Amazed with this Matt the above is like a personal attack from a 12 year old kid
i really dont know why anyone bothers help with the lge when you get personal attacks like this im just amazed and very disapointed
Andy is making a schedule(which he has not even finished yet)
once its finished we can ALL discuss it in civilised manner

And you have avoided my questions to you too. And conveniently forgot to count the number of stables with 4+ sprinters which was part of your homework . You are very good at only doing the things you want to do Matt . How have I avoided your points? I replied to them in return in the above post .

Ok here's the ONE question I have for you that you keep evading. Do you think it is fair if more trainers upload sprinters for handicaps that they have fewer races and harder competition than if trainers upload stayers? Simple yes or no will be fine but feel free to write a more comprehensive reply.

As for getting on with it. I'm the only one who has come forward to do it. Certainly no one else appears to want the hassle.

Matts too busy

Andy please do finish the sched and then we can all look at it and then talk about it like civilised people not like children

If us little welsh trainers are going to catch u then we are going to need some Al Zarooni juice.

And u have help us with u knowledge on breeding Can the pupils knock of the Master Time will tell.

Sprinters wont have fewer races. Some sprinters ran 12 times last season. A lot ran double figures, they are hardly struggling for races. In real life sprint races are more competitive than staying races. Only the ces attracts a huge field. Should this be reflected in the league like the ratio of sprints to staying races?

We are both good at doing the things we want. I can see a lot of your points, you cant see any of mine. You answered very few of my questions. Apologies if they seemed like personal attacks. Until this we had got on very well. I am sorry. I only want the best for the league. But you dont seem to follow your own rules on some of the numbers.

Why all the silly faces all the time? I find that insulting.

It's not about how many races the sprinters have. It's about the chance of those trainers have to win. Look it's simple.. if there are fewer trainers with 2m+ horses (8% of the league last season) and there are relatively more 2m+ races then those trainers have an easier time winning. You ask me how many first time trainers won a staying race.. so on the one side you're talking about giving those trainers the chance to win by having more 2m+ horses then the next moment you go on to say the sprinters have more races anyway so they are fine. However you miss the point there might be more races numerically for them to enter but looking at their chance of winning it's a lot less because there are more sprinters and then on top of that they have as a % of total races less chances to win. That's a double whammy for them. Don't you see that? Frankly I am not planning on dominating the sprint handicaps . Actually I probably won't have a single horse running in any handicaps next season. It's not about me. It's about making sure that those new to the league trainers that do enter sprinters because the game encourages them to breed these horses as a result of the default schedule and breeding barn choices have a better chance of winning. I'm not even proposing to slash the 2m+ races to 8% of the total number of races. There will still be enough handicaps for them to compete in bearing in mind the distance regulations are going to be relaxed for 2m+ horses.

I see your points. I simply don't agree with them because I think you end up penalising (not once but twice using your logic) the newby trainers who enter lots of sprinters and there were more of those than newby trainers who had stayers contesting the handicaps. Instead of asking how many trainers won a first race at a staying distance how about asking how many trainers who had 4 or more sprinters did not manage to win a race? Don't you think that would put them off? A lot of trainers play the game casually. To breed stayers especially 2m+ stayers you have to set up to do that. You have to find 1m6/2m horses and then breed those and progressively breed only the ones that can stay the longest distances. It's a lot of breeding for very few horses and judging by the number of sprinters to stayers entered most people simply went with what the game gave them.

PS The silly faces reflect that I am not stressed out by this conversation . It's my way of saying I'm cool with what you're saying and I don't really worry about it either way

I noticed there was quite a lot of small fields in the 2m races and most of them had horses running who didnt stay 2 miles and were probably only running because they had nowhere else to run or to get a mark down. Taking that into consideration, the field sizes for 2m races, although seemingly better than the really small fields of 2m2 and 2m4 races, give a false impression of the number of horses who want to run at 2 miles. The numbers show that of all the distances the 2m+ division has the least amount uploaded by far and it looks as though that division could be compressed and made more competitive while freeing up space for other distances if needed. Andy seems to know what he doing so id leave it to him and then everyone can have a look at what he comes up with. I personally didnt have any big issues with the schedule last season and dont have any opinion on what should be changed so im not too bothered, I do think there is more than enough Group 1 handicaps at the end of the season tho, and I think that there should be a max of 20 races per week.

Just because there were small fields in the 2m+ races does not mean these races need to be discarded. We need to have a wide spread of distances. Decreasing these race number is not really a good idea. The longer distances in NH were small fields at one stage but now the fields are much larger.

As I have stated before the problem with last seasons schedule is that there were duplication of races in some weeks. i.e too many races over the same distances.

With plus/minus 30 races on a race card there should be ample space to have a diverse number of races. The whole idea of a stable 0f 20 was that people would specialize. It seems that because so few people specialized with stayers it seems as if these races are now been discarded. Its backwards thinking as it will just mean fewer trainers dominate as there are not a large number of distances. The small fields in the staying races was due to there been no maidens over long distances in earlier weeks meaning that with the rules for distance spreads no horses were eligible.

Ideally there needs an equitable spread of races for all distances. There will be less staying races as there are not really any 3 year old races, but for oder horses all distances should be as equal as possible. This is the most fair solution.

I feel very strongly about this. The more diverse the distances the more chance of group winners coming from different stables.

Its not about last seasons statistics Andy. Its about trainers looking at the races and seeing that its easier to win a staying race and therefore targeting them. Thats what I did when starting out and I am sure others will do this. The opportunity should be there to do this. You have 30 races in a race card. You should easily be able to accommadate all distances. If NH can do this it should be much easier to do on the flat

It should be easier on the Flat to do a fair Schedule for all and I am the only one who thinks limit of 20 runners a stable on the flat is the reason why some stable don't have more stayers if you only got 20 slots and you got say 5 two year olds 5 three year old you only got 10 slots available to cover 5F to 2m 4f and this is the reason why we have small fields I would be happy to have 30 horse's on the flat and compete in handicaps only and have more stayers in my yard I only had one horse that stayed beyond two miles last year and that is because of only having to have 20 horse's to put up.

I know certain trainers like to target just the groups races and that why they are not bothered about the 20 horse rule because they will try and win the group races and are not bothered about a 6f sprint at Catterick or the 2m 5f Pontefract marathon but smaller trainers will have more horses in their stable to pick from and we would have more stayers in thew league.

Gray

2m Handicaps:

Week3 Race22 Willie Park Trophy 2m 0-90 Nine runners
Week4 Race25 Opinion Poll Hcap 2m 0-110 Fourteen runners
Week5 Race29 War Kills Hcap 2m 0-80 Thirteen runners
Week6 Race10 Northumberland Plate 0-110 Twelve runners
Week7 No race
Week8 No race
Week9 Race17 On and On Hcap 1m7.5f 0-90 Six runners
Week10 Race27 Noble Prince Hcap 2m 0-110 Sixteen runners
Week11 Race26 Ghost Hcap 2m 0-80 Three runners
Week12 Race8 Melbourne Cup 2m G1 hcap Seventeen runners

2m2 handicaps:
Week3 Race10 Chester Cup 2m2 0-110 Twelve runners
Week4 Race26 Double Trigger hcap 2m2 0-80 Five runners
Week5 No race
Week6 No race
Week7 Race28 Simpleminds hcap 2m2 0-80 Nine runners
Week8 No race
Week9 Race27 Ces trial hcap 2m2 0-110 Ten runners
Week10 Race20 Bet at Betfair 2m2 0-80 Five runners(cdean's other winner)
Week11 Race10 Ces hcap 2m2 0-110 Eleven runners

2m4+ handicaps:
Week3 Race20 Ponte Marathon 2m5.5f 0-90 Three runners
Week5 Race 20 Queen Alex 2m5.5f 0-110 Ten runners
Week6 Race27 Scatters is gone 2m4 0-80 Three runners
Week7 Race13 Goodwood hcap 2m5 0-100 Four runners
Week8 Race26 Stay All Day hcap 2m4 0-100 Six runners
Week9 Race29 Cheats hcap 2m4 0-80 Three runners
Week11 Race29 Sydney Cup 2m4 G1 hcap Eleven runners
Week12 Race18 Ponte Stayers 2m4 0-110 Eleven runners

I think those are all last seasons 1m7+ handicaps. Green denotes ten or more runners and red is six or less. There are two nine runner races left in white. So most of the 2m races attracted decent fields. I dont know why the War Kills hcap in week5 attracted thirteen runners but then the Ghost hcap in week11 only had three. Maybe horses' ratings had climbed to above 80 by then, but I doubt it.

So the problem lies with the 2m4 handicaps. Which was my fault for not having enough 2m4 maidens at the start of the season. It gave trainers a slim chance of qualifying for the Ponte Marathom and Goodwood handicap as there was only ONE qualifying race. They were opened up to manual entry but if trainers didn't check the forum then they wouldn't have known. Having two maidens over 2m4 in the first two weeks and also relaxing the distance rules for stayers should help increase the amount of horses eligible for the 2m4+ races, therefore increasing the fields.

I also feel strongly about diversity in the schedule. Personally I think if trainers want to upload four or more sprinters then they have made a mistake. Im not saying punish new trainers because the game makes it easier to breed sprinters and milers but help is always available on these forums and in many threads it is advised to have a balanced stable and not upload too many horses for the same distance. I felt that sprints and mile handicaps should have been cut, with 1m6,2m and 2m2 races increased. 2m4 actually have enough races.

The last season gone saw a lot of trainers have winners. Forty-one trainers had one or more winner on the flat last season and that must be a record. Ok so there were more trainers than in recent years but I would also expect the % of trainers without a win was lower. Add to that a lot of the trainers without a win entered a handful of horses into the league and some dropped out as the season progressed. I think that was due to all the changes made to the schedule after it was put up on the forum for public opinion. I had rushed it a little so that we could get the season under way and also dont know how to do tables so had no idea where we were heavy and light. Luckily a lot of people said there should be more handicaps and it was then that I started to add the races up and saw glaring mistakes and holes. We had too many sprints and mile race, so I started to cut these and add at other distances. I remember 1m4 handicaps and staying races in general were light. I made up a few listed and G2/3 races at a lot of distances as they were short. I dont like made up races but couldn't find real life equivalents, so that was my only option to try to balance the schedule. We also dont need the Vermeille but do need a fillies maiden over 1m3/4 in week1. Scrap the older 1m6 maiden in week1 for it.

It is good that you are trying to make it easier for new trainers to find a winner but I honestly think that if they follow the advice on the forums and DO try to have a balanced stable then they will have a winner. A lot of new trainers think they will win the Derby in their first season, upload five milers because they are all so good in their eyes. We should try to help these trainers out and also push them towards a balanced stable, better placement of horses and understanding of the league. A lot of new trainers also rush putting their stable together and neglect 1m6+. Again the schedule should encourage them to look at these distances rather than make it easier for them to just keep breeding 5-8f horses. You learn a lot in your first season and Id like to think that most of our first season trainers will look at expanding their stable to the full twenty, if they didn't have last season, and also look at giving it more balance. It might be they have 2yo's and no stayers but we cant predict that and nor can your numbers. As Leon says thirty races a week actually makes it easy to build a balanced schedule. I also agree with Leon in that is what we should be aiming for. Balance. By adding staying races my aim is not to make it easier for some trainers to get a winner but to encourage trainers to have balance and also explore breeding stayers. If some people dont want to do that then Im not sure we should reward them for it.

Again as Leon says if we cut the staying races this will lead to fewer trainers breeding stayers when we should be doing the opposite. It is actually very hard to breed a 4m4f horse for the NH leage, more so than a 2m+ horse for the flat. There are now a lot of 4m4f races in the NH league with big fields. This could easily happen with 2m+ races in the flat league.

I've found it hard to accept that you want to use a bunch of numbers instead of experience and opinion. It just doesn't work like that. Sorry for more insults in advance.

we're going around in circles. let's just wait and see when the schedule is done and we can vote on it then if need be. so far there are only 4/5 people debating this. it's not about what a few want but the majority after all.

as for opinion.. matt so far it's leon and you (and maybe gray) wanting the staying races kept and me/ghost/doc thinking we that having less of those might be better.. or have I got that wrong?

the schedule will be ready in the next day or so.

Actually gray there are group races from 5f all the way up to 2m4f. I should know.. I targetted all of them and simply left out 2m4f as I didn't have the time to pursue that distance. Of the 4 group races at 2m I won 2 of them and the two I lost my horses were carrying excess weight for having won higher group races before so targetting group races doesn't mean you exclude any distances.

We aren't going round in circles, it would just seem that its your way or no way. We've been there before and it was an absolute disaster Joe said he didn't think the schedule needed changing that much and Ghost compared the staying races to real life where there are fewer. This has been explained due to recovery time. We have also pointed out the 4m4 races in the NH league.

So yes you have got that wrong. You also haven't listened to either what Leon or I have said. And you wont. Because it has to be your way. Going back to what everyone wants I take you've read the threads regarding the schedule from last season and also improvements for this years and taken the main points on board?

As my answers to your statements are taken as personal insults its hard to know what to say really. You constantly avoid the points made but just re-iterate yours over and over again. So I dont know about circles, more like broken record.

There was only 4 group races at 2m? The Goodwood Cup you were a fortunate winner and the Queens Vase was not very competitive. The other two you wouldn't have won even without the weight. What penalties did your horses carry?

Yeah Matt keep believing that.. Suleviae was a G1 winner and Anyigba a G2 so you do the math for a G2 and G3 respectively. As I've stated, the weights make a lot of difference. Yima won all the G1s bar one but with added weight couldn't win a G2/3. And there were 5 group races but one was a 4+ so I didn't have a runner.

BTW how many Group races did you win at 2m last season? I suppose you were unlucky in those too?