Punter's Pundit

Hussey the Hero

2005-11-29T19:54:00.000+10:00

"A mature person is one who is does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally... who walks humbly and deals charitably." When Eleanor Roosevelt uttered these words she was speaking with the wisdom of a first lady of the United States of America. A woman who had seen, from the outside, many people enter the political arena and just as many leave. Most of all she had seen the ones that fulfilled their potential, including her husband, and she no doubt saw the common traits that those successful men possessed.

On day three of the third and final test Australia, if not on the ropes, was certainly stunned by a plucky opponent. At 8-295, a deficit of not much less than 100 looked likely - a 300 chase could easily have been predicted. With Hussey barely 30 Stuart Macgill joined him. A couple of hours later (and indeed a few strokes of luck later) Macgill was dismissed for 22, Hussey was on 99 and the Australians were only a handful of runs behind and back in control of the encounter.

In the context of the game the 93-run stand meant so much more that those run alone. When the eighth wicket fell the West Indians could taste the scones and cream in the dressing room (scones that would have been sweeter with a 100-run lead). In a prolonged blink of the eye, however, they were all square, no advantage and no hope. Their psychological stamina was sapped.

The innings says a great deal of Hussey. At 30 years of age he is not young and he has been travelling around Australia for a decade waiting for his chance to play at the highest level. Now that it has come he has grabbed it, tucked it under his white shirt and bolted. In Hobart he scored his maiden test century opening the batting. In his next test he farmed the strike beautifully (with a handy display by Stuart Macgill) to pull a century, and a Test Match, from nowhere. Within a week he transformed from the effortless opening batsman, to a man who looked as if he had been batting with tailenders for years.

Even when his century was in sight he did not shift from his strike rotation pattern. He showed patience and poise to guide the Australians out of the storm.

What impressed me even more was the way he dealt with the media scrum after the knock. He paid credit to Stuart Macgill. He said that was finding Test Cricket extremely hard. He is the first new kid on the block in a long time to acknowledge that despite scoring two centuries in three matches the game is hard, no run, against any team, is god given. Hussey acknowledged that the rub of the green went his way, and not every innings will be as laden with luck. He walks as humbly as Mrs Roosevelt could ask of anyone.

I am looking forward to Hussey testing his ability and maturity against a more impressive South African line-up. Like any young colt impressing with every start; I have no doubt he will handle the class rise.

Triple Js guide to winning

2005-11-21T21:01:00.000+10:00

I do not mind listening to "Today Today" on Triple J in the car of an afternoon when I get a chance to leave work on time. Their apathetic, indifferent brand of searching sarcasm is a touch better than listening to caller after caller ring other stations to discuss how they were picked up by their eventual second husband at their former mother-in-law's after-wake drinks.

I do get annoyed, though, as an avid sports lover, by their deriding attitude generally directed at sporting heroes, events and idols. That is not to say that I do not have time for people that are completely disinterested in sport. For example, I don't really put myself headlong into adding a spoiler to a car and rigging up fifteen gauges around my steering wheel like some do. However, I hope I am not looked down on by those automobile enthusiasts because of that fact. I don't choose to deride their hobbies; I just generally don't comment on them, or if I do, it is a passing slight at the apparently pointlessness of their pursuits, said tongue tightly touching the inside of my cheek.

Chris Taylor and Craig Reucassel take this derision of their topic of disinterest to a new level. Instead of leaving sport alone on their daily slot and spending their time dissecting whatever it is that interests them; they decide to take after Australia's sporting hysteria with a verbal pick axe and aim to make our love for sport seem petty and pointless.

Over the last few weeks we have seen a whole show dedicated to downplaying the spectacle of the Melbourne Cup, and parts of the following day’s show dedicated to downplaying the enormity of Makybe Diva's achievement.

Similarly last Wednesday we heard a show dedicated to telling anyone who cared to listen that if you support the Socceroos you are a bandwagon jumper and that "after they lose" everyone would jump off again. At one stage listeners had their ear drums grated by a less than hilarious spoof that went down the line of players already booking holidays for island holiday destinations at the same time Germany 2006 will take place.

(Before I note the lack of traction their arguments create I just want to point out that the butt of their jokes, on both occasions, turned out to be victorious. There may be something in that.)

Unfortunately, such is the strength of the sporting culture in Australia that all their satire succeeds in doing is splitting their listeners into two groups, on one side the small minority who have taken a stance against sport to display some symptom of "conforming through attempted rebellion syndrome," and the vast majority of listeners who drink beer, enjoy sport and either listen with scowling faces or turn on the CD player.

The important point to be made on this point is that while some don't see the reason for 80,000 people packing into a stadium to watch 22, 26, 30 or 36 blokes kick around the modern, synthetic version of a pigskin, it is our passion and one derived from two factors.

First and foremost the active reason is historical in that, during Australia's hardest time, the 1930s, it was two sportsmen (or one human and a horse) that gave Australians something to be proud of; two athletes that gave Australians a reason to dream and to dare ourselves out of the depression. It has now become a part of our nature to turn to sport, and the sportsmen that play in that realm, for inspiration and a reaffirmation of ourselves and who we are as Australians.

I am very careful there to point out that sport does not create us, but like any cultural medium is certainly an expression of us.

The second reason is a passive one. Sport is our passion because we don't have gangland warfare to any measure that is seen in other parts of the world. There are no warring factions in our streets launching grenades in a bid to secure parcels of land and racism and oppression are of the kind that are the envy of the vast, vast majority of the world, underdeveloped, developing or developed.

And while I don't think that every Australian cricket captain should be Australian of the Year upon retirement, sport has a very high place on the Australian list of priorities and it is a place richly deserved.

So, even though sport may seem trivial by comparison to the lives that are lost daily on the West Bank or the struggles in Kashmir, I would prefer to live in a nation that has publicly funded pariahs call my sport watching pursuits futile than have to wake up to the sound of bombs, death and destruction.

Immortality

2005-11-18T14:48:00.000+10:00

In my time away from the blogging window I have seen some remarkable feats in sport and the next few posts will be desperately attempting to fathom the unexpected highs that Australian sport has received recently.

Horse racing is a passion for some, a pastime for others and a once a year foray for most. Through the 150 years that horses have been galloping on our turf we have seen some great beasts. There are those that are remembered as dominating a generation of horses, the type that won a half-a-dozen Group One races over their couple of seasons at the top. In recent years we have seen Northerly, Sunline and Lohnro all do this. Horse that will be remembered by the people who saw them, by the people who backed them, yet did not quite take that next step into legend.

Then there are those that achieved remarkable feats. We all know of Rising Fast's triple crown of 1954 as it is constantly referred to as one of the greatest, most dominant spring carnivals, ever. Similarly, among a string of outstanding achievements, Might and Power backed up from a Caulfield-Melbourne Cup double to win the Cox Plate the next year. The difference between these two classes is only a matter of metres. If Let's Elope finishes ahead of Super Impose in the 1992 Cox Plate she is on a par with Might and Power, and not cantering in the level below.

And while mentioning Super Impose we are faced with the dilemma of placing horses whose major victories are outside of the five big staying races alongside the achievements of horses in the more popular events. Where does one position Super Impose? Where do you place the great sprinter Manikato?

There is one class of horse, though, that is not open for dispute, a category that is purely and simply for the most elite horses ever to grace the turf, and while that category used to number just three, on November 1 2005, there was a fourth immortal added to the Australian Racing story.

While one debates the competing merits of Super Impose's four Randwick mile wins to Might and Power's career Triple Crown, Makybe Diva plays joyfully in her box on the immortal cloud.

Carbine, Phar Lap, Tulloch and Makybe Diva transcend the sport. Their influence in their time and their long term impact on racing is so great that their place in racing is assured. Their achievements are rarely mentioned next to their names because their names are greater than the sum of their achievements. Few people realise that Phar Lap won on all four days of the Cup Carnival in 1930, yet everyone knows that Phar Lap was great. Few say Tulloch's name and mention the 11 Group Ones he won as a three-year-old, yet they all know he was a superstar. And while Makybe Diva’s achievement of three Melbourne Cups is unlikely to be matched in the life of this racing tragic, in two or three decades her name will become revered to the point that many won’t know her achievements, they will simply know she was incredible.

The sheer force of their achievements drags with it a public affection and general aura that could not be done justice by a simple resume of racing achievements.

There has been much written about Miss (for another season) Diva’s third Melbourne Cup, some saying she was aided and abetted by the track; others say that she should have carried more weight. Despite the bitching and moaning, however, one thing is for certain: all of those doubts, those “clouds” that surround her victory, will be blown away in a short period of time. The graffiti of the legacy vandals will be washed off by the enduring rains of reverence and awe.

I am happy to see Makybe added to the exclusive club of immortals. It took a while to convert me, but in the end, her last campaign, her most recent achievements, are no doubt her finest.

A slight break

2005-11-07T13:43:00.000+10:00

Punter's Pundit will be taking a slight break for uni exams... The page will be up and running again in just over a week.

4 steps to a Cup winner

2005-10-31T16:31:00.000+10:00

It is here again, the Melbourne Cup, the race that stops a nation on the first tuesday in November.

As always there will be the perennial horse pundits with their two bobs worth on who will win and why. Some will know what they are talking about, others will not. There will be those who pick by colour and those who pick by name and those who throw a dart at the colour wall chart to find their winner.

Here is a system I developed a couple of years ago for picking a cup winner. There will not be one horse at the end but we will hopefully come up with only 2 or 3 horses that can win the big one.

Let's look at the last 15 Melbourne Cups. In that time there have been 14 horses win at a starting price of $15 or less. The other winner was Jeune in 1994 who was only just outside that at $17. Roughies do not win Melbourne Cups in the modern era and if it happens it will be an abberration. The last one was Tawriffic in 1989 at 30/1.

RULE 1: TAKE OUT ANY HORSE THAT HAS ODDS OVER 15 DOLLARS

Looking at the same Melbourne Cups, the last 15, and one can say that the old horse racing adage of "winning form is good form" is infintily true. Of the last fifteen winners 9 were last start winners - 3 won the Caulfield Cup at their last start, 2 won the Mackinnon on Derby Day, and one each the Geelong Cup, the whatever-the-name at-the-time Quality on Derby Day, the Cox Plate and the Irish St Leger. Of the other six horses three were placed in the top four in the Caulfield Cup (Should be four if you count the extreme interference Jezabeel copped in the Caulfield Cup in 1998.)

RULE 2: TAKE OUT HORSE WHO DIDN'T WIN AT THEIR LAST START OR DID NOT PLACE IN THE TOP FOUR IN THE CAULFIELD CUP

People will also know I have a big issue with overseas horses, they come over every year and in the last 15 have only taken the cup twice despite all of the doomsayers saying they will take the cup every year.

Those two winners were both trained by the one trainer (that means only one trainer in the last however many years has won with an overseas raider) that man is Dermott Weld with Vintage Crop in 1993 and Media Puzzle in 2002. This year Dermott Weld has Vinnie Roe in the Cup.

The thing about these horses is that they may not have adapted to Australian Racing. And I am prepared to rule out any horse that has not raced in Australia this campaign. It is simply to difficult for them to step off a plane and WIN a Melbourne Cup.

RULE THREE: RULE OUT ANY HORSE THAT HAS NOT RUN IN AUSTRALIA THIS CAMPAIGN

The other issue I have is international jockeys. They do not, on the whole, know how to ride in the rough "no quarter asked nor given" environment that is an Australian horse race. Only one of the last 15 winners has been ridden by an overseas jockey. There are no doubt many reasons for their lack of performance in Australia and many of the reasons are the slight to intangible differences in racing patterns between the various nations.

Just look at how Europes leading jocky is still struggling when he comes out ehre each Spring.

One of the most glaring problems and one that can be levelled against jockeys of many nationalities throughout racing in Australia is the tendency to come too wide on home turns. This idea that gallopping room is more important that rail position is part of the incorrect thinking. If you think that you can put a horse three wide on the home turn at Flemington and win you are wrong. The bend sweeps from the 1400m to the 450 metre mark. if you run three wide instead of running 950m in that period you run 965m - that's 15 metres extra running. If you can name a horse that is 5 lengths (15m) better than the rest of the field you are doing better than me. Also that is 5 lengths mid race, thats probably double that at the end of the two miles.

RULE FOUR: RULE OUT ANY HORSE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL JOCKEY ON BOARD

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does all that mean then, lets look at this year's Melbourne Cup and see what we come up with.

RULE 1: TAKE OUT ANY HORSE THAT HAS ODDS OVER 15 DOLLARS

This leaves us with:

Makybe Diva
Leica Falcon
Railings
Eye Popper
Vinnie Roe

RULE 2: TAKE OUT HORSE WHO DIDN'T WIN AT THEIR LAST START OR DID NOT PLACE IN THE TOP FOUR IN THE CAULFIELD CUP

From those five this leaves us with:

Makybe Diva (1st Cox Plate)
Railings (1st Caulfield Cup)
Eye Popper (2nd Caulfield Cup)

RULE THREE: RULE OUT ANY HORSE THAT HAS NOT RUN IN AUSTRALIA THIS CAMPAIGN

No other horses are ruled out here but further reason to avoid the temptation to back Vinnie Roe

RULE FOUR: RULE OUT ANY HORSE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL JOCKEY ON BOARD

This rules out Eye Popper with S Fujita aboard. Australians criticised his ride in the Caulfield Cup yet Eye Popper's trainer said he didn't see a problem with it, and there is the problem.

So that leaves us with:

Makybe Diva and Railings

My suggested bet:

For every $10 you put on place:

$6 - Makybe Diva
$4 - Railings

*Just for the record this system has picked 11 of the last 15 winners so it works out fairly well.*

GOOD LUCK!

The horse that's stopped the nation

2005-10-23T21:12:00.000+10:00

It's 2002, the last day of the Melbourne Cup carnival, and a horse won the Queen Elizabeth Stakes in fairly impressive fashion. The horse, a four-year-old mare for David Hayes who took some time to mature, was finally started living up to her potential by winning a group 2 race on the last day of the Cup carnival.

361 days later the five-year-old mare, perfectly ridden by Glen Boss, was back at Flemington, running 700 metres further and winning the race that stops a nation. At that time I thought: this was just another "Melbourne Cup Winner" and not a "Champion whose wins include the Melbourne Cup".

6 months later she won the Sydney Cup and I thought, aside from Mummify in the race there wasn't much to it, a pretty soft Sydney Cup and a pretty soft win. At the time I thought: Well she's won a Group 1 after winning the Cup, only a handful go on to do that, she might have been a good horse at two miles, but that doesn't make a champion, certainly not in the Saintly or Might and Power mould.

In November 2004 she was back at Flemington and after being beaten by a nose in the Caulfield Cup was all the rage to win the premier race. The rain came in the blink of an eye and any doubt that she was a sure thing to win back-to-back Cups was erased.

She won, and at the time, when people were saying she was “a great,” I thought: Who mentions Rain Lover, Think Big and Archer in the same breath as Kingston Town and Tulloch? She's not quite a champion and two Melbourne Cups doesn’t give you that status.

Then she won the Australia Cup at 2000m at Weight for Age and in record time and I said that the race was run to suit her. Then she won the BMW at WFA over 2400m and I said that it wasn't the best field that race had seen. The she went overseas and I finally felt vindicated, she ran midfield in two runs in Japan - they all blamed the hard tracks. I thought; that’s a blemish she’s just not that good.

Then they were training her for the Cox Plate, she won at 7 furlongs first up and then again in the Turnbull, then the Cox Plate.

I thought: This mare, Makybe Diva, she IS a champion!

The Diva has won 4 of the big 5 staying races in Australia and lost the other by a lip. She’s also won an extra Cup on top of that. If she had have been trained all her life the way she has been trained this campaign she may very well have been one of those outstanding WFA performers and I would not have doubted her for so long; if nothing else the way she disposed of a high quality Cox Plate field on the weekend is testimony to the fact she could have done just about whatever she wanted with her career. The question now is: Does she run in the cup?

There is one point to consider (aside from how she pulled up after the Plate) does 58 kilograms over two miles anchor a champion? Apparently they say that there is a 7 in ten chance that it will, that's why she's at $3.50.

The sub-question from that is, what is the possible gain and what is the possible loss?

The gain is immortality. It’s a tough thing to measure and I guess that as pundits we probably give more credit to past champions for fear of it being claimed that we are caught up in the moment. But three Melbourne Cups, a Cox Plate at seven, an Australian Cup and a BMW as well as Group 2 wins from 1400m make for a convincing argument. The only thing that would cement that place is an overseas win, but she would be a tragedy not to be held in the same class as Peter Pan, Tulloch and Kingston Town regardless.

It is no accident that I mention Kingston Town amongst those all-time greats. His name fits right in without a shadow of a doubt doesn’t it? (Remember that and I will come back to it in a moment.)

If the odds are right we have to look at the possibility of the Diva missing out. The reason she would miss out is not because of any of the conditions, (unless it is bone dry and they crawl in front, but even then she'd probably still win,) it will be because she is carrying a crate of cheap champagne on her back.

In 1982 weight killed Kingston Town, in 2005 it could kill Makybe Diva. The point to my story is not that Makybe Diva could lose; if that weren’t a chance this debate would not be going on. My point is that if Makybe Diva loses her status is unaffected. Kingston Town is remembered for his three Cox Plate victories, not the excuse-laden loss in the Cup. Sunline is remembered for her two Cox Plates, not her two losses. Northerly and Might and Power are remembered for their extensive Group One glory not their failed attempts at comebacks.

This is a free hit for Makybe Diva and for all in her corner who wear the funny masks. A free hit at immortality, becoming not only a racing saint, rather the type of saint that parents name their children after.

Worst (realistic) case scenario, she runs midfield and spells. Best case scenario: she wins and becomes the best ever, or right there with them... She's a once in a generation horse, let her race!

My advice to the connections: Regret is bitterer than failure, and in this instance regret only comes through not letting her run.

"Old killjoy" needs to check the market

2005-10-19T16:20:00.000+10:00

This next passage comes with a warning: You should NOT read if you are young. You should NOT read if you are under 25 and have a deep interest in racing. You should NOT read if you have a liking for going to big race-days to enjoy the atmosphere and the horse flesh, or either on their own:

This was penned by someone from that last bastion of backward sporting protectionism that spends their days writing for that sporting soap box that is the Sydney Morning Herald. Richard Hinds- resident "old killjoy."

As ever, the best of Melbourne's spring carnival was on the track and the worst in the outer. There, the now traditional throng of teenagers and other barely legals successfully impersonated the dress codes of their parents but, as the pools of urine and vomit in the tunnel to the car park indicated, failed miserably to display much class in their drinking habits.
This might sound like the curmudgeonly lament of an old killjoy embittered by his recent contribution to the Bookmakers' Retirement Fund. But how would these kids like it if we started turning up at the Big Day Out dressed like Fifty Cent or Beyonce, filled ourselves to the eyeballs with ecstasy and started jigging around embarrassingly while losing our lunch at their event?
No, it's time racing officials stopped patting themselves on the backs about the sheer size of the crowds and began exercising some responsibility. Unlike we mug punters, most of the youngsters left in a heap of crumpled fascinators and nylon ties don't know any better.

You can go and stick your Yoga and you can put your Pilates on the shelf, I need an animal tranquiliser with a beer chaser to quell the anger and rage that the above comments well up inside my racing loving body.

(Before I start let me say that the following references to race goers who are not "young" and attacks against that group are aimed only at those older people who don't want to see young people on track, like "the-shortened-version-of-Richard" Hinds. They are not directed at the vast majority of Race Club members and elderly punters who like to see young faces at functions or in the betting ring at their local racecourse.)

Let me tell you who I am "the-shortened-version-of-Richard", I am a proud racegoer, I work at the track, and would probably do so for nothing, because that is what the sport means to me. Racing is the first thing I look for in the sport section of the paper and racing history and analogies are regular fodder for the verbose ramblings (samples on this blog) that effuse from my mouth on regular occasions when I am both sober and tipsy.

I have my theories about racing and theories about horses; I have my favourite trainers and my favourite jockeys and believe that if everyone in the world were like racing people then three-quarters of the world’s problems would not be problems any more, such is my respect for the sport and its players.

I go to the track on big days and I wear my best suit, I wear a matching shirt and tie and the tie is made from silk and tied in a Double Windsor. I have never vomited at a race course or urinated behind a tree at one (although there are racetracks in Brisbane and Sydney that should fix their facilities so I don't have to start.)

Yet for some reason, some reason that was not enunciated in your article, "the-shortened-version-of-Richard", the event is "your" event before it is "my" event. That if I go to Derby Day at Flemington you have more right to be there than I do. That I am out of place there, despite the fact that marketing of the day and events on course are geared towards my age bracket.

But how would these kids like it if we started turning up at the Big Day Out dressed like Fifty Cent or Beyonce, filled ourselves to the eyeballs with ecstasy and started jigging around embarrassingly while losing our lunch at their event?

This idea of “our” event and “your” event, it is ridiculous, it makes no business sense, it possesses no logic from a social perspective and quite honestly it is an affront to basic decency and civility and is one of the most damaging things a reporter can write about a sport he apparently loves, unless he wants to cripple it.

And racing would be crippled if it didn't appeal to the younger market! Racing is an industry of many facets and its ability to pull young people through the door with glamour, gambling, girls and guys is brilliant considering that it is the event, and not the actual horses, that draws the crowds in.

Further, one of two things can be read into "the-shortened-version-of-Richard" Hind's sarcastic piffle: Either young people turn up to the races filled to eyeballs with ecstasy, or they do it at the Big Day Out. One thing that cannot be denied is that the above passage casts aspersions on ALL young people, painting them as drug dealing barnacles on the pylons that stand in society’s river.

Am I going to say that some no young person abuses illicit substances? Of course not. However, this pathetically petulant "old killjoy" tantrum that sensationalises the abuse of drugs to levels that make out that all those at the races who wear a revealing dress and can do so without the aid of cosmetic surgery are on drugs is a scurrilous, ageist abuse of one’s position as an "informed" opinion maker/giver.

I say to anyone who doesn't like this type of marketing designed to attract young people, don't come to the racetrack! If there are enough of you out there and it is so important to racing as a whole that the portion of the older generation that hate young people are able to be on course without having to worry about the evils of the under 30s, then racetracks will ban under 30s; the market will determine that.

I personally think that young people are good for racing, for turnover and for the industry's image. Young people and the vibe they bring as a marketed group put on courses a range of extras that make racing vibrant and attractive. They include fashions on the field, lucrative sponsorships and a young generation of punters that will be tomorrow's commentators, bookmakers and owners. These are essential to the longevity of the sport. And I am sure I am joined in that opinion by every CEO and person of worth who knows the figures and the positive consequences of having young people at racetracks.

Certainly the current vibrant nature of racing is more attractive than the alternative outcome that would result from "the-shortened-version-of-Richard" Hinds getting his way: A race day that would see the tumbleweed beat the favourite home.

I think I might go and fetch my silk tie now, I don't know which one to choose, Fendi? Versace? Oroton? All of these are ties with a bit of style as well as class.

Maybe there are positive lessons to be learnt from the youth after all Mr Hinds!

Kangaroos can learn from horses

2005-10-17T22:54:00.000+10:00

Sport is indeed a funny leveler. On Saturday in the space of a few hours sport lovers around Australia experienced the peaks and troughs and sideways thrusts of the emotional ocean that is swum in when one is enthralled by elite sport.

I look over the paper from Friday and read a collection of articles about horses and their chances on a huge day of racing at Caulfield. El Segundo features prominently, only not to feature so prominently in the race. There is a little profile of eventual winner Railings saying that he is still improving and his trainer points out that “slow or fast pace he will run well.” If only we all heeded that advice.

Then there is the eerie article, staring back at me from the right hand side of the page, its title: “Owners ready to pull the plug on Mummify start.” If and only are the two words that come to mind; if only. The courageous, brave, valiant and gallant Mummify shattered two sesamoid bones in his leg and after some deliberation over the following 24 hours the decision was made to put the grand galloper down. If only the trainers had decided to have the horse withdrawn. The decision discussed in the paper to withdraw the horse before Saturday’s Cup was unrelated to the injury that Mummify sustained, it simply provides a tragic co-incidence. Then again, had the owners decided to withdraw the horse would he have sustained a similar injury in the yard during the week? Perhaps it wasn’t the particular set of circumstances in that race that contributed to his demise, that the incident was in someway inevitable and had it not happened at Caulfield on Saturday it would have happened this coming Saturday at Moonee Valley. Maybe I am being a sporting fatalist. All of these questions are purely academic now.

Mummify’s last race start was typical of a racing career that was generally underrated yet filled with efforts that saw him never shirk a task. He won a SA Derby and a Caulfield Cup in bold style. He won the Caulfield Stakes last year when not fancied at WFA and he traveled overseas and won in Singapore. On Saturday he crossed from a wide gate, led the field, beat off all of those who lacked the intestinal fortitude to stay with him and got swamped in the last two strides of an event where he probably took three hundred. He could have rolled over at the furlong, rolled over and rested on glories past. Many horses have done it before; some did in that race, but not “Mummy.”

Maybe the horse knew what was about to happen and wanted to write his own epitaph, maybe he wanted to race into the equine everlasting (a seat he probably won anyway) and win under 57kgs two years after he had done before. He would certainly be remembered as one of the greats if he could have achieved that. Imagine if he had of won after literally giving all he had to give. The fact that stablemate, and the horse that Mummify has long been in the shadow of, Makybe Diva, may well win the Cox Plate next week or even a third Melbourne Cup would have been perpetually overshadowed by the racing story of the decade. Then again maybe the horse didn’t know.

The bottom line is, while those who don’t know racing were shedding tears of shock at the gruesome scene, those who follow racing and those involved in racing were shedding tears of loss, tears that welled through ducts of awe. Makybe Diva flashes home, Lohnro was arrogant at best, Northerly was tough and Sunline was heartbreaking, and while this list are, or were, better horses, none fit the mould of the workmanlike hero who knew his role, never shied away and fulfilled it with distinction.

Rest in peace Mummify!

After the glorification of such a horse with such a temperament it was saddening to see the complete opposite work ethic displayed at Telstra Stadium when the Kangaroos took on the Kiwis. I said on this page last week ‘The Kangaroos will probably win” and on the night they were probably the better side in talent not performance, but it was as though they were playing in a possibles and probables game to pick a junior rep side. In the first 20 minutes they were lazy, lacklustre and looked to be there for a good night out. They finally slipped the machine into gear and piled on 22 points in no time, and to a degree this was probably the best thing that could have happened to the Kiwis.

From there the Australians and the crowd thought that the flood gates would open, despite there being 35 minutes left in the game. Every set of six the Australians tried to play touch football and every set of six they tried to show the crowd that they can spot the Kiwis any manner of a start and still beat them.

Perhaps it was not so much that they wanted to show contempt for their opponents but in the back of their minds they thought that winning would just happen. It seemed as though they always thought that winning would be the logical outcome and not particularly difficult to do, they just never got around to doing it.

There needs to be a big attitude change in some high profile Australian sports, and I am happy to see that it has happened quickly in cricket and has not been left to fester. That attitude change must involve current sides realizing that they are not immortals; that they are not invincible and as I said on this page last week they should not treat opposition and representing their country as automatic in selection or easy in performance.

After the end of the inconsequential Super Test yesterday, man of the match Matthew Hayden said that in the first three tests of the Ashes series England were too good for the way he was playing. This is a very honest assertion, and one that many Australian sportsmen and sportswomen in many sports should heed.

His performance and his mindset did not give the opposition the credit they deserved, he was beating himself, and his teammates were doing the same.

Australian teams may be the best in the world but we need to stop playing as though we know we are the best team in the world and play as though we want to be the best team in the world regardless of whether we are already there or not. In cricket Australia treated the English with contempt and paid the price, the Kangaroos did the same on Friday Night.

Nothing in sport is a God given right! Technology has brought teams too close together for that. Every game needs to be played on its merits, every player must earn their spot. When Mummify raced, nothing was taken for granted from barrier to box he put in 100% every time. He busted his gut on every occasion regardless of whether he won last start or not. The Kangaroos can learn a lesson from this.

Made to Roo your judgement

2005-10-12T22:06:00.000+10:00

I would dearly like to thank all of those cyber posers, who sit in their computer rooms each October and put together a list of where each team will finish the following year. Trade week is barely over and Draft Day is still two months away, the only thing that has changed at any given team is the level of tan in the skin and length of beards on players faces.

Yet somehow these know-alls can pick the sixteen teams into some sort of order and for those more reserved they can pick at least the Premier and Wooden Spooner.

This year, like all others, the little comment from these tipsters beside the “Kangaroos” entry is along the lines of "will slide this year." Yet every year they seem to exceed the 12th or 13th place that over half of these amateur experts allot them. In fact their lowest place in the last 4 years is 10th and despite being despised outsiders in each of those campaigns they have made the finals twice.

What irks me even more is the fact that even though there is a general consensus amongst these footy tipping echelons (all of them, not just the lower ones) that the Kangaroos will fail, there is no consensus as to why they will fail. For instance, in predictions on bigfooty.com.au for season 2005 the Kangaroos were tipped to finish 11th or 12th in over half of the ladders posted and were only tipped a handful of times to finish as high (or higher) as they did. Many punters thought they would finish as low as 14th or 15th and a couple picked them for the spoon.

Two posts summed up the lack of cohesion in this Kangaroos bashing. One says "The team lacks the experienced heads to improve this year" then, only a few posts later on the same page we read the exact opposite reason for the same verdict "The Kangaroos need to rebuild." Other posts read "They don't have the talent to make the eight," or even as broad as "they overachieved in 2004 (when they finished 10th)."

It would seem, considering the lack of cohesive criticism that punters were simply looking for excuses for the Kangaroos to fail because they aren't the flashy, attractive, commercially-driven football club that we see in the form of the St Kilda's, West Coast's and Port Adelaide's of the world. It would also seem that most of these punters were wrong as even if half of their criticisms were right, the Kangaroos would not have finished fifth.

This year the sad-sack, unimaginative, crowd-following big footy sheep are at it again - writing the Kangaroos off. "bibi01" (certainly one of the aforementioned group who compounds his woes by being a Carlton supporter) writes that the Kangaroos will win the wooden spoon in 2006 because he "can't see any improvement", "have a lot of players at the end of their career" and "have not got a great deal of talent down the bottom end."

The Kangaroos for the wooden spoon, how imaginative! It's AFL's version of picking the All Blacks to win the World Cup, sleeping with your mate's sister or communism, it seems great in theory, but rarely works out in practice. So let's dismantle these latest suggestions.

"bibi01" writes that he cannot see any improvement; a most ridiculous assertion. Is it because he has some deluded idea that the Kangaroos cannot be in the top 4? That for some reason the Kangaroos, coming down off a dominating period in the 90s, haven't gone to the deep depths they should have in order to rise back up again. There is no factual basis for his remarks. The main, across-the-board criticism of the side was their backline and the club has traded heavily to boost that area, traded well no less.

The Bigfooty pariah continues by saying that there are a lot of players coming to the end of their careers at Arden Street. He is joined by another Carlton supporter in this line of criticism where "Irish Setanta" states he would rather have a young list like Carlton's than the list the Kangaroos have.

Let's put a few facts into this equation:

- Carlton has more players born before 1977 than the Kangaroos (four compared with three.)
- Carlton has the same number of players born before 1980 than the Kangaroos (ten)
- The Kangaroos have 14 players on their list born after 1983 compared with 9 at the Blues

Don't you just hate when one puts facts into the equation "bibi01" and "Irish Setanta"? The Roos have less players "coming to the end of their career" (to use the words of "bibi01"), the Roos have the same amount of players in that "experienced" bracket and the Roos have substantially more players aged 21 or under.

Where do these two uninformed, intelligence-deficient speculators get off saying that the Kangaroos will win the wooden spoon because their list is too old when their own club is as old if not older in every category? Further to that I only looked at their club as an example, I am sure the Kangaroos have one of the best mixes of age and youth in the competition.

I won't comment on his last assertion that the Kangaroos "lack talent down the bottom end” I might let the “bottom end” answer that assertion next year.

All of this, though, may come from some Carlton Football Club desire to have the Kangaroos take away an unwanted title that is held in the heavily crowded room at the Carlton Footy Club which houses unwanted records and prizes. And that mantle is that the Blues are the last side to fall from the top eight to the wooden spoon. Sides, generally, don’t fall from the top eight to the spoon. Over the last five years the previous year’s finishing positions of spoon winners were 11th, 13th, 12th, 5th and 13th. That only outlier, is the Blues. I think they should look to Melbourne or Port Adelaide to take that title from them, not the Kangaroos.

I am not saying 2006 is the year of the Roo, but back them all year, and you'll end up nicely in front; back the Roos for the spoon and the result will be very different.

Confectioner makes the Caulfield Cup sweeter

2005-10-11T13:58:00.000+10:00

In a few minutes the committee of the Melbourne Racing Club will make one of the most controversial decisions of recent years; whether to include Confectioner in Saturday’s Caulfield Cup field. This is a race that has been dogged by controversy. Remember in 1998 when the discretionary rule was used to promote English stayer Taufan’s Melody (the eventual winner after tackling (literally) eventual Melbourne Cup winner Jezabeel and Melbourne Cup runner-up Champagne half-way down the straight) over some horse that I have now forgotten the name of because it went on to fail dismally in other lead ups anyway? And remember how that horse (I wish I could remember its name) was installed as first emergency and its connections made an eleventh hour bid to buy the aging, yet qualified, Count Chivas so that they could scratch it from the race and elevate their horse?

This rule, this discretionary rule, does pose problems. There are a number of horses who are qualified on the order of entry yet may miss out because the club could promote another runner above them. Form analyst Mark Morrissey puts up the argument that if this rule is not going to be used than it shouldn’t be there at all. I would submit that this is a trigger in the rules only to be pulled on the outstanding occasion.

(Oh that’s right it was Our Unicorn that got bumped out and what did it do in the rest of its career? Enough said.)

If I were looking at the intention of the discretionary rule the test that should be applied is simple:

(a) Does the horse unequivocally add to the calibre of the field?
(b) Will the horse add to the commercial attractiveness of the race?
(c) Does the horse requiring discretion push out a qualified runner with a reasonable chance of winning the race?

Let us look at Confectioner, 22nd in the order of entry at the moment. So far this preparation he has won the Craiglee Stakes running away, he was unlucky in the Memsie, ran a solid third in the Turnbull when nothing else made ground on Makybe Diva but him and ran a desperately unlucky third in the Caulfield Stakes on Saturday.

He ran a final sectional in the Caulfield Stakes was 11.62. In a 2000m race after suffering interference and struggling to get out at the right time this is amazing. That sectional was the second fastest final sectional of the day behind a sprinter who controlled the race from the get go.

Given an even run does he win the Caulfield Stakes? Absolutely! If Craig Williams made the right decision at the right time does Confectioner win? Highly likely! Given moderately decent circumstances Confectioner either wins the race, or at best defeats eventual winner El Segundo, the horse that is now favourite for the Caulfield Cup.

So to answer the first of the above criteria the case is simple; the horse to be promoted was the ruling favourite for the Caulfield Cup since the Craiglee win, ran a better race than the current Cup favourite in the Caulfield Stakes and should have, given moderately even circumstances, won an automatic qualifying race on Saturday. Yes Confectioner does add to the calibre to the field.

The next question has a simple answer, the fact that bookmakers stand to lose $1,000,000 Australia-wide if Confectioner wins means that the horse certainly does add an element of commercial attractiveness to the day.

The final question, though, is a tough one. The first part step to ask oneself, who will Confectioner boot out? The most likely candidate is overseas raider Carte Diamond. Based on the criteria above if it is considered that Carte Diamond has a “reasonable” chance of winning this coming Saturday than it should gain a start despite positive responses for Confectioner in the last two criteria.

Carte Diamond has not won a stakes race in his 10 start career, let me reiterate that, Carte Diamond has not won a stakes race in his 10 start career. Carte Diamond has not seen Caulfield, a track the great trainer John O’Shea described as “idiosyncratic”, let alone won there. Carte Diamond is running first up in Australia for a trainer not particularly experienced at winning here. Carte Diamond was competing in hurdles races at the start of the year. Not exactly you’re copybook Caulfield cup runner or winner.

On the same line of entry are impressively performed horses, Lachlan River (Qld Derby winner), Natural Blitz (PJ O’Shea Stakes winner) and Sir Dex (Warwick Stakes and PM’s Cup Winner) all have won significant stakes races in big carnivals over the last 5 months.

While there is a possibility that Carte Diamond may win the Caulfield Cup, after all, this is racing, the chances of that happening are far fetched and fanciful at best, and certainly do not stand up to the level required to be considered “reasonable”.

Let Confectioner in!

I feel sorry for the owners who have spent in excess of $70,000 to get Carte Diamond here, but money does not buy class and certainly has not in the past and should not in the future buy you a spot in the Caulfield Cup, just ask the owners of Our Unicorn.

Form vs Class - The toughest match of the year

2005-10-07T14:28:00.000+10:00

There is that old, well tried saying in sport, “form is temporary; class is permanent,” yet just how easily can this adage be applied today?

If the old saying were true than sides stocked with State of Origin superstars would have fought out the NRL Grand Final last Sunday night. “Class” like the star-studded Dragons, the salary-cap mastering Roosters, the reigning Premiers the Bulldogs or the ever reliable Broncos would have been there on the first Sunday in October. They weren’t; instead it was being fought out between a side proving that its efforts in 2004 were no fluke and a side everyone thought was the walking, running, passing and kicking definition of a fairytale.

Class and form are almost equals in the modern game. Look at the last few seasons as an example; this year we had two fairytale stories fighting out the Grand Final. Last year we had an expected Grand Final that was one play away from being disrupted by the carefree Cowboys. The year before that the Penrith Panthers completed another fairytale premiership against the fancied Roosters. 2002 saw the Warriors make the Grand Final despite having few big names. When was the last time that the penultimate week of the season did not have a friendless outsider playing for a Grand Final berth and challenging to the wire their more fancied rivals?

What this goes to show is that while there is merit in looking to class as a predictor of performance, all those people who backed the Roosters, Bulldogs and Panthers this year will tell you that performances in recent years are no indication to the way a side will perform in the upcoming round or season.

Similarly when form was pitted against “class” throughout the year it got beaten soundly, look at the massacre that the Tigers handed the Broncos in the semi-final at Telstra Stadium. No-one would have beaten the Tigers that day, just as no-one would have beaten the Cowboys in the Preliminary final.

When pitted against each other ono-on-one, form has an edge over class.

In saying that, class plays a big role in the outcome of a season. A team of big name performers who have been on the main stage before can exploit weaknesses that surface through nerves in big games. Look at the way the AFL reigning premiers dismantled a surprise packet Kangaroos in the elimination final this year (only for a “form” side to hand a similar result to them the following week.)

In choosing representative sides to tour at the end of the year there is a delicate balancing act between class and form and no matter which way one goes, the decision will draw criticism.

Do you, on one hand, choose players who have served the country well before and are known to perform at the highest level regardless of their current form? Or does it become like a “best of 2005” side?

It would be very easy to say that the side should be based on the AFL All-Australian system where there is no friend or favour and the selections are based purely on performance in your position throughout the year. In that case the Kangaroos side would be stocked with Tigers and Cowboys after very successful years by both clubs.

The AFL, though, does not have to pick a “side” per se. They do not have to take these player on tour, the players will not have to work together in a practical sense on the field, in essence they do not even have to compliment each other’s game, or get along as a team; it is merely a paper side.

On the other side of the coin, if one were to choose a side of incumbents and reward only those who have served before it is very difficult for new players to come into the side and as we have seen with the Australian Cricket Team, players stay too long into their twilight years, are not performing as well as another player might, and those who enter the side do so late in their careers and as a result have a abbreviated stint in the top level.

The answer is to weigh the two together. That is not to look first at those who have been there before and if they can do the job to automatically select them. It is to say of all of the selection criteria that need to be considered, previous experience is one of a range of facets in making up the side. While there needs to be a nucleus of players turning over from year to year so the group, as a whole, has a focus; too many old selections who are not performing and the side will lose the fire that is required to make oppositions cringe.

There has been much said about who should have been in the Kangaroo touring squad and who should not have made the plane. Paul Kent says of the selection of the side “Loyalty was called upon when needed and dropped when it had to be, as was form… The selectors got it right.” While he identifies the correct issue at hand I still think the squad is a little incumbent heavy.

For example, Kent says that the reason that forwards Willie Mason and Steve Price should not have their inclusion questioned is because their season was determined by injury. That is to say that because a player played last year and was injured this year, he should still get a spot. Or, in other words, that even though a class player may be in inferior form to another player we feel that despite the injury he will somehow play better during the test matches; that an 80% fit Willie Mason who hasn’t played in five weeks is better than a 100% injury free, in-form, match fit unknown back rower whose team made it to the last four.

If a player has been injured and is taking a while to get back to top form, on the day, they will not play as well as a fit player who is in form. Such is the slight difference between Top NRL players today. Squads should certainly not be chosen on the basis of what a player can do; that is the secondary question after: What are they doing?

Using similar logic to Kent’s would see a stock analyst choose stocks based on year highs, not current performance. That person would be broke in a very short period of time.

Kent goes on to say, “Petero Civoniceva? Jason Ryles? Mark O'Meley? Argue they should not be in the squad and all you will do is reveal your own shortcomings.”

This is a ridiculous assertion to make without looking at their form during the year. It may well be the case that these players will perform well and I am not saying they don’t have a right to be there, but to say their selection against the likes of Scandalis and Southern, and in the starting line up over O’Donnell is as certain as death and taxes is one of the more asinine remarks of this whole debate.

Kent goes on to allude that Scott Prince is perhaps the only person who does not deserve his spot in the squad; that he was a beneficiary of the “touch of romantic” possessed by Wayne Bennett.

So Paul, after destroying almost all of the other halves combinations in the game or a very least destroying the halves combinations that destroyed the rest, he doesn’t deserve a spot?

Australia will probably win, there is no question about that, but this selection laziness that has come as a byproduct of sporting arrogance cannot continue, not in any sport, if for no other reason that we have no right to be arrogant anymore.