Yeah I don't understand how this works either, you hear it said that French racing that it's a lot of sit-and-sprint (more so than English racing). And then Japanese and Hong Kong racing seem to have none of it at all. Is it something to do with the tracks (French are stickier, Asian racing is firmer) or is it the stewards (French are more laissez-faire)? I remember Mostahdaf winning the Juddmonte over Paddington and all the talks was about the tactics, that Paddington was more of a miler and that it was smart to test him with the strong pace -- isn't that just bleeding obvious and what anyone with a proper 2000m horse should be doing?"
The trainers seem to copy the best trainers methods and there are very few innovators I reckon. Gai is probably one of the few exemptions, you could almost bet her horses will jump to the front in almost any race.
Now days most horses are taught to sit and sprint, and leaders run "where they are comfortable". What this does means that the races are run slowly and horses with the best sprint win. What I loved about Jenni is she took all those horses out of their comfort zones and stole a group 1. I do not understand why these tactics are not used more. The leader might not always win but it will give itself a better chance of winning by taking out a lot of the weaker horses who won't be able to finish off.