progressed barely at all from South Africa, then in contrast Italy had transformed themselves into an outstanding team, it was claimed, just two years after the shambles of their World Cup adventure. Here too the wave crashed: but in reaching the final the Azzuri achieved superbly.

What fascinates me - and not only because it relates to the job of betting and working out the strengths and weaknesses of teams, perceptions and markets - is just how unfounded and at times flawed a collection of seemingly agreeable views can be. Granted, this is somewhat vague. No judgement is aimed at anyone in particular, be they media personnel or friends. Yet in the collective maelstrom of ‘media output’ and ‘social discussion’, certain views are not only advanced without care or introspection, they come to be projected with such uniformity that the reality becomes shrouded in a mystery that does not exist. Whole events can be misunderstood as a result.

Italy's pathway to the final is a fine example. They held Spain in the opening game to a 1-1 draw. The game was quite open, there were chances for both teams, technical ability was high on both sides. Spain are notorious slow starters - they lost their opener to the Swiss in South Africa. Italy bounded out of the blocks, the world watching. Thereafter, many people stopped watching and started to wait, it seems to me, for a consensus. The next game for each team, not the game against each other, told the story that would emerge in the final. Spain dismantled the Irish 4-0 in sensational fashion. This game actually received very little worthwhile comment: it was almost dismissed as "a mismatch" and as insignificant to the bigger picture of good teams playing against each other. Spain's performance against Ireland demonstrated several things: They were just as good if not better than two years ago (general impression on watching); their technical ability was still razor-sharp; there was zero evidence of any individuality: the collective team ethic was not only in tact, it had prospered as they set about Ireland ruthlessly and with great hunger; fitness levels were sky-high; injury problems were absent; Torres was able to score; Xavi and Iniesta were sensational, among others. Yes, Spain outclassed a poor Irish team and precisely because of that gross imbalance it gave Spain a chance to muddy their own water with any imperfections, any in-fighting, lack of motivation, lack of focus. There was nothing of this, just remarkable footballing excellence.

Italy were also given the freedom of the park in the first half of their encounter with Croatia. Slavan Bilic dispensed with midfield protection for his back four and opted for a game of basketball which Italy won hands down. Pirlo preened and strolled and sprayed and controlled in a sea of time, space and forward options. Yet only he himself could score and that from a set-piece. Impressive as that first half was from Italy – and what became readily apparent in contrast to La Furia Roja – as soon as Croatia changed tactically, protected themselves and pressed and harried their opposition, they took control of the game and drew level. Italy had been quite easily neutralised and contained and both teams looked of very similar ability. Subsequently, Italy were nowhere near the class of Spain against the Irish, struggling to a 1-0 lead until the ball dropped to a static Balotelli in the last minute. Again, very little was ever said about Spain's brilliance against the Irish in relation to Italy's struggle against the same team. This was mostly because of a somewhat nervy draw being played out against the Croatians in the final group game, which Spain won in any case.

As the tournament progressed the Germans were looking swanky (but shipping goals) as usual, the Portuguese exposed a dire Dutch team ethic inspired by Ronaldo, the French and Italians both said to be capable of anything on the day, then perhaps the easiest way to try to say something concrete was to knock Spain and claim them to be weaker than before. That wont to decry or find fault with a champion is also a socially produced and rather common aspect of human interaction: finding the flaws, the weaknesses and highlighting imperfections beneath the veneer is an aspect of social behaviour in most societies. It can be rather interesting, too. Here, it was flawed: whatever one thought of Spain's performances no other team had produced a display in its totality and regardless of the opposition anywhere near that capable of winning a World Cup. As Spain were evidently still at that level the analysis and acclaim fostered onto other teams should have been far more circumspect and cautious. Lest we forget that the match between England and Italy was thought to be just about the most even contest imaginable: everyone, it seems (forgive the exaggeration) predicted a tight game and penalties. Roughly two teams with the same ability, similar players, they said. The match went to penalties after a competent Italy humiliated England for around an hour and a half in a hugely unequal affair.

Italy had once again been given the freedom of the park – this time for almost the whole game – and once again they looked imperious. Once again the link between lower level football (i.e. England as opponents) together with the amount of time, space and renewable possession in relation to performance output was completely overshadowed by the rather shaky and nugatory perspective that Italy were simply a great team capable of anything. With that mindset in place, Italy then defeated a Germany team on merit - allowing for a series of tactical and individual errors from Low and his team - meaning the only place Italy could go for many people was straight past the crashing wave on which a modest German side had been hoisted atop. In effect, going into the final, Italy were being lauded and assessed on the basis of one game.

Germany, remember, had been priced alongside Spain. As equals. More than that, Germany were favourites for the tournament at certain points along the way. Exit. It therefore fell to Italy – the team compared to England and quelled by Croatia – to overcome the footballing giant whose masterclass style many people, but certainly not all people, were keen to shake a finger at. Perhaps one of the most perplexing aspects of the build-up to the final was the constant reference to Italy as individuals and to Spain as a team: and the fact that no-one seemed to realise that talk of Italy was about individuals, and talk of Spain was about a team, dancing through yet another tournament to the rhythm of their own heartbeat. Time and again it was opined that: "If Balotelli can..." and "If Pirlo can..." ..then Italy can... but quite where that kind of discussion fits into an analysis of advanced patterns of play featuring one of the greatest international teams ever is anyone’s guess. The introspection, the cautious nod to reality, missing previously, found no backdoor into the previews.

Prandelli admitted that against Germany in the semi-final, his team were “knackered”. There was very little, if any, talk of how Italy were going to cope physically with Spain, I thought. Pirlo had a great tournament: he was favourite for the Player of the Tournament award but his team were quite big outsiders for the match: how does that make sense, given the Player of the Tournament award goes to a player on the winning side? The Pirlo assessments had been divorced from the reality of the situation at hand, but then such assessments had been prominent all tournament so far as Spain and their opponents were concerned. Some balanced analysis, and the Opta stats that Spain utterly dominated, saw La Furia Roja put their opponents and critics alike on the floor. While they recover, whisper it quietly, tiki-taka, here comes Brazil. 

Upcoming....

More thoughts on Euro 2012...

Analysis of Cheltenham Arkle and Queen Mother Champion Chase 2013 markets....

Probably a few more pictures of top-class furry beasts...

The Greatest Staying Hurdler Ever

Technical Supremacy: Spain Continue to Stun Europe

Spain's relentless supremacy was not the only thing to emerge from the 2010 World Cup. A fairly widespread emotional attachment towards Germany grew from their dynamic displays against inferior rivals: that attachment has persisted into the Euro Championships from the outset and, correspondingly, one can witness a growth in annoyance towards, and disassociation from, La Furia Roja. This has been starkly apparent in England but reports suggest some 'frustration' from within the Iberian peninsula too: Spain are stunning everyone but in different ways.

In short, what I found fascinating was this: At the start of play (in the main) Spain were 3/1, and Germany were 3/1. Whilst widespread acclaim heralded Spain as 'the team to beat', a plethora of betting sites and analysis promoted Germany as the likeliest winners. Interestingly, after Germany eventually overcame a poor Greek side in their quarter final, Die Mannschaft contracted to around 15/8 with Spain - yet to face a distinctly unimpressive French side - drifting to 11/4. What is bizarre is that Spain beat Germany very easily in the World Cup. Has anything really changed? If not, what was it, precisely, that allowed backers of Spain to receive an inflated price of reward for so long?

The rationale for siding with Germany over Spain was wafer-thin. It was, in my opinion, nothing more than a hopeful collection of thoughts based around Germany's style of play in the World Cup (expansive, attacking) and the belief (or, again, hope) that Spain just wouldn't be as good without Puyol and Villa. To clarify, there is absolutely nothing wrong with siding with Germany for this tournament: they are a superb World Class team with a highly advanced pattern of play. Indeed, their continued growth since the World Cup concluded stopped me from wading in heavily on the Spanish in the outright market, #respect, evidenced by preferring a Spain/Germany Finalists bet.

Closer inspection, however, reveals a case of hype and expectation built over what actually played out at the World Cup. With near enough the exact same team as now, Germany lost 1-0 to Serbia in the Group stages, but still qualified top. They then thrashed an average England team before dismantling an Argentine side in disarray: as was well-noted at the time, Argentina were playing something akin to basketball, but without any real way of keeping the ball for themselves. It is, without doubt, still extremely impressive to construct and execute 8 goals in 2 games in the knock-out phases of a World Cup. The Germans were quickly heralded as the team of the tournament and as posing a massive threat to Spain in the semi-final. Similar to now, indeed. Up to the very top echelon their progress stuttered as, dominated, they were restricted to 4 attempts on target (and just one off-target) and out-possessed 61%-39%. The structure of the game had changed; the demands were now very different. They created 2 fine chances but couldn't take them; Spain should have had three before Puyol - at fault for one of Germany's best openings - powered in his header.

What is key is that despite nothing really changing, the early acclaim for the Germans in Euro 2012 grew apace once again. This is odd. A 1-0 defeat of Portugal was a fair start; they then hung on to their 2-1 lead against The Dutch having been 2-0 ahead and coasting; and were level with Denmark for the majority of their match before notching a winner late on. Both those latter opponents failed to qualify. It took nearly 40 minutes to break the Greek deadlock., where again they succumbed defensively to a 1-1 position. None of the above matches up with the general perception of Germany as the likeliest winners, in odds or opinion preference. All the more intriguing is that Spain - Euro and World champions - have been criticised at every turn bar beating Ireland 4-0 in stunning fashion. Spain top near enough every key Opta stat in the tournament but, as someone tweeted me, "Spain aren't impressive so you'd have to fancy the Germans". It's a mindset I don't understand. It's more than likely a very simple case of a general preference for plenty of goals, excitement, open attacking (creating excitement at both ends), quick counters and so on whereas Spain's brilliance lies in their collective ethic, technical and tactical excellence and hunger to pass, control and win competitions.

Something that received no attention was Xavi setting his pass record against Ireland. It was a record that was highlighted but met largely without response. It is a fantastic thing to want to pass that much, and then to be able to, technically and physically for Xavi himself but also among teammates capable of reciprocating his mindset. In England, four or five "meaningless" short passes are often seen as a waste of time when the ball could be being sent forward or wide, and ten or eleven such passes is usually a case of showboating or boring. For Spain's players, it's simply their job. Retaining possession is an exceptionally hard thing to do, Spain would rather have the ball and yet when they do give up possession they are often hunting fast and in packs to win it back: physically exceptional. On the odd occasion when Spain broke on the counter against France they still didn't look to hurtle forward: this in essence is perhaps why some football fans are frustrated with them as a team. They broke, passed but then checked back. It allows several things to happen: the defense to recover their positions and re-organize without the threat of a direct pass; the midfield to track back and recover their zone; and the Spanish players themselves to establish their positions ready for the next phase like any other. Therefore there is usually no fast, unpredictable, 'exciting' breakaway element to Spain's play, the very kind of breakaway play that enthralled the world when Germany combined and applied those very elements to such effect against tactically inferior and disorganised teams.

I think Spain are fascinating, brilliant and committed in equal measure. It's up to Germany to prove they have progressed considerably since the World Cup; if not 'striker-less' Spain will collect their third major title in four years.