Just curious to see what others are thinking about the trials. With several horses who couldn't make the trials or got byes, do we consider past performance or just who's hot now?
That's a hard one because last night's Devon showcased many of the top riders really well. Someone better take a serious look at Chill R Z with Charlie Jayne as well. First in the ring, and they made it look easy. McLain, Laura, Margie and Beezie were all perfect on their potential mounts. Of the 5 that went clear, only Margie did the trials.
There's a long history to this (of course). The process now tries to combine objective (who's hot now) and subective (past performance) - I think it comes down to trying to get a team with a couple of combinations that are experienced in big international forums and then a couple who've been hot in the past 9 months. The trick, of course, is to not have the "trials" horses peak too soon...
I'd be surprised if Charlie makes it this time - I don't know that he's been consistent enough. Margie always seems to have cheap rails in the big international competitions - not quite sure why that is, since she's so great at home. I'd be surprised if McLain (assuming his knee behaves) and Laura aren't on the team - but then again, you never know.
I don't know if last night is all that great an indicator though. That track didn't seem nearly as big as the course at the selection trials at WEF; was it? While the good horses remained consistent, I don't think it means that we should start considering those from out of the blue (Chill R Z, for example) based on one class.