Tricky one.

We know that Polytrack records tend to be about 2% slower than turf from previous investigations if memory serves me right

If you take furlong poly times for July 4th you gte the following

9.5F = 12.85
12F = 13.30
9.5F = 12.95
12F = 13.65
7.5F = 12.46
9.5F = 12.72

Now we can’t really compare this against a 5F time 11.82 (that put up by the selection not the winner) because shorter distances always generate faster furlong sections.

we can use a version of that table I put up the other day though as this involves a multiplied ratio (I think) although they’re aggregated to a mile

12.85 / 99.5 x 98 = 12.65
13.30/ 101.4 x 98 = 12.85
12.95 / 99.5 x 98 = 12.75
13.65 / 101.4 x 98 = 13.19
12.46 / 97.3 x 98 = 12.54
12.72/ 99.5 x 98 = 12.52

If we knock our slowest out (13.19)

we have a mean of 12.66 for the remaining five races on the polytrack, so we turn to the 5F turf sprint

11.82 / 94.1 x 98 = 12.30

This is encouraging the poly average was 12.66 and our third placed home on turf was 12.30 just 0.36 faster, or 2.84%. This suggests the turf track and polytrack are more or less where they should be. There’s a problem though.

the turf was described as G/S and the race in question was for 2yo’s. Under these circumstances the poly times should have been better (unfortunately I don’t know by how much) but you might even back the horse on the strenght of this insight alone.

If we think the adjusted furlong time is 12.30 then we multiply that by 7 for a race tiem projection of 86.10 secs. The 2yo, 7F track record at Goodwood is 84.99, so we’re 1.11 secs shy of this (or 6.5L’s)

Leaving aside the vaguries of reporting error with race times and distance etc (we can’t legislate for that) we broadly have to conclude that the 2yo’s have run G/F times on G/S ground. How?

Only two explanations

1: This is France. They’d call we grass soft ground
2: They’re particularly fast/ good

It’s normally the case that the answer lies in between the two

Unfortunately, i do have a problem I can’t resolve and that concens Deauville and Goodwood. I’ve alsways regarded the Sussex venue as one of our faster tracks so was somewhat surprised to discover that it’s standard 5F time of 57.30 is actually 0.40 secs slower than Deauvilles at 56.90. This equates to 0.72%. However, if you use 2yo track records as an indication of what is possible, then Goodwood is 57.53. Unfortunately, we can’t find Deauvilles, but the fastest time we’ve got a record of for this race is 58.40, which compares favourably with the winners 58.60 and Mata Kernajang’s debut performance of 59.11. It would point to Goodwood being faster now by 1.49%, but we wouldn’t strictly be comparing like with like. You could hit on a compromise figure of Goodwood being 0.77% faster, which you would take off the projected time, but I’ve decided to use the standards (however questionable some of the Rp’s are these days in France) and add 0.72% to the projected time

86.10 / 100 x 0.72 = 0.61 + 86.10 = 86.71 secs. There’s an extra 3Ibs involved too which at 7F’s is worth 1L = 2.7Ibs = 1.11L’s
1.11 x 0.17 = 0.18 secs + 86.71 = 86.89

So Mata Keranjang is worth a time of 86.89 which is 1.90 secs outside the track record (11.25L’s).

We can only hope to make any sense of this though once we know what winning times for this race tend to look like, as track records are outliers and probably involve lightening fast ground and strong tail winds.

Strategic Prince = 86.02
Rio De la Plata = 86.05
Naheef = 86.32
Orizaba = 86.54
Mata Keranjang = 86.89
Shamadahl = 87.41
Dublin = 87.58
No Excuse Needed = 87.70
Lucky Story = 87.95
Sir Percy = 88.66

Don’t be too fooled by some of the ones he has behind him. Race times are getting quicker

Summary

Good chance of placing, could win, good value bet. There’s projection to Simouyi that makes him a Gp2 at least, and with improvement expected he’s worth having a rattle at I’d say