In early December the Thoroughbred Daily News printed a table of the leading Global Second Season Sires. Now that's the sires who had their first 2yo crop in 2016 and their 2nd in 2017. So these 2nd season sires are jusdged on their first crop's 3yo performance and their 2nd crop's 2yo performances. I list now the top UK/Ire sires and their global positions (a different way to thay way we normally look at some of these sires):-
1. Frankel (1st globally)
2. Nathaniel (2nd)
3. Helmet (10th)
4. Excelebration (16th)
5. Sir Prancelot (19th)
6. Bated Breath (24th)
7. Mayson (25th)
8. Casamento (26th)
9. Harbour watch (27th)
10.Foxwedge (30th)
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...ires&utm_campaign=Sire+Lists&utm_medium=email
Observations:-
A magnificent performance by Frankel to be the leading 2nd season sire globally
Similar excellent performances from Nathaniel and Helmet to be in the top 10 of global 2nd season sires
Hasn't the bargain basement sire Sir Prancelot done well to not only be the leading UK/Ire 1st Season sire in 2016 but also to finish 5th in the same list in 2017 and 19th globally.
Horses rated 6-10 are a surprise to me. Are they a surprise to you?
Frankel's top position is skewed by the winnings of Soul stirring and Cracksman (actually his highest earner).
Nathaniel's 2nd position is skewed by the winnings of Enable
All top sires earnings are skewed by the results of top horses: that's why they are top sires.
Comments:-
For the UK to have the top 2 is a fantastic performance, and whatever way one looks at it that cannot be denied. Nor can you knock the achievement of any of the top 10 sires.
The finances of breeding are illuminating. Let's look at the top 2 sires. Frankel's earnings in 2017 were $7.9 million and Nathaniel's earnings were $6.8m. If you look at the winning per actual starters in the year then you find Frankel's starters won an average of $64k while Nathaniel's won $51k. So how should we view this when Frankel's fee was £125k while Nathaniel's fee was £17k. Frankel's starters in 2017 cost $15.4m, while Nathaniel's starters cost $2.4million.
If Frankel's mares had been covered by Nathaniel and vice-versa would the result have changed round?
What causes this slightly strange financial position, and justifies it, is that Frankel has produced a horse, Cracksman, that, all being well, will be queued up to be a top sire in the future. Nathaniel does not have that.
There is plenty of time for things to change in the future.