I looked back at Saturday's Form, and out of the 23 experts who made Preakness selections, just one, Chuck Dybdal, had Shackleford on top. Frankly, I was surprised (and impressed) to see that anyone had him. The Preakness winner only got two other mentions - Mike Welsch had him 4th, and Illman 3rd. Beyer, who picked Shackleford to win the Derby, didn't mention him at all. (And I can't believe Crist fell for Dialed In, one of the bigger Triple Crown money-burning frauds we've seen this century.) Yet, he paid 'only' $27.20 to win. So I guess not everyone pays attention to what the experts think. Not that I can possibly blame the public handicappers in this case. Tough to make a case for a front-runner who was loose on a slow-paced lead in the Derby, yet faded to 4th (even if the Preakness is a 1/16th shorter).
As for the race itself, the very less said, the better....and not just because I'm being lazy, or embarrassed to write about a race in which the horse I picked finished a never-threatening 12th. (With my two Triple Crown picks thus far, I've selected one horse who broke a leg, and another who looked like he'd gone through a car wash before entering the starting gate. I think I just might pass on the Belmont, thus depriving you of an automatic throwout.) It was, quite simply, a horrible race that demonstrated just how lackluster these three-year olds are. The first half mile of this race was run in 46 4/5 seconds. The second half in 50 1/5, and the final 3/16ths in 19 1/5, which projects to a half in 51 1/5. The final running time of 1:56.47 is the slowest since Tabasco Cat ran the same time in 1994, and only the second over 1:56 since that time. Yet, the ugly picture of the stretch run (on a track which did not seem to favor front-runners) is 12 horses floundering, and only one, Animal Kingdom, staging a rally. The Derby winner made a workmanlike but ultimately fizzled run at the winner. Give Shackleford credit for keeping things together in the final sixteenth, enough so to get the job done. But my take is to keep it very much in perspective, and to throw that 104 Beyer out the window.
Animal Kingdom will probably be a big favorite should he run in the Belmont even if Shackleford does too....and when I see stuff like this, it makes me really really want to bet against him. He's a grass horse who benefited from ideal conditions at Churchill. So, maybe you'll get that Belmont selection from me after all.
RSS Feed for this Blog
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Preakness in Brief (Mercifully)
Posted by Alan Mann at 6:50 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 Comments:
Master of Hounds is bred to run all day.
I'm confident Shackleford won't get a great Sheet # so I'm glad for the big Beyer. AK will look great to most of the public but both he & Shackleford will have the kind of Sheet patterns I want to play against, and with Shack bearing in & out near the end, I wouldn't want to play him at 12 furlongs regardless.
I saved money sitting out the Preakness, so that race made me happy. I'm thinking AK is 6-5 in the Belmont and Shackleford is 2-1 or 5-2. I'll be looking for a playable longshot in the Belmont, or covering a few of them in multis because as you've pointed out, the chalks haven't proven squat.
What makes you think Animal Kingdom is a "turf horse"? He ran a career-best in the Derby, which also happened to be his first start on dirt. He then backed it up running another big one in the Preakness. I think it's safe to say he likes the dirt just fine.
Also, regarding his chances in the Belmont, it should also be noted that AK's recent strong efforts have coincided (in addition to dirt) with the longer distances. I think it's foolhardy to underestimate his chances at this point. Looks like a perfectly legitimate favorite to me (just as he did in the Preakness).
I also disagree with Alan on that - I don't think AK is a turf horse. That's why, unlike many sheet players, I didn't forecast a bounce for him in the Preakness.
But I'm presuming he ran slightly slower in the Preakness than the Derby, not what you want to see off a big move up, so I'll look for more regression in the Belmont; nothing horrible, but a little slower.
It remains to be seen whether there will be anyone entered that can beat AK even on a somewhat off day at 12 furlongs. I'm hoping there will be, and all the non sheet players will make AK odds-on.
I like the idea of betting against Animal Kingdom in the Belmont. I think there's a chance his breeding catches up to him at 12 furlongs. With his come from behind style, I could see him flattening out. Wonder what kind of price I will get on Alternation? I hope both AK and Shackleford are in the race. -jp
Turns out Shackleford made a small forward move on the Sheets in the Preakness. Still not very fast for a race like this, but not a toss. We'll have to see in a few weeks when we know what the field looks like. I do know I'm playing against AK.
I think both Animal Kingdom and Shackleford will run O.K. in the Belmont at relatively short odds but Comendable scenario likely here. What promps me to post here though is the decline of racing blogs mirroring the decline in racing generally. Looking at the archives for this blog the numerical decline over the last few years is interesting.
Appears there could be a full field of 16 in the Belmont, including the first 7 finishers in the Derby. This is not a great crop but it will certainly make for a terrific betting race.
Can't believe Alternation bailed. I was going to bet the kitchen sink on that colt. -jp
Post a Comment