The chances of Mon Mome before the race seems non-existent; beaten a long way in the race last year off a lower mark, flopped badly in the Welsh Nation earlier in the season, well behind Rambling Minster in the Blue Square Gold Cup, and tailed off in the Midlands National on his last start.
We were spoilt for choice with reasons not to back this horse, even stable jockey Aiden Coleman abandoned him in favour of fellow 100/1 shot Stan.
The horse didn't only win, he won convincingly by 12l, with only mothers and girlfriends responsible for any success stories told after.
The form looks very suspect to me, and not only because this apparent no-hoper won so impressively. There are four key points...
- The manner of Mon Mome's victory
- The performance of doubtful stayer Cerium (100/1, 5th)
- The performance of doubtful stayer Arteea (200/1, 10th, shared the lead two out)
- The amount of runners in with a chance at the turn for home.
I've already spoken about the first point, but for me the other three points are as puzzling as the result itself.
Cerium, who was available at bigger odds than his 100/1 SP, finishing 5th looked an impossible target, especially considering the majority of his best form is over 2m and 2m3f being the furthest distance he'd won over.
The same can be said of Arteea, like Cerium, appeared to have little form chance and looked a doubtful stayer. This 10-y-o had also run mostly over 2m and 2m4f throughout his career with 2m4f being the furthest he'd won over - hardly your typical National types.
If this pair's chances look grim before the race, at the halfway stage their chances looked even worse, they were both well out the back. In fact they were alongside (or perhaps worse) Rambling Minster when he pulled up. How could these two non-staying, no-hopers play such a part in the finish from this desperate position? The form line of Arteea even contains the words "tailed off" - this is a horse that later had a share of the lead at the 2nd last!
Accepting one horse to massively over perform is one thing, accepting that three over perform (two of which would've needed a horsebox to stay the trip normally) is a leap of faith too far.
It made no sense to me, there must be a reason I thought.
There was also the strange sight of so many horses being in with a chance at the turn for home/approaching two out. I've never seen anything like it. Why did the field bunch so much at this stage, and why were so many suddenly in with a chance?
Are some or all of these points connected?
I decided to look at the race in great detail in a quest for the reasons behind these occurrences, at best it can help decipher this form and assist in future form study, at the very least it would provide closure - something I sorely need if I want to start sleeping again!
Many formed the opinion that Phil Smith and his compression of the handicap was the reason there were over a dozen in with a chance approaching the 2nd last - I'm not so sure, to me that's lazy analysis, and analysis should never be lazy.
The race changed drastically at Becher's (2nd time), when the leading Black Apalachi and Silver Birch (share of 2nd place) came down. Up until this point there were going a decent clip;
6:25 was on the clock at Becher's 2nd time around (6:24 was the split in 2008).
After Becher's the pace slowed drastically, the falls left Offshore Account out in front, given this was a doubtful stayer the jockey on this horse was understandably reluctant to increase the gallop.
It was almost pedestrian between Becher's and Canal Turn, over 0:31 (a good 3 secs slower than the previous two years).
The split from Becher's to the 2nd last was 2:15, compared to 2:06 (2008) and 2:05 (2007). Although the times to Becher's in 2009 and 2008 were only a second apart, 2008's final time was around 16 seconds faster.
I cannot stress how much the pace slowed from Becher's to the 2nd last - a pivotal time in any national. This is why the field bunched, and why there were so many still in with a chance at the Melling Road. It had nothing to do with the compression of the handicap!
In enabled those hopelessly tailed off at one stage, to creep into the race and it enabled many horses (including those with stamina doubts) to preserve stamina at an important point in the race.
Did this create a spring finish of sorts? Despite 2007's time being around 17 seconds faster, both splits (2007 & 2009) from the final fence to the line are identical. With regards to this year's race the final sectional doesn't fit with those that preceded it - the pace was extremely "stop-start".
The situation clearly flattered Cerium and Arteea, I'm not suggesting it flattered Mon Mome in the same way but the drop in pace certainly didn't help his nearest rivals. You'd have to think that an out and out stayer like Comply Or Die would've benefited from a sustained gallop and My Will's cruising speed (in the context of 4m4f race you understand) brought him to the fore of this dawdling group, possibly sooner than ideal.
Did it make an difference to the actual result? Who knows. At the very least I believe Mon Mome was flattered by the proximity to the 2nd.
Where does this leave us? Exactly in the same boat as things stand, but like I say, this could help when using the form for future events, or when looking at the race next year.
So when you're sitting there on the first Saturday in April 2010, don't necessarily think back and ask "what did I do wrong last year?" - you may not have done much wrong at all, regardless of the result.
Be lucky.
No comments:
Post a Comment