Tom Queally

Probably the most underrated and underused jockey ive seen.

Very lucky to be associated with Cecil and Frankel but a smart rider, whos worst ride of his life might just have been Frankel in the St James Palace, he very rarely makes a mistake and if hes out riding you know he has a chance.

Apparently got beat a nose according to ATR even though im 100% sure he won it by a clear head, but one of the nicest rides ive seen on the AW this winter on Lutine Charlie on Monday. Worth a watch if you havent seen it.

To get jocked off for Doyle must have been a biiter pill to swallow for someone who has proven himself in the sort of pressure situations that Doyle will never in his life experience.

Hopefully the big trainers keep using him because I can assure you, they could do a lot worse.

[video=youtube;ZfHqtL9wTm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfHqtL9wTm8[/video]

[video=youtube;z4XeBQxjIW0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4XeBQxjIW0#t=101[/video]

 

He's certainly underrated and under used. But a lot of people are very anti Queally. I noticed at the end of the last turf season he was picking up more rides for Stoute and Bell, and riding a fair proportion of the Queen's horses (not that that will make him rich!). I must admit I thought the dive for Doyle was the first dominoe to fall in a series of jockey moves with Moore getting more of the Coolmore rides etc.. It hasn't happened yet.
But to me he's a safe pair of hands who probably needs another horse to pull him up as regards confidence. Good luck to him

 

I do not rate Queally at all- some of the rides he gave frankel were terrible- it was only that the horse was a superstar saved queally from humiliation. I do agree being bumped off for Doyle was a disgrace but giving him some credit he is the best of the AW normal lot (fanning, baker etc..)but compared to top lot (moore,murtagh,hughes) he is no where nr them and have some catching to get to them. He is a nice guy and wish him all the best but I would not like to have him onboard my horse!

 

Wooly, do you think that he gets bad press so to speak because all he did was 'sit on Frankel and not have to do owt' and 'let the horse do its job' that he sort of gets this bad press...??? Ive read this before where people say he isn't that great a jockey, or he didn't really know how to ride Frankel properly...?

I think he's a good jockey without being spectacular, and the Doyle episode dosnt sit well with me either, but that's their perogative...

 

And that could be Lucky Kristale. What a lovely name for a filly by the way. He won Group 2’s on her at Newmarket and York last summer and she now takes a prominent position in the betting for the 1,000 Guineas. I’ve always really liked this filly and believe she can take high rank in 2014.

I like Queally. In my view when it comes to Flat jockeys Ryan Moore and ‘King’ Kieren are miles clear of the rest but of that said ‘rest’ I believe Queally is as good as anything. 2014 is though going to be pivitol for him though as he needs to establish new contacts now that he doesn’t have a major barn behind him. Be interesting to see if by the end of it he lands another major job or makes a real go of being a freelance.

Never understood ‘The Prince’s’ decision to retain James Doyle. Also think he’s a capable pilot but to suggest he can do a better job than the likes of Moore, on his horses at Sir Michaels’s, or Billy Buick, on old boy Gosden’s animals is quite frankly Bonkers with a capital ‘B’. However, ‘The Prince’ pays the piper so he has ever right to ‘play the old tune’. Not one I see much logic in though.

 

I must admit I would probably fall into the Queally bashers camp of last season but have been impressed with some of his rides on the all weather recently, mostly when beating my selections unfortunately. I think he has a slight issue tactically, not of the same proportions as Jamie Spencer but it is there. If you watch a race and the jockey is doing something that 99% of people watching can see is clearly not the thing to do then it points to a tactical issue and sometimes Queally falls into that category. unfortunately even though these times may only occur now and again because they are so obviously bad it stands out in us punters memory. Royal Ascot last year was a nightmare for Queally and Spencer as Jamie commited suicide on about 3 or 4 occasions when he could have offered his horse a chance and Queally did the same on a few (The Juddmonte filly whose name escapes me was an awful ride, took it back intentionally whilst it was travelling and then had to ask her to quicken again after everything else got first run). Ryan Moore and Richard Hughes will very rarely lose a race for tactical reasons in the way JS and TQ will. Hughsie used to but has developed the tactical ability to match his exceptional horsemanship, I actually feel much of Hughsie's issue was similar to Jamie's which is over confidence.

Back to the point however, I agree TQ is showing quality at present and I hope he will improve his tactical awareness in which case he will give most a run for their money.

Not a patch on Jim Crowley however

 

Yes Crowley is impressive. Probably the most underrated jockey.
I think Beckett is going to be more and more a force. Like his jockey he has a solid outlook on life and he's not afraid to be his own man.

 

Agree Queally's a very decent jockey. Not even sure the St James' Palace was such a bad ride. I think, as with the 2000 Guineas, he just didn't want to fight the horse so he gave him his head knowing he had the class to keep going to the line. I think Frankel was probably a very tricky ride and a lot of jockeys would have ****ed things up on the horse and got him beat trying to restrain him, especially in his 3 yold season..

 

I think that the Royal Ascot run upon watching was awful in everyway HOWEVER I also think it was totally understandable and something we all may have taken the decision to do when a vital piece of previous form is taken into account which is the 2000 guineas. Who honestly would have thought Frankel would not have galloped to a 5 length victory after watching the 2000? it was a reasonable decision at the time to let him gallop as you could have fought him into defeat and knowing how he galloped in the guineas there was nothing to suggest anything would get on terms with him.

What was evident from the Royal Ascot run in my mind was that they got away with it in the guineas as that actually could have been the worst tactical decision in the history of racing but as it was it was one of the most visually taking victories I have ever seen, it's hard to be too harsh on Queally though for sending him on at Ascot after the style of the guineas victory, even though with hindsight and knowing he nearly got caught it was an awful decision.

We need really understand what happened in the Guineas - Frankel actually sprinted a mile and won.

 

I think poor Tom Queally, in some respects, is caught between a rock and a hard place. He all of a sudden finds himself aboard a one in a life time horse, an animal all riders dream about, and then had to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. He not only has the eyes of the world watching his every move, he has every Tom, Dick and Harry looking to carve up his performances whenever he throws a leg over. There are some who to this day, claim Queally's ride on Frankel in the Guineas, was a pretty ordinary effort. As far as they are concerned, it was the sheer brilliance of the animal that saved his bacon. I couldn't disagree more. After traveling the first two furlongs in about twenty five seconds, he found himself absolutely cruising in front. With a lap full of horse under him Queally had two choices, hold up or let the big bloke stride. He did the sensible thing, he gave Frankel a fraction more rein. With the brake off, he reeled off a blistering twenty two seconds for the next quarter. Having reached the half way mark, he'd now spent some serious fuel. But so too had those who were giving chase. Through the third quarter he charged. He stopped the clock at the twenty four second mark., By now, all, including Frankel, were well and truly off the bit. Frankel was a very tired horse, but those in pursuit were just as knackered, if not more so. This was attested to by the fact that the horse could only stagger home the last two furlongs in just over twenty six seconds. Queally and Frankel had run them legless.

There is an old adage that says you can't burn a candle at both ends. Frankel spent his cash early on, in doing so, he also forced the hand of others. I firmly believe that if he'd been asked to easy his way through the first half of the race, the sectionals in the second half of the race, would have been reversed. The horse had an amazing turn of foot. They had their chance to run him down, but were not up to the job. They had the sit on him, and failed to reel him in. Which leads us to the St. James Stakes. here like others, I tend to agree with those who believe that Tom Queally wasn't seen at his best. He sat just behind the pace of the pack that chased the tearaway leader. I don't know why, but for some reason, he looked as though he had a rush of blood to the head. Panic maybe? I've no idea, but he set sail after the leader well before anyone expected. And for this, he's been given a bit of a schalacking in some quarters, for the effort. In believing he went too early, I'm assuming I know more about Frankel and his prospective abilities that Tom Queally. In believing that Queally went too early, I then have to believe that I know more about the opposition than he did on the day. I have that choice. I claim that right, to a degree. In doing so, I'm not for a second suggesting that the ride was a shocker. He knew much better that me that Frankel was a freak. He had the option of going to the well more often that any he raced against. That he chose to pull the pin is testimony to the faith and knowledge Queally had in Frankel. As with the Guineas, when he went, the rest had to respond. Some were able to make an earlier effort and others, like those placed behind the champion, made later moves. Excelebration, much admired by many an expert eye, strove with all his might to pick up the great horse, but all to no avail. I have to believe that Tom Queally was better placed to know Frankel than me. His ride in the St James Palace stakes, exuded a confidence that was all there for us to see. Maybe he went a shade to early for mine, but top flight riders can take a race by the scruff of the neck and shake the life out of it. Thomas Queally did that in both the Guineas and the St. James, and as such, must be accorded the respect he deserves for taking the bull by the horns.

 

I think if I am reading your view correctly Cyc that we are of the same opinion which is that you can take a view that both his rides in the guineas and Ascot were either good or bad decisions but it's hard to say one was a good ride and one a poor one, in that although he looked impressive in the Guineas and poor at Ascot his decision was essentially the same. Ultimately how he was ridden subsequently was proved to be a better idea in my opinion.

 

Blue, there was something in the St James ride that caused him to stoke up Frankel well before any of us thought he would. To suddenly shake up the horse with a half mile to travel, surely says that Queally knew that he had the wood on the rest of them. He had to be thinking that he was traveling much better than the opposition, and by setting sail for home, he must have felt he was putting them to the sword. He knew the rest of them, he knew his own mount, he know how well Frankel was traveling, and he must have sensed weakness in those around him. It was a bold ride. He could have come unstuck and been crucified for the move. He chose to live by the sword, and he lived to slay another day.

 

I agree Cyc, I feel he had every reason to go for home so early at Ascot on the evidence of the Newmarket run, I feel however that what Ascot exposed was that he was getting away with poor tactics due to his immense ability and that it was clear a more traditional approach was necessary going forward. As Oddie states, his rides post Ascot were faultless and although he was obviously on by far the best horse in every race he did not take any of the risks as he undoubtedly did at Newmarket and Ascot. The tactics were always the same, sit in behind and start your run a little earlier than is the norm (not ascot earlier) knowing that he would take out 5 lengths in half a furlong and be able to keep going where as the others would not be able to sustain their run to catch up.

This for me was why Frankel was indeed the best we have seen in that he had 3 things going for him whilst most even great horses will usually only have two of them. He could travel in any position, from the front or held up, he had a sprinters turn of foot that could take 5 lengths out of a field in half a furlong and he could also sustain his finishing burst for a good furlong more than most good horses.

My conclusion is that Tom Queally or Sir Henry (at Newmarket) gotthey away with very risky tactics due to the quality of the horse, many an even top class horse would have folded in that 2000, yet subsequently found the perfect way to ride him and managed him with perfection. I feel Tom Queally is a very decent jockey just under the top 5 or 6 but who does for some reason make very questionable decisions on occasion. Yesterday on Rebellious Guest at Lingfield he had a good draw on a good horse but managed to find his way to needing come so wide he gave away lengths on the turn. This route was understandable were he drawn wide but he wasn't, had he rode a better race he would have gone close. My question would have been why did you end up having to take that route Tom? my feeling is that he made a mistake that many make on the all weather which is to ride it like a traditional turf track where in truth often the race riding begins from two furlongs out, on the all weather the race riding begins from the stalls and only ends at the line, if you wait to ride off the last turn others have already outridden you.

 

I have never been convinced that Queally was to blame for that close shave at Ascot on 14 Jun 2011. At the end of the day, the second horse, Zoffany, finished the race in a time one tenth of a second faster than the race 75mins earlier fought out between Canford Cliffs and Goldikova (based against standard times, as one was on the round course and one on the straight). As far as I could see these 2 races were the only races on the day run faster than standard so I can only assume that these were truly run races. So, in order to win the race Frankel had to run the race in a very fast time. Had the race been run differently we do not know what time Zoffany would have clocked but we do know that he was able to clock that time because he did. So, let's imagine there was another horse in the race that would have gone in pursuit of the pacemaker and fought out the finish with Zoffany. Frankel would have had to beat that time to win. Question is, had Queally held on to Frankel would he have clocked that time? I just can't accept that Queally rode a very bad race. He could have lost it if he had used up some of Frankel's energy by restraining him. I agree it's all conjecture but that's all we have to go on. We will never know.

One thing is for sure, as Frankel matured, he became stronger and more and more impressive; a wonderful equine specimen.

As for Queally, he has been doing rather well on the AW.

 

I'm not particularly a fan of Queally but I don't see why he should be criticised for bad rides, any more so than any other jockey we could name. I don't think there is one jockey who we wouldn't have cursed at some stage for "riding the wrong race". Maybe the jockey rode the "right race" for the trainer/owner but not the "right race" to win. If a trainer wants a horse's handicap down I'm sure they might get a good jockey to make sure the horse can't win (eg get boxed in on purpose). How often have we seen a jockey take a pull some way out, get the horse on the rails and then get switched too late to be able to win the race? Is that a tactical error, or tactical brilliance? I do wonder sometimes.

 

Seriously, I don't know how good Tom Queally is. You guys would have a far better idea than me. I've heard it said here, I've heard it said there, that certain riders are a class above the pack, while others think the very opposite. Some really admire the likes of A.P., yet others think him an over blown whip merchant. Again, I don't know the truth of the matter. One of our esteemed members has on occasion stated that any one of a great number of riders, if on a decent horse, will do just as good a job as a so called champion. I've seen some who whole vociferously disagree with the claim. I tend to think along the same lines as our "esteemed" friend. Maybe not to the same degree, but I think he's got a good point. There isn't a rider out there who does not make plenty of mistakes. Obviously, some make a **** load of them, but for the main, I think the top jockeys are reasonably close when it comes to talent.

A rider starting is career can be launched into the big time by being lucky enough to nab a top flight mount, or maybe can be indentured to a top stable. With the right start, he makes a name, other trainers then begin to chase him, mostly with decent rides. Thus begins the rush to the big time. Regular rides in Group races etc. Success breeds success. How many extremely talented riders have missed a solid career in the saddle due to nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time? I firmly believe that dozens of UK riders, if contracted to the likes of Coolmore's elite trainer, would have little trouble in making a fist of things. Sure a lot of negative stuff would be flung in their direction, but that comes with the fame game. A.P. gets plenty of stick, but it beats me why Ruby doesn't get the same treatment. It's all to easy to say that, "it's because he makes fewer mistakes" but that I think flies in the face of reality. He's as human as the next man, and as such, is prone to a heap of mistakes. Yet these appear to be rarely seen or if they are, they are seldom pointed out. I guess we're talking subjectivity here. I think we tend to laud our beloved champions, and see a lot of what they do, through rose tinted glasses. For the most part, Ruby is loved for is fine horsemanship, while A. P. is respected for his efforts. No body escapes judgement. Some of it is fair, some is just plain rubbish. This is not a dig at anyone on this forum, I find it one of the most enlightened I've come across.

Sorry about the soap box feel of the piece, but hey, even an idiot gets a say now and then.

 

I already have Cyc

 

No no mate, you're the brains behind this forum.

PS As a matter of fact, this racing forum would not have got off the ground without you Ron. I well remember those early days.

 

So do I Cyc, when it wasn't moderated. I remember Nass commenting on the BBC 606. I actually used his comment as armoury (along with a bit of reasoning) to get the forum moderated. And look where that got me