Grandouet

Slattsy

Im going to thank every post from now on so mdwexford doesnt keep moaning

premierstone

droidman123 wrote: »

the fly bombed last year with no feasible excuses,may by he just not a Cheltenham horse....beef or salmon anyone??

You are aware that Hurricane Fly won the Champion Hurdle 12 months previously, and there was plenty of excuses last year, Mullins had repeatedly said he wasn't 100% happy with him last year and tbh Ruby didn't exactly cover himself in glory, it was a poor ride but it seems that criticising Ruby is not permitted.

Hurricane fly has only ever been beaten twice, once in a bog behind Solwhit and last years champion, if he stays sound he is definitely the one to beat, Grandouet and Darlan would be my other two against the field.

droidman123

premierstone wrote: »

You are aware that Hurricane Fly won the Champion Hurdle 12 months previously, and there was plenty of excuses last year, Mullins had repeatedly said he wasn't 100% happy with him last year and tbh Ruby didn't exactly cover himself in glory, it was a poor ride but it seems that criticising Ruby is not permitted.

Hurricane fly has only ever been beaten twice, once in a bog behind Solwhit and last years champion, if he stays sound he is definitely the one to beat, Grandouet and Darlan would be my other two against the field.

Yes i take your point that the fly already won the champion hurdle, but i dont think mullins would of ran him last year if he wasnt completly happy with the horse. I just dont think he was good enough on the day. Its rare for a horse to "recapture" the champion hurdle after been beaten in it. I dont mean the likes of istabraq and see you then and hattons grace etc. As they on it conseqitively. I,m not saying the fly wont win it,i just think it will be a tall order. My money is going on zarkander at 7/1. Good luck to whoever you back yourself : )

RichieLawlor

premierstone wrote: »

You are aware that Hurricane Fly won the Champion Hurdle 12 months previously, and there was plenty of excuses last year, Mullins had repeatedly said he wasn't 100% happy with him last year and tbh Ruby didn't exactly cover himself in glory, it was a poor ride but it seems that criticising Ruby is not permitted.

Hurricane fly has only ever been beaten twice, once in a bog behind Solwhit and last years champion, if he stays sound he is definitely the one to beat, Grandouet and Darlan would be my other two against the field.

Agree with this. Still think Hurricane Fly would have won last year if given a different ride

droidman123

droidman123 wrote: »

Yes i take your point that the fly already won the champion hurdle, but i dont think mullins would of ran him last year if he wasnt completly happy with the horse. I just dont think he was good enough on the day. Its rare for a horse to "recapture" the champion hurdle after been beaten in it. I dont mean the likes of istabraq and see you then and hattons grace etc. As they on it conseqitively. I,m not saying the fly wont win it,i just think it will be a tall order. My money is going on zarkander at 7/1. Good luck to whoever you back yourself : )

I've been a huge fan of HF like anyone but I fear you are right.

Don't think anyone will regret backing Zarkandar. I know you can't believe a word out of any trainer's mouth but Nicholls was making all the right noises over the summer and he was a frequent pick as a 'horse to follow' amongst those who are paid to know these things.

I find some of the comments about the ground odd, he won his Triumph on good ground. WRT speed he also got very briefly outpaced in the same race before scooting up the hill in pretty spectacular fashion. He clearly likes Cheltenham which counts for a lot in my book.

Grandouet on the other hand confirmed the doubts on Saturday. Travelled well but found little against a horse who was off the bridle three furlongs out but nevertheless got up the hill.

Huntley

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Its laughable that you just completely make up stuff to suit your argument.

Incorrect.

RichieLawlor wrote: »

So, Zarkandar, a horse who hasn't seen a hurdle a month before the festival and had one run around Kempton (polar opposite to Cheltenham) was more forward than a horse who had been on the go over hurdles since the end of October and had reasonable course form with the would be triumph favourite.

Lol.

Do you think that having more runs relates to a horse being more forward?

Zarkandar was streets ahead of Grandouet in terms of development when they were juveniles. Grandouet was as weak as a kitten in comparison.

Similiar to how I told you Al Ferof was too slow for 2 miles last year, pointed to his abysmal TS of 132 (iirc) and said he was simply a more advanced animal in the Supreme. You thought that was nonsense aswell, it wasn't.

RichieLawlor wrote: »

99% would have won at Aintree, lol. I'll leave it at that.

I still stand by that. Aintree and Cheltenham are two polar opposite courses.

Those who suggested that I would have been 99% certain he would have won the other day had he been taken down are incorrect, I wasn't confident at the bottom of the hill he would pass the winner.

RichieLawlor wrote: »

And today, he didn't lack for fitness, he got there cruising, and has hammered the reigning champion hurdler. Grandouet has run the race of his life today and wasn't good enough.

I wouldn't say he lacked for fitness, but after being absent for a year it is fair to suggest that he lacked an edge.

I think the ground was the major issue anyway, it was a tough task passing a dour stayer like Zarkandar on that surface.

RichieLawlor wrote: »

What's the next excuse. Look I've no doubt that Grandouet is open to vast improvement and may improve past Zarkandar, maybe, but you just refuse to be wrong and thus ridicule yourself with this nonsense.

I'm not afraid to accept if I am wrong and have certainly done so previously. I recall thinking Rubi Light stayed the 3 miles alright in the Lexus and altered that opinion prior to the Punchestown Gold Cup. People ridiculed me for doing so at the time (I think it was ste) but that didn't bother me as it was beneficial to me in changing my initial view.

RichieLawlor wrote: »

We all make outlandish statements at times and end up looking silly, but I'm sure you'll be back on to try disprove my arguements.

I don't find your arguments very compelling. My argument about the horse will be proved over the course of the season, as I highlighted in my original post.

My take on Zarkandar is that he doesn't have the raw speed to win a Champion Hurdle. He is a dour stayer and the conditions certainly favoured him in this regard. Good attitude and all that jazz but not much else appealing. Those who suggested that running him more prominently will be the making of him is laughable, he was crawling along the other day and even found RoR too quick for him on brutal ground. A faster pace might suit but he needs to be close enough by the time the hill will bring his stamina into play, on good ground I don't think he has that speed. Taking this into account the conditions he got the other day may actually favour him more than he will get for the rest of the season as it really brings out his stamina.

I havn't hidden my dislike of Zarkandar for the Champion Hurdle, similiar to how I ridiculed Peddlers Cross and Al Ferof last year for the Arkle, but all these responses calling my posts "nonsense" are very premature. We will see.

mdwexford

I agree I dont think Hurricane Fly is at his best at Cheltenham in the same way Kauto Star probably wasnt at his very best at Cheltenham.

I also agree he will not recapture the CH, Zarkandar wont be winning either imo.

This could be the year of another big priced winner.

klairondavis

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been a huge fan of HF like anyone but I fear you are right.

Don't think anyone will regret backing Zarkandar. I know you can't believe a word out of any trainer's mouth but Nicholls was making all the right noises over the summer and he was a frequent pick as a 'horse to follow' amongst those who are paid to know these things.

I find some of the comments about the ground odd, he won his Triumph on good ground. WRT speed he also got very briefly outpaced in the same race before scooting up the hill in pretty spectacular fashion. He clearly likes Cheltenham which counts for a lot in my book.

Grandouet on the other hand confirmed the doubts on Saturday. Travelled well but found little against a horse who was off the bridle three furlongs out but nevertheless got up the hill.

He has done his winning on the New Course though. The Old Track is not as much of a stamina test and the quicker ground will help the speed horses.

finbarrk

I wouldn't mind owning the muppet horse.

ft9

Grandouet entered in the Irish Champion at Leopardstown on the 27th.

Can't wait to see how he fares out with Hurricane Fly, presuming both hold their entries.

PP have it priced up, 1/2 HF, 3/1 Grandouet, 9/2 Binocular, 6/1 Countrywide Flame.

jimjamcos

ft9 wrote: »

Grandouet entered in the Irish Champion at Leopardstown on the 27th.

Can't wait to see how he fares out with Hurricane Fly, presuming both hold their entries.

PP have it priced up, 1/2 HF, 3/1 Grandouet, 9/2 Binocular, 6/1 Countrywide Flame.

Can't see both Grandouet and Binocular coming over for it considering how Henderson has been piping on about keeping all his CH horses apart. Much more likely that just Binocular will come over considering he badly needs the run and has ran in Ireland before!

sting60

If Hisaabaat is the horse I hear he is he will have to run a blinder at Leopardstown to feature at Cheltenham.

Arctic89

sting60 wrote: »

If Hisaabaat is the horse I hear he is he will have to run a blinder at Leopardstown to feature at Cheltenham.

What have you heard? Really liked him last year but his run last time out was too bad to be true. He'd already had a pipe opener on the flat aswell so he was hardly just out for the run. Drifted badly before the race so connections must have known something was up.

He wouldn't be the first horse to have a bad season the season after their juvenile year.

On Grandouet, if that 3/1 is available on the day I'll have a few quid on that. Will surely improve on what was a very good reappearance conceding weight and considering he was off for a year before it.

Huntley

I would be surprised if Grandouet doesn't go for the Kingwell. Nice little run around Wincanton to warm up the engine should do the trick for March.

hucklebuck

Arctic89 wrote: »

On Grandouet, if that 3/1 is available on the day I'll have a few quid on that. Will surely improve on what was a very good reappearance conceding weight and considering he was off for a year before it.

The concern is he may bounce.

Arctic89

Huntley wrote: »

I would be surprised if Grandouet doesn't go for the Kingwell. Nice little run around Wincanton to warm up the engine should do the trick for March.

Could be either him or Binocular wind up there, I honestly haven't a clue who Henderson will send where but I'll wait til the day anyway before wading in.

hucklebuck wrote: »

The concern is he may bounce.

True, hadn't considered it. Is he out long enough for the bounce to be a factor. Thought it was usually longer absences?

hucklebuck

Arctic89 wrote: »

Could be either him or Binocular wind up there, I honestly haven't a clue who Henderson will send where but I'll wait til the day anyway before wading in.



True, hadn't considered it. Is he out long enough for the bounce to be a factor. Thought it was usually longer absences?

I would say it's more likely that Binocular of the pair would come over.

Sorry, I will take that back. I thought he had a leg but I remember someone corrected me to say it was an infection. He will come on for his first run alright.

You should just hold fire until the day imo.

Arctic89

I don't think I'd back Binocular at anything less than 8/1 against Hurricane Fly.

I'll def hold fire until the day, not an antepost man at all!

droidman123

Arctic89 wrote: »

I don't think I'd back Binocular at anything less than 8/1 against Hurricane Fly.

I'll def hold fire until the day, not an antepost man at all!

I dont mean to sound snide, but are you saying if binocular was 9-1 you would back it, but if it was 7-1 you wouldnt? That doesnt make sound gambling sense. If you fancy it to win, back it,regardless of price.

mdwexford

droidman123 wrote: »

I dont mean to sound snide, but are you saying if binocular was 9-1 you would back it, but if it was 7-1 you wouldnt? That doesnt make sound gambling sense. If you fancy it to win, back it,regardless of price.

Why do you keep saying this when value is the defining thing on whether something is a bet or not.

RichieLawlor

I wouldn't back anything that wasn't powered by a fuel injected engine to beat Hurricane Fly in the mud around leopards town

Arctic89

droidman123 wrote: »

I dont mean to sound snide, but are you saying if binocular was 9-1 you would back it, but if it was 7-1 you wouldnt? That doesnt make sound gambling sense. If you fancy it to win, back it,regardless of price.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. If that doesn't make sense to you, I think you might not understand gambling. Or at least finding value.

Colonel Sanders

droidman123 wrote: »

That doesnt make sound gambling sense. If you fancy it to win, back it,regardless of price.

That makes perfectly sound gambling sense

Price is everything.

droidman123

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

That makes perfectly sound gambling sense

Price is everything.

Of course price is everything, and obviously i would prefer 9-1 than 7-1, but i,m just saying if i really fancied a horse i would back it regardless.

droidman123

mdwexford wrote: »

Why do you keep saying this when value is the defining thing on whether something is a bet or not.

I didnt mean to over complicate things for you.i have seen too many punters who fancy a horse and say its 6-1, but they would only back it if it was say 8-1 or better. That doesnt make sense to me. I take your point about value but as i said if i fancied a horse i bite the bullet and back it. Ante post racing excluded for obvious reasons.

droidman123

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

That makes perfectly sound gambling sense

Price is everything.

If you are going to repost my comments please repost the whole comment and not edit it. The first part of my comment had a bearing on my point. Thank you.

Colonel Sanders

droidman123 wrote: »

If you are going to repost my comments please repost the whole comment and not edit it. The first part of my comment had a bearing on my point. Thank you.

It actually did not

You said whether a horse was 9/1 or 7/1 had no bearing on whether you should back it if you fancied it to win

This is incorrect if you actually take punting seriously

UrbanSea

droidman123 wrote: »

Of course price is everything, and obviously i would prefer 9-1 than 7-1, but i,m just saying if i really fancied a horse i would back it regardless.

You must not think about value.

There are plenty of times I've fancied a horse but didn't back it cos I've missed a price and it can differ. I may back a 5/4 shot because I think it's a good price for one horse, but might not back a 10/1 shot because I think it's a 16/1. Value is everything

droidman123

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

It actually did not

You said whether a horse was 9/1 or 7/1 had no bearing on whether you should back it if you fancied it to win

This is incorrect if you actually take punting seriously

I can assure you my friend i do take my punting seriously and if i seen a horse that i thought should be say 8-1 but was only say 6-1 it wouldnt put me off backing it though obviously it would irk me somewhat that i didnt get the 8-1.

Arctic89

droidman123 wrote: »

I can assure you my friend i do take my punting seriously and if i seen a horse that i thought should be say 8-1 but was only say 6-1 it wouldnt put me off backing it though obviously it would irk me somewhat that i didnt get the 8-1.

Then you will lose money in the long term if you continue to back horses that are underpriced.