GOM

6 dog fields

13 posts in this topic

There has been a lot of talk recently about trying six dog fields  to see firstly if it reduces interference In races and secondly will it impact on turnover.

What are peoples thoughts on this. My view is that it will reduce the amount of interference purely because of logistics but if you take that to it's logical conclusion match racing would be the ultimate like the boring amazing chase races. Oh hold on a minute there would still be some interference on the odd occasion when they didn't race in single file , so maybe the ultimate would be solo trials and go on times, now wouldn't that be exciting.

      Obviously there would be 24 dogs per meeting denied a start compared to now but maybe they could put on 3 extra races to compensate.

I have watched 6 dog racing in Ireland and although I enjoyed it I still preferred our 8 dog fields.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GOM said:

There has been a lot of talk recently about trying six dog fields  to see firstly if it reduces interference In races and secondly will it impact on turnover.

What are peoples thoughts on this. My view is that it will reduce the amount of interference purely because of logistics but if you take that to it's logical conclusion match racing would be the ultimate like the boring amazing chase races. Oh hold on a minute there would still be some interference on the odd occasion when they didn't race in single file , so maybe the ultimate would be solo trials and go on times, now wouldn't that be exciting.

      Obviously there would be 24 dogs per meeting denied a start compared to now but maybe they could put on 3 extra races to compensate.

I have watched 6 dog racing in Ireland and although I enjoyed it I still preferred our 8 dog fields.

 

It would be interesting to see actual research done into whether injuries and collisions are minimized with 6 dog fields.

I for one am not sold on this idea. However, the results would be interesting none the less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with Hairy Jerry - this bs about drawing 8 or more dogs in fields is compromising quality top grades and middle distance racing particularly in the Northern region. The rule has been relaxed in relation to distance races and the same should be done for middle distance and higher grade races.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry GOM I know that's not exactly what you intended in your posting this topic. I agree that logistically smaller 6 dog fields will naturally lead to a reduction in interference. 

The TAB is obviously worried that it will lead to a reduction in betting turnover but that is arguable.

In the long term quality 6 dog fields will generate more interest and hold as much as poor quality 8 dog fields. I am already rereluctant and refuse to bet on the latter whenever possible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, tonight's the night!

Addington on the Group 1 St Leger Final card - 10 fields of 6 

The St Leger and a NZRS Distance Final make up the programme.

I gather the Club missed out initially on its annual Memorial Day but was given this coming Sunday as a quid pro quo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some analysis on the super 6 races although quite clearly the sample size far to small to draw any valid conclusions.

The sprints showed no real difference - there is an extreme advantage to the dogs that get to the first marker on the pace.  One winner came from further back than second (3rd) so there was no real change.

What was interesting however was the middle distance races.  At present around 6% of winners are 6th or worse at the post the first time they go round yet two of the races were won by dogs that were 6th (last).  Again, it's hard to know whether that is statistically significant as the sample size grows.  Both runners had very strong closing sectionals so it was no surprise they won but it certainly was promising to see two dogs come from last.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the $64 gazillion question.  Gem in particular has a top closing sectional - she had a couple of the top closing sectionals had she made the St Leger.  We would need a lot more races to see if there it does make it easier for back markers but it was promising at least to see that two runners won from the back.  Gem did win yesterday with a slow start but two winners from 6th would be very significant if the pattern continued at all.

I should also add I'm only analysing the available data and the objective of the trial was to reduce interference which is a direct cause of injury.  However, i think analysing the success of the back markers is a fair proxy for looking at the level of interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it a bit hard to follow that logic Dave and the available data is so skinny it is not statistics just recent results.

It will be interesting if you follow through though. One of the arguments for straight track racing is that it has less interference and thus  less injury but looking at a straight track meeting in Aus yesterday there seemed to be more interference than four corners . 

I know it is exciting to see dogs flying from behind to win but as greyhounds cannot be handicapped you will see a lot more good competitors going to the front and staying there than the other codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean in the first sentence re logic but I think we agree that it's impossible to draw any conclusions based on the number of races so far.  However, it would be interesting to see what would happen with a larger pool.

As the stats tell us, box speed wins greyhound races.  The first dog to the first bend has a significant advantage in pretty much all races.

It would be interesting to see what criteria GRNZ is using to measure the success of the trial.

As has been pointed out, i think 6 dog fields are used in the UK and Ireland and that doesn't seem to have affected punting.  That said, it was noticeable with the smaller fields that you had to adjust your view of what was value etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now