Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
2010 Grand National Preview
Last years Grand National was, to the trend students of the race, a somewhat unsatisfactory result. French bred horses dont win the Grand National. 100/1 shots dont win the Grand National. Horses dont win the Grand National at their second or subsequent attempts. Mon Mome shattered all three of these hypotheses in one fell swoop. Or did he? First we have to look at why these hypotheses were so often quoted before we decide whether one exception is enough to disregard them.
The French bred reasoning is a clear one, for it had been 100 years since Lutteur III in 1909 that a horse born across the channel won our most valuable handicap, a fairly strong statistic. Of course, this is not the full picture, as there were relatively few French breds competing in the race until the last decade or so. Since 1998 however, approximately 25% of runners have been French bred, with no success until last year. There are, however, some cases where this issue becomes folly; take Butlers Cabin; oft cited as being French bred before previous Grand Nationals for he bears the (FR) suffix but he is essentially GB bred and just happened to be born in France. Mon Mome however, is a fully paid up Frenchy, and yet he was one of the most impressive winners of recent memory, so does this mean we now ignore the previous evidence? If you tossed a coin 100 times and it came up heads every time, youd be fairly certain that the coin was biased. If on the 101st toss, the coin came up tails, would it then follow that your bias theory was null and void? The answer to this is clearly no; therefore this is probably a statistic to still bear in mind. The fact remains that there are very few races in France over further than 3 miles; therefore traditionally the French do not breed their horses with stamina sufficient to be effective over the 4½ miles of the Grand National. It could be argued that French breeders have been for some time now forming their stock with ever increasing stamina, to meet the demands of British racing (with so many top races in Britain won by French bred horses), but until we see more compelling evidence of this it should still pay to be wary of backing a French bred in a race requiring endless stamina such as the Grand National.
The second hypothesis that Mon Mome put to the sword, was that relatively few outsiders win the Grand National. The last previously successful 100/1 shot was Foinavon in 1967, and this was only due to an incident packed race. The fact that in an average year, 25% of the runners are quoted at odds of 100/1 against or greater, means that in the 163 Grand Nationals run to date you might expect 25% of the winners to return at these odds, yet only 5 horses in this bracket have ever won the race. So despite last years result, the statistics still show that when looking for the winner, you are most likely to find value amongst the shorter prices. With any worthwhile hypothesis, there has to be an explanation for why the result occurs. For example, only 2 greys have ever won the contest, which is clearly disproportionate to the number that compete in the race, but since there can be no earthly reason why greys would be at a disadvantage in the race, any such theory would be nonsensical. The explanation for why outsiders are such poor value is in part the same as in any race. Bookmakers generally make their margins in outsiders, such that if you are taking 100/1, the true price is probably nearer 200/1 or larger. This is, however, exaggerated further in the Grand National due to the increased participation of the general public in the betting markets, who generally prefer to have a flutter on something longer priced, with a lottery type mentality, rather than back something at shorter odds.
The third hypothesis; probably now the weakest argument on paper; is that horses only win the Grand National at their first attempt. The reasoning behind this being that if a horse has previously run in a Grand National, either they run badly and thus show a dislike for the fences, or they run well and are unfairly treated the following year due to Phil Smiths insistence of taking performances over the national fences into account when setting the weights. Hedgehunter was an exception to this, in that he fell the year before his win, whilst Mon Mome ran adequately in 2008, finishing 10th. Whilst the reasoning here is definitely sound, there are sufficient exceptions in recent years to not pay too much attention to this theory.
Taking into account all the above, whilst it is clear that Mon Mome defied at least three of the traditional trends last year, this does not mean that we should completely disregard these indicators which have served so successfully in providing a guide to the winners in previous years.
Probably the best place to start with this years race, is at the door of the current favourite Big Fella Thanks. The Paul Nicholls trained 8yo took his place in the race last year, and on the trends faced an almost impossible task, despite starting at 14/1. Firstly, he was a novice, and the last first season chaser to win the race was Mr What in 1958. Secondly, he was a 7 year old, and by the same token, a horse that young has not won the Grand National since 1940. Indeed, going into last years race, of the 26 horses aged 7 or younger that have tried since the millennium, 22 did not complete the course and 4 were badly unplaced. Big Fella Thanks had also only run 6 times over fences before the 2009 Grand National, and as such was seen my most people to not have the sufficient experience required to win a race of this nature. As it transpired, in spite of all these negative trends, the horse produced a fantastic effort, finishing a staying on 6th. He also made a number of mistakes during the race (to be expected from such a young and inexperienced horse) which makes his finishing position all the more impressive. In doing so he became one of only five 7yos to complete the course in the last decade, and the only one to really run a race of any merit.
This time round, a year older, we can expect the horse to put up an extremely bold bid to win the race. Last time out, he won a handicap over just 20f off 146 at Newbury, the same rating off which he contests this race. This puts him somewhere between half a stone and a stone
Last years Grand National was, to the trend students of the race, a somewhat unsatisfactory result. French bred horses dont win the Grand National. 100/1 shots dont win the Grand National. Horses dont win the Grand National at their second or subsequent attempts. Mon Mome shattered all three of these hypotheses in one fell swoop. Or did he? First we have to look at why these hypotheses were so often quoted before we decide whether one exception is enough to disregard them.
The French bred reasoning is a clear one, for it had been 100 years since Lutteur III in 1909 that a horse born across the channel won our most valuable handicap, a fairly strong statistic. Of course, this is not the full picture, as there were relatively few French breds competing in the race until the last decade or so. Since 1998 however, approximately 25% of runners have been French bred, with no success until last year. There are, however, some cases where this issue becomes folly; take Butlers Cabin; oft cited as being French bred before previous Grand Nationals for he bears the (FR) suffix but he is essentially GB bred and just happened to be born in France. Mon Mome however, is a fully paid up Frenchy, and yet he was one of the most impressive winners of recent memory, so does this mean we now ignore the previous evidence? If you tossed a coin 100 times and it came up heads every time, youd be fairly certain that the coin was biased. If on the 101st toss, the coin came up tails, would it then follow that your bias theory was null and void? The answer to this is clearly no; therefore this is probably a statistic to still bear in mind. The fact remains that there are very few races in France over further than 3 miles; therefore traditionally the French do not breed their horses with stamina sufficient to be effective over the 4½ miles of the Grand National. It could be argued that French breeders have been for some time now forming their stock with ever increasing stamina, to meet the demands of British racing (with so many top races in Britain won by French bred horses), but until we see more compelling evidence of this it should still pay to be wary of backing a French bred in a race requiring endless stamina such as the Grand National.
The second hypothesis that Mon Mome put to the sword, was that relatively few outsiders win the Grand National. The last previously successful 100/1 shot was Foinavon in 1967, and this was only due to an incident packed race. The fact that in an average year, 25% of the runners are quoted at odds of 100/1 against or greater, means that in the 163 Grand Nationals run to date you might expect 25% of the winners to return at these odds, yet only 5 horses in this bracket have ever won the race. So despite last years result, the statistics still show that when looking for the winner, you are most likely to find value amongst the shorter prices. With any worthwhile hypothesis, there has to be an explanation for why the result occurs. For example, only 2 greys have ever won the contest, which is clearly disproportionate to the number that compete in the race, but since there can be no earthly reason why greys would be at a disadvantage in the race, any such theory would be nonsensical. The explanation for why outsiders are such poor value is in part the same as in any race. Bookmakers generally make their margins in outsiders, such that if you are taking 100/1, the true price is probably nearer 200/1 or larger. This is, however, exaggerated further in the Grand National due to the increased participation of the general public in the betting markets, who generally prefer to have a flutter on something longer priced, with a lottery type mentality, rather than back something at shorter odds.
The third hypothesis; probably now the weakest argument on paper; is that horses only win the Grand National at their first attempt. The reasoning behind this being that if a horse has previously run in a Grand National, either they run badly and thus show a dislike for the fences, or they run well and are unfairly treated the following year due to Phil Smiths insistence of taking performances over the national fences into account when setting the weights. Hedgehunter was an exception to this, in that he fell the year before his win, whilst Mon Mome ran adequately in 2008, finishing 10th. Whilst the reasoning here is definitely sound, there are sufficient exceptions in recent years to not pay too much attention to this theory.
Taking into account all the above, whilst it is clear that Mon Mome defied at least three of the traditional trends last year, this does not mean that we should completely disregard these indicators which have served so successfully in providing a guide to the winners in previous years.
Probably the best place to start with this years race, is at the door of the current favourite Big Fella Thanks. The Paul Nicholls trained 8yo took his place in the race last year, and on the trends faced an almost impossible task, despite starting at 14/1. Firstly, he was a novice, and the last first season chaser to win the race was Mr What in 1958. Secondly, he was a 7 year old, and by the same token, a horse that young has not won the Grand National since 1940. Indeed, going into last years race, of the 26 horses aged 7 or younger that have tried since the millennium, 22 did not complete the course and 4 were badly unplaced. Big Fella Thanks had also only run 6 times over fences before the 2009 Grand National, and as such was seen my most people to not have the sufficient experience required to win a race of this nature. As it transpired, in spite of all these negative trends, the horse produced a fantastic effort, finishing a staying on 6th. He also made a number of mistakes during the race (to be expected from such a young and inexperienced horse) which makes his finishing position all the more impressive. In doing so he became one of only five 7yos to complete the course in the last decade, and the only one to really run a race of any merit.
This time round, a year older, we can expect the horse to put up an extremely bold bid to win the race. Last time out, he won a handicap over just 20f off 146 at Newbury, the same rating off which he contests this race. This puts him somewhere between half a stone and a stone
Show More
Good read and well written. I think it is very shaky to talk trends where SP is concerned. There would have been very few racing fans who would have thought Mon Mome would start at 100/1. I think the RP forecast had him at 20/1 on the morning of the race. He wasn't a 'typical' 100/1 shot.
how on earth you found the time to do this idont know. however a brilliant read.state of play would be a deserved winner,you cannot listen to every bit of advice however CLASS is PERMAMENT.
gl with whatever you do
gl with whatever you do
Ged, valid point. Don't think he was THAT should on the tissue but take your point. Think he was 190 on betfair the morning of the race and 50/1 to 66/1 with bookies.
Noone has noticed the deliberate mistake re left and right handed!
angel - I rememb the detailed horse-by-horse write-up on the day of race. It could only have been the RP or guardian(!). Maybe it was the latter. :-)
Really good preview and well written. Good shortlist too. I would just question one thing... just because 25 per cent of the runners are 100/1 or more does not mean that 25 per cent of them should win. They're 100/1 shots after all. I'm sure a statistician can work out how many ought to be winning, but it shouldn't be 25 per cent - not unless all horses have exactly equal chances.
Halcon - yes that is a rather embarrassing error, esp given I have a maths degree!
Not sure what I was trying to get at.
I'll try again; the point is that there have been 10 x 163 100/1 shots or more run in the race, so 1,630 of them, who's average price is prob around 200/1. So you'd expect say 8 to have prevailed. Only 5 have, although that's actually not that different! Oh dear - messed up there a bit!
Not sure what I was trying to get at.
I'll try again; the point is that there have been 10 x 163 100/1 shots or more run in the race, so 1,630 of them, who's average price is prob around 200/1. So you'd expect say 8 to have prevailed. Only 5 have, although that's actually not that different! Oh dear - messed up there a bit!
I noticed the orientation error (Eric's Charm) but you got in there before me! Good read though, take a bow.
How can you do a PREVIEW when you don't know for certain what the going will be ?
To start off by saying -
Last years Grand National was, to the trend students of the race, a somewhat unsatisfactory result
Casts a big doubt on what you typed afterwards ...which I must admit.....I have not read.....What is point in reading it until going is known.......
GL with your bets .....
Last years Grand National was, to the trend students of the race, a somewhat unsatisfactory result
Casts a big doubt on what you typed afterwards ...which I must admit.....I have not read.....What is point in reading it until going is known.......
GL with your bets .....
DFC IronMan;
We are only a few days away and going looks pretty certain to be good/soft to good.
Obviously any dramatic change in going may make some of the selections better or worse bets than others, but most of my selections are not that ground dependent.
Regarding the opening statement, maybe you should read at least the next paragraph!
We are only a few days away and going looks pretty certain to be good/soft to good.
Obviously any dramatic change in going may make some of the selections better or worse bets than others, but most of my selections are not that ground dependent.
Regarding the opening statement, maybe you should read at least the next paragraph!
but until we see more compelling evidence of this it should still pay to be wary of backing a French bred in a race requiring endless stamina such as the Grand National
========================================================
IMO that statement is irrelevant.....................................as not a key factor as to why horse won last year.
========================================================
IMO that statement is irrelevant.....................................as not a key factor as to why horse won last year.
I trust you noted that the going last year was totally different from going in previous umpteen yeears !!!!!!!!
Aintree 16:15 - Result
John Smith's Grand National Chase (handicap) (grade 3)
£900000 added, 6yo plus, 4m 4f, Class 1, £506970 penalty, 40 ran
Going: Good to Soft, Good in places
Race Report » Watch Full Race» Watch Closing Stages» Watch Full Race» Watch Closing Stages»
Winning Time: 9m 31.9s Pos. Draw
Dist. Horse Wt Jockey Trainer Age SP
1 Mon Mome (FR) 11-0 L Treadwell Miss V Williams 9 100/1
towards rear, headway halfway, chasing leaders 4 out, ridden after 2 out, led after last, stayed on strongly opened 100/1 touched 100/1
2 12 Comply Or Die (IRE) 11-6 T J Murphy D Pipe 10 14/1
mid-division, headway halfway to track leaders, led approaching last, headed run-in, kept on one pace opened 18/1 touched 18/1 £10000-£500 (x2) £9000-£500 £10000-£600 (x2) £5000-£300 (x7)
3 1¼ My Will (FR) 11-4 R Walsh P F Nicholls 9 8/1
towards rear, blundered 5th, headway and in touch halfway, mistake 23rd (Canal Turn), led approaching 2 out, headed approaching last, kept on same pace opened 8/1 touched 11/1 £10000-£900 £10000-£1000 (x5) £5000-£500 (x3) £45000-£5000 £5000-£550 (x7)
4 4½ State of Play 11-2 Paul Moloney Evan Williams 9 14/1
tracked leaders, effort and every chance 2 out, one pace run-in opened 14/1 touched 14/1
5 ¾ Cerium (FR) 10-5 K Mercer Paul Murphy 8 100/1
towards rear, headway after 4 out, ridden after next, kept on one pace from 2 out opened 200/1 touched 200/1
6 4 Big Fella Thanks 11-1 Christian Williams P F Nicholls 7 14/1
towards rear, headway and in touch halfway, ridden after 3 out, one pace from 2 out opened 20/1 touched 20/1 £10000-£500
7 1¾ Butler's Cabin (FR) 10-13 A P McCoy Jonjo O'Neill 9 7/1 f
mid-division, headway 20th and in touch, ridden 3 out, no further progress opened 9/1 touched 9/1 £90000-£10000 £10000-£1100 (x2) £4500-£500 £10000-£1200 (x5) £5000-£750 £3750-£500 £5000-£700 (x5)
8 ¾ Southern Vic (IRE) 10-9 N P Madden T M Walsh 10 33/1
towards rear, headway 3 out, effort between last 2, no extra run-in opened 33/1 touched 33/1
9 5 Snowy Morning (IRE) 11-8 A J Mcnamara W P Mullins 9 33/1
in touch, lost place halfway, headway under pressure 3 out, rallied and effort between last 2, weakened run-in opened 33/1 touched 33/1 £30000-£300 £10000-£100 (x10)
10 9 Arteea (IRE) 10-5 J W Farrelly D Pipe 10 200/1
==========================================================
To suggest ignoring FRENCH bred horses after last years result on that going appears to be a silly thing to say when 3 out the first home were FR horses.......
John Smith's Grand National Chase (handicap) (grade 3)
£900000 added, 6yo plus, 4m 4f, Class 1, £506970 penalty, 40 ran
Going: Good to Soft, Good in places
Race Report » Watch Full Race» Watch Closing Stages» Watch Full Race» Watch Closing Stages»
Winning Time: 9m 31.9s Pos. Draw
Dist. Horse Wt Jockey Trainer Age SP
1 Mon Mome (FR) 11-0 L Treadwell Miss V Williams 9 100/1
towards rear, headway halfway, chasing leaders 4 out, ridden after 2 out, led after last, stayed on strongly opened 100/1 touched 100/1
2 12 Comply Or Die (IRE) 11-6 T J Murphy D Pipe 10 14/1
mid-division, headway halfway to track leaders, led approaching last, headed run-in, kept on one pace opened 18/1 touched 18/1 £10000-£500 (x2) £9000-£500 £10000-£600 (x2) £5000-£300 (x7)
3 1¼ My Will (FR) 11-4 R Walsh P F Nicholls 9 8/1
towards rear, blundered 5th, headway and in touch halfway, mistake 23rd (Canal Turn), led approaching 2 out, headed approaching last, kept on same pace opened 8/1 touched 11/1 £10000-£900 £10000-£1000 (x5) £5000-£500 (x3) £45000-£5000 £5000-£550 (x7)
4 4½ State of Play 11-2 Paul Moloney Evan Williams 9 14/1
tracked leaders, effort and every chance 2 out, one pace run-in opened 14/1 touched 14/1
5 ¾ Cerium (FR) 10-5 K Mercer Paul Murphy 8 100/1
towards rear, headway after 4 out, ridden after next, kept on one pace from 2 out opened 200/1 touched 200/1
6 4 Big Fella Thanks 11-1 Christian Williams P F Nicholls 7 14/1
towards rear, headway and in touch halfway, ridden after 3 out, one pace from 2 out opened 20/1 touched 20/1 £10000-£500
7 1¾ Butler's Cabin (FR) 10-13 A P McCoy Jonjo O'Neill 9 7/1 f
mid-division, headway 20th and in touch, ridden 3 out, no further progress opened 9/1 touched 9/1 £90000-£10000 £10000-£1100 (x2) £4500-£500 £10000-£1200 (x5) £5000-£750 £3750-£500 £5000-£700 (x5)
8 ¾ Southern Vic (IRE) 10-9 N P Madden T M Walsh 10 33/1
towards rear, headway 3 out, effort between last 2, no extra run-in opened 33/1 touched 33/1
9 5 Snowy Morning (IRE) 11-8 A J Mcnamara W P Mullins 9 33/1
in touch, lost place halfway, headway under pressure 3 out, rallied and effort between last 2, weakened run-in opened 33/1 touched 33/1 £30000-£300 £10000-£100 (x10)
10 9 Arteea (IRE) 10-5 J W Farrelly D Pipe 10 200/1
==========================================================
To suggest ignoring FRENCH bred horses after last years result on that going appears to be a silly thing to say when 3 out the first home were FR horses.......
I HAVE read it and consider it an excellent summary. Better than you will get in the press.
I don`t agree with it though. The biggest steeplechase in France is over 3m5f for instance so I don`t get the bit about French horses being non-stayers.( Red Rum was by the miler Quorum and raced as a 2-y-o so was hardly bred for the job ). I can`t say I spotted it but Mon Mome had an unusually good profile for a 100-1 shot. Right age,some very decent form and a near-top yard.
But it`s all about opinion of course.
I don`t agree with it though. The biggest steeplechase in France is over 3m5f for instance so I don`t get the bit about French horses being non-stayers.( Red Rum was by the miler Quorum and raced as a 2-y-o so was hardly bred for the job ). I can`t say I spotted it but Mon Mome had an unusually good profile for a 100-1 shot. Right age,some very decent form and a near-top yard.
But it`s all about opinion of course.
Angel - I apologise for being so aggressive re what you typed.......
I'll read it ALL tomorrow when wide awake ........though i do suggest you should take GOING into account before making selections...............
GL with bets.
I'll read it ALL tomorrow when wide awake ........though i do suggest you should take GOING into account before making selections...............
GL with bets.
This french thing will drag on and on, but you can't ignore the stats, and I'm sorry, one swallow doesn't make a summer, so yes, although 3 of the first 4 home or whatever where french last year, that doesn't suddently mean that these french breds have suddenly become stamina laden.
Yes there are some races in france over more than 3 miles, but there are very few, and there will always be exceptions. But the stats over the history of the race do appear to show that french breds have not performed as well as their odds suggest they should have done.
As I've said, I suspect that a shift is beginning/has begun in the french breeding of NH horses, but until further evidence of this appears, I'll go with the stats, rather than the result of one race, thanks.
Yes there are some races in france over more than 3 miles, but there are very few, and there will always be exceptions. But the stats over the history of the race do appear to show that french breds have not performed as well as their odds suggest they should have done.
As I've said, I suspect that a shift is beginning/has begun in the french breeding of NH horses, but until further evidence of this appears, I'll go with the stats, rather than the result of one race, thanks.
Any stats on the ages of French breds competing. I rather suspect a lot were very young in GN terms.
As I said angel ....the FRENCH thing is irrelevant.........there were other KEY FACTORS why the result was what it was IMO.........
I repeat ....last year the going was DIFFERENT from previous UMPTEEN years.........so the horses that finished had some relevant key factors in their favour.....
If the going is similar to last year ....which nobody knows yet for certain.......then there is much to be learned from last years result........You certainly should not disregard last years result.......
Anyway .....I promise I will read the whole thing in morning.....though I still believe it is better to wait til day of race to appraise selections.
GL
I repeat ....last year the going was DIFFERENT from previous UMPTEEN years.........so the horses that finished had some relevant key factors in their favour.....
If the going is similar to last year ....which nobody knows yet for certain.......then there is much to be learned from last years result........You certainly should not disregard last years result.......
Anyway .....I promise I will read the whole thing in morning.....though I still believe it is better to wait til day of race to appraise selections.
GL
I'm not sure you're right DFC.
I think last years result was a bit of a freak and I don't think we will be seeing a French bred or a horse carrying 11 stone+ winning this year.
All about opinions though.
I think last years result was a bit of a freak and I don't think we will be seeing a French bred or a horse carrying 11 stone+ winning this year.
All about opinions though.
angel
I have now read your preview ... good effort and not the sort of preview that would be of much value 5 minutes before the race so well done on your early effort....
I do agree with DFC in that you should update your post with your final selections on the day though as this is the UK and we all know how changeable the weather is ....
www.grand-national-guide.co.uk/myhorse.php offers a 'lucky dip' selection for my thread but you can also select various other selection process such as ground / weight / star sign ?:| etc ... have a play with your selections with different settings and see how often they make it into the top 5 .......
Good Luck
I have now read your preview ... good effort and not the sort of preview that would be of much value 5 minutes before the race so well done on your early effort....
I do agree with DFC in that you should update your post with your final selections on the day though as this is the UK and we all know how changeable the weather is ....
www.grand-national-guide.co.uk/myhorse.php offers a 'lucky dip' selection for my thread but you can also select various other selection process such as ground / weight / star sign ?:| etc ... have a play with your selections with different settings and see how often they make it into the top 5 .......
Good Luck
As the going was DIFFERENT from umpteen years prior to it , then this is main contributory factor to result last year ......this is why it was what you would call a "freak" result etc
when red marauder won when only 4 finished with 2 of those re mounted
did anyone one think he would win
ground was heavy bottomless any other meeting would of been called off
horses stamina and race form was in question before race
but i have heard it said in write ups by trainers (what sort of horse winds this race)
answer a good class 2 1/2 mile chaser as the 2 milers are too quick
basically its 2 races or 2 circuits 1 at 2 miles as they run too fast and then 1 of 2 1/2 miles
the horses left after 1st circuit if not burned out by being too fast
will have to be good 2 1/2 milers to get home
3 milers 3 1/4 milers and above will just plod round and have no finishing speed
thats my opinion we will see saturday
did anyone one think he would win
ground was heavy bottomless any other meeting would of been called off
horses stamina and race form was in question before race
but i have heard it said in write ups by trainers (what sort of horse winds this race)
answer a good class 2 1/2 mile chaser as the 2 milers are too quick
basically its 2 races or 2 circuits 1 at 2 miles as they run too fast and then 1 of 2 1/2 miles
the horses left after 1st circuit if not burned out by being too fast
will have to be good 2 1/2 milers to get home
3 milers 3 1/4 milers and above will just plod round and have no finishing speed
thats my opinion we will see saturday
Thats your opinion DFC.
Doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.
I'm of a different opinion as I'm sure many others are.
Doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.
I'm of a different opinion as I'm sure many others are.
It is actally a FACT that last year the going was DIFFERENT from GN races the previous 8 years (I think from memory....maybe longer)........and GOING is always the main factor for any race.
It may be a fact that the going was different and that it's the main factor in any race.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
I don't agree that thats the reason that 2 of the first 3 home were French breds and the first 4 home carried 11 stone or more.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
I don't agree that thats the reason that 2 of the first 3 home were French breds and the first 4 home carried 11 stone or more.
DFC I would say the horses are the main factor and the handicap in this case
yaboya - there are relevant KEY factors that can be noted from last years result......and I have already said that the FRENCH breeding is IRRELEVANT IMO..........
However, if the going is different from last year .......the horses that finish in top 10 will posses different KEY factors probably......So I'll be waiting til SATURDAY before guessing my selection. ]:)
GL with bets.
However, if the going is different from last year .......the horses that finish in top 10 will posses different KEY factors probably......So I'll be waiting til SATURDAY before guessing my selection. ]:)
GL with bets.
A good read angel.
However I'm not a fan of stats or trends.
Previous to mon mome winning, there was a french bred Clan Royal who finished 2nd and 3rd in previous years and clearly stayed perfectly well. you also had Mely Moss a french bred who was 2nd to Papillion. But because they didn't win then stats and trends ignore their performances.
Lots of the other stats and trends don't fit too well with me either but I don't want to go on about it. But what I will say is with betting including the national the most important thing is the odds and if a horse was a year too old and carrying a few pound more than what fits the trends but you could make a very good case for it otherwise and you deemed the price was too big then it's a bet.
However I'm not a fan of stats or trends.
Previous to mon mome winning, there was a french bred Clan Royal who finished 2nd and 3rd in previous years and clearly stayed perfectly well. you also had Mely Moss a french bred who was 2nd to Papillion. But because they didn't win then stats and trends ignore their performances.
Lots of the other stats and trends don't fit too well with me either but I don't want to go on about it. But what I will say is with betting including the national the most important thing is the odds and if a horse was a year too old and carrying a few pound more than what fits the trends but you could make a very good case for it otherwise and you deemed the price was too big then it's a bet.
A factor regarding the chances of French-breds over the years could be the size of the fences. These have got smaller over the years, and probably suit the French style of jumping more than they used to. Encore Un Peu was another French-bred, who would almost certainly have won if the handicapper had had Rough Quest's Gold Cup run to take into account, but then he (EuP) probably would never had got round if the fences had been as big as they were 40/50 years ago.
Last years Grand National was, to the trend students of the race, a somewhat unsatisfactory result
But it wasn't.
He scored on four important trends
He had been placed in a National (the Welsh).
He has rarely fallen or unseated in his career.
He was the right age (9, 10 or 11).
Carried 11st or under.
The one that he failed on was that he had appeared completely out of form going into the race, like Silver Birch, who had won a Welsh National, was the right age, rarely fallen and was carrying 11st or under.
But it wasn't.
He scored on four important trends
He had been placed in a National (the Welsh).
He has rarely fallen or unseated in his career.
He was the right age (9, 10 or 11).
Carried 11st or under.
The one that he failed on was that he had appeared completely out of form going into the race, like Silver Birch, who had won a Welsh National, was the right age, rarely fallen and was carrying 11st or under.
Do you understand the word 'somewhat'?
He was french bred, carried OVER 11st, and had a terrible prep, AND had run in the race before...
He was french bred, carried OVER 11st, and had a terrible prep, AND had run in the race before...
Isn't the 11st trend only based on when the weights are published, and not day of race?
I didn't bother reading it when I saw RFC being advised in a 40 runner race!
I didn't bother reading it when I saw RFC being advised in a 40 runner race!
Had the mcelevey/silver birch forecast a few years ago when doing exact same thing. that was a very good years for the trends. think i tipped four and they came 1,2,4 and somewhere else.
angel,
I'm a million miles from being a pedigree expert but would venture I know enough to dismiss this French-bred stat as nonsense with there being very little between the 'breeds'. You often only have to go back one generation of a French-bred to see he's actualy full of English or Irish blood.
Equally, even if the horse was full of frog, how do you deal with a sire like Robin Des Champs who, I presume, will now be filling fields with little Irish-breds? I' hope no-one would say horses he sired before 2009 can't win but horses he sired after he moved to Ireland can. Regrettably, it sounds like you would and I think that needs explaining...??
I'm a million miles from being a pedigree expert but would venture I know enough to dismiss this French-bred stat as nonsense with there being very little between the 'breeds'. You often only have to go back one generation of a French-bred to see he's actualy full of English or Irish blood.
Equally, even if the horse was full of frog, how do you deal with a sire like Robin Des Champs who, I presume, will now be filling fields with little Irish-breds? I' hope no-one would say horses he sired before 2009 can't win but horses he sired after he moved to Ireland can. Regrettably, it sounds like you would and I think that needs explaining...??
I'm no breeding expert either, but I think it's more to do with what sort of dams the french typically chose to breed their sires with which is the key. they simply don't have many races over more than 3 miles so they don't breed AS stamina laden horses as we might over here or in ireland. of course i don't think that french sires are THAT different as a population to IRE or GB sires, but its the fact that they are bred in france for french racing that perhaps make them less apt for the GN.
trends are dead lol. ok.
i'll refer you to my coin tossing example.
you disregard the trends after one exception? go for it!...
i'll refer you to my coin tossing example.
you disregard the trends after one exception? go for it!...
Coin toss argument is pointless. There is a clear reason why the front four home were 11st+ and that reason has been magnified this year. That is why the stat is dead.
Great read Angel, I've been telling everyone for the past few weeks that Snowy will win the National, along with about five others.
There are more of them running and they are better treated related to those lower down the handicap.
Let's say no horse had won the National carrying over 11st for the last 100 years and 5% of total runners during that time had carried 11-01+. Then, suddenly, in the 101st renewal, 95% of horses were due to carry 11-01 or more and they were all 14lbs well-in. Would you still be banking on that 11st stat?
It's an extreme example but so was your coin toss analogy and, in my opinion, the above is more relevant.
Let's say no horse had won the National carrying over 11st for the last 100 years and 5% of total runners during that time had carried 11-01+. Then, suddenly, in the 101st renewal, 95% of horses were due to carry 11-01 or more and they were all 14lbs well-in. Would you still be banking on that 11st stat?
It's an extreme example but so was your coin toss analogy and, in my opinion, the above is more relevant.
a very interesting read as ten minutes prior to reading it i had narrowed it down to,mon mome,state of play,hello bud,arbor supreme and snowy morning
OK angel - read it quickly and still feel you are a wee bit obsessed re "the stats"!
Stats are imporatant, but you seem to totally have missed the point made earlier - that the GOING WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT LAST YEAR TO ALL NATIONALS RAN IN PREVIOUS 8 YEARS( possibly longer).
You just ignore this and are back to looking at mainly 10 year old horses ( three out of 4 suggested are 10 yods and only on e 9 yo).
Now if the going is GOOD.........then YES you can use previous years stats, as that was going mainly ......and YES there have been 3 ten year olds winning in last 10 runnings of GN.
However, there have been FOUR 9 yods winning over same period and one of 8,11 and 12 yods.
If the GOING is GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES..........last year's race had similar going and the result then favoured 9 year olds. There were only ten 9 yods in race last year and three of them finished in top 3......
You might call this a "freak" result and you should IGNORE that result......but IMO if the going is similar to last year ( Currently described as - National: Good to Soft-Soft in plcs. so not "similar" ).............then 9 yod horses might be where to check em out.
However, if going is as currently described, it will be the toughest test for a GN race in years..........and it is likely another "odd" result might occur.
So sticking to 10 yods may be a big mistake in horses selected...if going is as currently described........Also to ignore horses at higher odds would also be possibly a big mistake. The WEIGHT FACTOR will come more into it....IF the going is as currently described.
As we still do not know what the final field of runners will be.....nor do we know what the going will be on day .....I am not checking out race til 1 hour before.
It was an "interesting" read angel ....and GL with bets........Who knows the going might be GOOD....and your horses might come in top 4 home......
Stats are imporatant, but you seem to totally have missed the point made earlier - that the GOING WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT LAST YEAR TO ALL NATIONALS RAN IN PREVIOUS 8 YEARS( possibly longer).
You just ignore this and are back to looking at mainly 10 year old horses ( three out of 4 suggested are 10 yods and only on e 9 yo).
Now if the going is GOOD.........then YES you can use previous years stats, as that was going mainly ......and YES there have been 3 ten year olds winning in last 10 runnings of GN.
However, there have been FOUR 9 yods winning over same period and one of 8,11 and 12 yods.
If the GOING is GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES..........last year's race had similar going and the result then favoured 9 year olds. There were only ten 9 yods in race last year and three of them finished in top 3......
You might call this a "freak" result and you should IGNORE that result......but IMO if the going is similar to last year ( Currently described as - National: Good to Soft-Soft in plcs. so not "similar" ).............then 9 yod horses might be where to check em out.
However, if going is as currently described, it will be the toughest test for a GN race in years..........and it is likely another "odd" result might occur.
So sticking to 10 yods may be a big mistake in horses selected...if going is as currently described........Also to ignore horses at higher odds would also be possibly a big mistake. The WEIGHT FACTOR will come more into it....IF the going is as currently described.
As we still do not know what the final field of runners will be.....nor do we know what the going will be on day .....I am not checking out race til 1 hour before.
It was an "interesting" read angel ....and GL with bets........Who knows the going might be GOOD....and your horses might come in top 4 home......
If the GOING is GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES..........last year's race had similar going and the result then favoured 9 year olds. There were only ten 9 yods in race last year and three of them finished in top 3......
should read
If the GOING is GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES..........last year's race had similar going and the result then favoured 9 year olds. There were only ten 9 yods in race last year and three of them finished in top 4
should read
If the GOING is GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES..........last year's race had similar going and the result then favoured 9 year olds. There were only ten 9 yods in race last year and three of them finished in top 4
I think I'm going mad. Are people suggesting that a horse's going requirements are down to how old it is?
Well I used to think when it was heavy it would favour the old'uns! I remember '62 with Kilmore, Mr What and ? - first 3 home on very soft ground and all 12yo plodders. Perhaps it's b0llocks though...
MON MOME -- the first non-thoroughbred to win the National.
Where have I suggested that I favour 10yos over 9yos?
I think both are perfect ages for the national and don't particularly favour one over the other.
I think both are perfect ages for the national and don't particularly favour one over the other.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539