Im not sure Rich had numbers in mind, have you spoken to him about this? The original schedule lacked handicaps in a big way and was edited with this view. The season we've just finished had too many G1's and too many races over 6f and 1m. It lacked listed races I think like yoy say. Handicaps should be the highest % of races and more maidens after the transfer.

Can you put up the numbers from the season we've just had please?

2yo handicaps dont need to go up to 110. But 3+ could mainly be 0-75, 0-90 and 0-110. With some 0-80, 0-90 and 0-100 along the way as well.

Races by grade and also maximum age. The ones with maximum age were mostly 3+/4+.

EDIT Of the 3+/4+ races only 44 were 4+, 3 were 2+ i.e. open and the remaining 174 were 3+.

That's how I would split things down for the 390 races over 13 weeks



99 being 3+/4+ races and for these the breakdown would roughly speaking be 20% 4+ (48 races) rest being 3+ (194).

Scrap the 0-110 handicaps for 2yo's and include some 0-70 and/or 0-75's.

For the older lot I think there are too many 0-100's and not enough 0-90's.

The idea behind the 0-90s having a few more races than the 0-100s is simply to cater for all trainers. The way I see it there are three tiers of horses. Those that are contesting the group races, those contesting the 0-100/110s and those contesting the 0-80/90s.

I'd love to hear what Joe thinks about the handicaps and what he thinks the spread of ratings should be for the races as he'll know best what the quality of horses in the league was like.

As for the 2 year olds simply drop the 0-110 and replace them as 0-70.

Am planning to start populating the different categories with races this weekend and should have the whole schedule done after. I'll post it here early next week all being well time permitting.

Early season you might not have horses rated low enough for the low band stuff, or it may lead to two or three runner races. However some trainers dont mind this as a win is a win. Its hard to find a balance.

Id lean more towards four or five tiers of horses:

Top class G1 performers
G1-G3(inc G1 handicaps)
Top handicappers and listed/G3(inc G1 handicaps)
Middle handicappers 0-90 but capable of winning 0-110
Lower handicappers who would be out of the handicap in the 100's or 110's

When asked a lot of the trainers who won the low band few runner handicaps said they wouldn't want them changed or the bands increased. And for those trainers who didn't manage a win this season they remain vital to their chances.

I thought the changes were cutting the number of G1's and creating more G2/3 and listed races. More maidens early in the season and after the transfer. I also think we are lacking in races over 1m6, 2m and 2m4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... orse_races

http://www.horseracebase.com/racehistoriesmenu.php


There are loads of races there to help with more G2, G3 and Listed races. Also helps when trying to include the lesser tracks. Personally I was sick of Redcar and Musselburgh this season and that needs to be changed.

Andy I dont mind if you do it and then send it over for me to try and fill in gaps, using the tables to find where the schedule is light or heavy on certain races.

Thanks for the offer Matt but at the moment my problem isn't trying to find races . Filling all the races in shouldn't be a problem. It's trying to decide which ones to exclude. I'll have the final schedule out early next week as planned as well as a breakdown of the races by age/distance/type.

BTW does anyone know if Joe is committed to doing the handicap ratings next season?

Here are the figures for race distances

For last season.

2 year old

5/6f 35
7/8f 34
9/10f 11

Everything else (i.e. 3/3+ and 4+)

5/6f 56
7/8f 59
9/10f 48
11/12f 42
13/14f 24
15f+ 46

If anything there were quite a few races for the 2m+ horses - 15 at 2m 11 at 2m2 and 10 at 2m4. The types of races though I grant needs tweaking as only 9/46 were group races (should have been closer to 15 imo). The horses that suffered most were the 1m5/1m6 horses where there was definitely a lack of races.

Here's what I have planned for this season

2 year old

5/6f 40
7/8f 40
9/10f 18

Everything else

5/6f 60
7/8f 60
9/10f 49
11/12f 49
13/14f 37
15f+ 37

Do we need more 5/6f races then? I almost thought there were too many last season? And reducing the 2m+ races?

How many runs would a 2m 0-90 horse get etc?

Can you break the numbers down to specific distances please? Where are the 10f races?

The question is not just about how many races but how many horses you will have for each distance.

How would you break down your 20 places Matt? In terms of how many horses you would have at each distance? And is the horse a 3 or 4 year old?

And don't forget a horse that's rated 85 is going to be eligible for 0-90, 0-100 and 0-110 races.

To put it in perspective the breakdown for the 2m+ horses MIGHT be 3 G1s, 3 G2s, 4 G3s, 4 Listed, 2 Maidens and for the handicaps 4 0-80, 7 0-90, 4 0-100 and 6 0-100 which would provide enough races for 2 horses overlapping the 2m, 2m2 and 2m4f distances at handicaps.

The bottom line is in a balanced stable there will be probably only 1 horse running 2m+ whereas there would be 2 perhaps 3 horses for most other distances.

Im sorry but it is how many races. A horse running in a 2m maiden is not eligible for any 2m4 race. How can you have two maidens for three distances over a season? We need two maidens for 2m4 in the first two weeks. There should be five or six maidens, if there are no listed or group races, in the first two weeks and then another two or three at the transfer window.

In a balanced stable you will three horses or more running over 2m+. I had four last season and would probably increase that next season to five so not really sure your numbers add up. I was looking at having a 2m 3yo, 2m 4yo+, 2m2 horse and 2m4 horse for Group races and then most probably a horse to aim at the Melbourne Cup and the Sydney cup. Thats six. I wont be having 2yo's.

I agree with not enough races for 1m6 horses but dont see how that adds up to you giving 2m,2m2 and 2m4 horses the same?

So you want to have 6 horses that run 2m+ and you want how many races for each of them?

No offense but that's not a balanced stable. If you choose to run 6 2m+ horses then that's your choice but the schedule won't cater for that I'm afraid. Not when most people will be running very different stables.

I'm surprised at your question Matt. You of all people know that the schedule has got to cater to all. I'm simply modifying the schedule along the lines that has been set out previously. I don't see many asking for a ton more 2m+ races. Given the expansion I think it's reasonable to spread this out for all distances. If anything there were too many 2m+ races if you look at the breakdown for the last schedule and bearing in mind 15f+ isn't a distance a lot focus on, I don't see the point in stuffing the schedule up with too many such races. But then again let's see what others think? This is up for discussion as I said and so far no one is discussing aside from you which really doesn't help and by that I mean more input = better not that your input isn't valued.

Where is your evidence for this? Where is your evidence to cut the staying races? There were a decent amount of runners in most of the staying handicaps and those that had few runners were still wanted by the trainers contesting those races as any winning was precious. I dont see anyone requesting you cut the staying races?

You cant be serious that every stable should have one horse for 2m+ You cant be? Six is too many so lets say I have four:

1x 2m-2m2 Group horse
1x 2m2-2m4 Group horse
1x 2m handicapper
1x 2m4 handicapper

I think those horses should be allowed the opportunity to run five or six times through the season. They will obviously have one run in maiden to begin. I could easily argue that having four horses to run over 5 and 6f isn't balanced. I had two.

It was discussed last season that there needed to be a 2m4 maiden in week1 and week2. This is so that the races over 2m5 have enough horses to qualify for those races.