I have taken the time to read Gary Nutting's Festival ante-post pieces on the At The Races website and the question "Is Nutting a nutter?" has popped into my head on more than one occasion.
For both articles please read - World Hurdle and Gold Cup
His selections for the races are Oscar Whisky and Quito De La Slow.
Rather than quoting the whole article I will draw your attention to the particular comments in question.
First the World Hurdle.
"The most likely way to beat Big Buck's is to do him for a turn of foot and in that respect Oscar Whisky is better equipped than Grands Crus, who gave the champion a run for his money last year."
Now I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true. Grands Crus might be a very powerful traveller but he also has a decent turn of foot. See the way he scythed through the field in the Feltham, and also the World Hurdle and the Cleeve. The very reason that Oscar Whisky will not win a Champion Hurdle is that he lacks a turn of foot, meaning he is always likely to be caught a bit flat footed for finishing pace when they quicken.
"He makes more appeal at the prices than his better-fancied stablemates, including third favourite Thousand Stars, who was surely flattered by his proximity to Oscar Whisky at Aintree given the way the race was run."
Apparently Mourad makes more appeal than Thousand Stars. Now whilst Mourad is a probable runner and Thousand Stars is a probable non-runner I find this argument very hard to accept. Thousand Stars is a proven stayer at the trip, andhas shown himself to be very closely matched with Oscar Whisky at 2m and 2m4f. For some unknown reason Thousand Stars was clearly flattered at Aintree despite the fact that he was only 2 lengths behind Oscar Whisky in 4th in the Champion Hurdle when hampered on the bend when making his run.
And now onto the Gold Cup.
"With eight wins, three seconds and a third from 13 career starts (featuring two victories and two places from his four Grade 1 outings), it's perfectly reasonable to expect another bold show from the Irish-trained eight-year-old, who is guaranteed to relish every yard of the Gold Cup's 3m 2f trip".
I cannot argue with his record but is it not more beneficial to look at the strength of those races, rather than just assume that they were good contests because of their Grade? For example, is neck beating of Sarando really the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? Is a hideaously outpaced beating of two blatant non-stayers in the JN Wine Champion Chase the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? Is a defeat to Synchronised and a non-staying Rubi Light the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? Is a 3/4 length defeat to Bostons Angel the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? I can answer all of those questions with one word. No.
"Just touched off by subsequent RSA Chase winner Bostons Angel in last season's Fort Leney Novice at Leopardstown".
Brilliant form this is considering that the RSA is terrible form. The winner, Bostons Angel, unseated when looking beaten at Down Royal, and then was only 3rd behind Golan Way at Sandown. Jessies Dream hasn't run since. Wayward Prince has been beaten in handicaps off marks of 150 (x2) and 146, and is now rated 144. Magnanimity has run once since and finished a 50l 8th in the Lexus. Time For Rupert has only won a graduation chase at Newbury but has been beaten 3 times and now rated 153. Master Of The Hall won a bottomless ground race at Aintree and is rated 148 after refusing when well beaten in a Sandown handicap. I could go on but you get the idea. The RSA form is poor.
"If he wins that (and the likely testing ground is sure to help him, especially over the bare three miles) he will go to Cheltenham as Ireland's leading hope, in which case 25s is going to look a very big price indeed come March 16 when the each-way sharks are sure to be circling en masse."
The testing ground will help him no doubt about that because he is slow. Being Ireland's leading hope doesn't say very much. 25s won't look very big come March and whilst the EW sharks might be circling I can think of a few who I would have ahead of him.
"Purely on the Leopardstown form, Synchronised has the clear beating of him but Jonjo O'Neill's ex-handicapper lacks the overall Grade 1 profile usually associated with Gold Cup winners, which is another reason for suspecting that Quito De La Roque did not show his true worth."
This sentence is laughable and not even worth a response. How it is justification for a selection is beyond me.
"Although it's fair to assume a soft-ground Cheltenham would benefit the selection, the Aintree and Punchestown wins proved he doesn't need testing conditions to be effective at a high level."
If a neck beating of Sarando counts as a 'high level' then so be it.
And now the best bit of all . . .
"Furthermore the RSA form has not worked out well"
This is used to justify why he couldn't fancy Bostons Angel. However, I think he used this very performance to justify why Quito De La Roque's form was good just a few paragraphs back!
I will leave it at that for the time being. I have no problem with people making selections that I disagree with, in fact, I find it useful because an alternative perspective can highlight errors that you might have made. However, his logic and reasoning appears ridiculous to my eye. I find it laughable that people are paid to write this drivel. Do others agree or is it more a question of is 'Zenyatta a zonko'?!
For both articles please read - World Hurdle and Gold Cup
His selections for the races are Oscar Whisky and Quito De La Slow.
Rather than quoting the whole article I will draw your attention to the particular comments in question.
First the World Hurdle.
"The most likely way to beat Big Buck's is to do him for a turn of foot and in that respect Oscar Whisky is better equipped than Grands Crus, who gave the champion a run for his money last year."
Now I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true. Grands Crus might be a very powerful traveller but he also has a decent turn of foot. See the way he scythed through the field in the Feltham, and also the World Hurdle and the Cleeve. The very reason that Oscar Whisky will not win a Champion Hurdle is that he lacks a turn of foot, meaning he is always likely to be caught a bit flat footed for finishing pace when they quicken.
"He makes more appeal at the prices than his better-fancied stablemates, including third favourite Thousand Stars, who was surely flattered by his proximity to Oscar Whisky at Aintree given the way the race was run."
Apparently Mourad makes more appeal than Thousand Stars. Now whilst Mourad is a probable runner and Thousand Stars is a probable non-runner I find this argument very hard to accept. Thousand Stars is a proven stayer at the trip, andhas shown himself to be very closely matched with Oscar Whisky at 2m and 2m4f. For some unknown reason Thousand Stars was clearly flattered at Aintree despite the fact that he was only 2 lengths behind Oscar Whisky in 4th in the Champion Hurdle when hampered on the bend when making his run.
And now onto the Gold Cup.
"With eight wins, three seconds and a third from 13 career starts (featuring two victories and two places from his four Grade 1 outings), it's perfectly reasonable to expect another bold show from the Irish-trained eight-year-old, who is guaranteed to relish every yard of the Gold Cup's 3m 2f trip".
I cannot argue with his record but is it not more beneficial to look at the strength of those races, rather than just assume that they were good contests because of their Grade? For example, is neck beating of Sarando really the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? Is a hideaously outpaced beating of two blatant non-stayers in the JN Wine Champion Chase the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? Is a defeat to Synchronised and a non-staying Rubi Light the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? Is a 3/4 length defeat to Bostons Angel the form of a potential Gold Cup winner? I can answer all of those questions with one word. No.
"Just touched off by subsequent RSA Chase winner Bostons Angel in last season's Fort Leney Novice at Leopardstown".
Brilliant form this is considering that the RSA is terrible form. The winner, Bostons Angel, unseated when looking beaten at Down Royal, and then was only 3rd behind Golan Way at Sandown. Jessies Dream hasn't run since. Wayward Prince has been beaten in handicaps off marks of 150 (x2) and 146, and is now rated 144. Magnanimity has run once since and finished a 50l 8th in the Lexus. Time For Rupert has only won a graduation chase at Newbury but has been beaten 3 times and now rated 153. Master Of The Hall won a bottomless ground race at Aintree and is rated 148 after refusing when well beaten in a Sandown handicap. I could go on but you get the idea. The RSA form is poor.
"If he wins that (and the likely testing ground is sure to help him, especially over the bare three miles) he will go to Cheltenham as Ireland's leading hope, in which case 25s is going to look a very big price indeed come March 16 when the each-way sharks are sure to be circling en masse."
The testing ground will help him no doubt about that because he is slow. Being Ireland's leading hope doesn't say very much. 25s won't look very big come March and whilst the EW sharks might be circling I can think of a few who I would have ahead of him.
"Purely on the Leopardstown form, Synchronised has the clear beating of him but Jonjo O'Neill's ex-handicapper lacks the overall Grade 1 profile usually associated with Gold Cup winners, which is another reason for suspecting that Quito De La Roque did not show his true worth."
This sentence is laughable and not even worth a response. How it is justification for a selection is beyond me.
"Although it's fair to assume a soft-ground Cheltenham would benefit the selection, the Aintree and Punchestown wins proved he doesn't need testing conditions to be effective at a high level."
If a neck beating of Sarando counts as a 'high level' then so be it.
And now the best bit of all . . .
"Furthermore the RSA form has not worked out well"
This is used to justify why he couldn't fancy Bostons Angel. However, I think he used this very performance to justify why Quito De La Roque's form was good just a few paragraphs back!
I will leave it at that for the time being. I have no problem with people making selections that I disagree with, in fact, I find it useful because an alternative perspective can highlight errors that you might have made. However, his logic and reasoning appears ridiculous to my eye. I find it laughable that people are paid to write this drivel. Do others agree or is it more a question of is 'Zenyatta a zonko'?!
