Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Grand National 2024

seeing as @PeanutsMolloy obviously cant be bothered to post....

Field reduced to 34 for next year - does this mean a tweak to the model ?

Grand National: Maximum number of runners cut to 34 as part of Aintree safety move - BBC Sport




«1

Comments

  • Peanuts: presumably, the reduced number of entrants will impact on the high value prices available and, therefore, the potential big money winners your model identifies so impressively?
  • Sorry Chaps, I didn't realise @MrOneLung had started the GN thread.
    I'll repeat my answer to @meldrew66 and stick to this thread now.

    meldrew66 said:
    Peanuts: presumably, the reduced number of entrants will impact on the high value prices available and, therefore, the potential big money winners your model identifies so impressively?

    Thanks for the question @meldrew66 and sorry to be slow replying. Just returned from a week up North.

    Obviously, chopping 6 lower-rated runners off the field (runners that are likely to include some out and out stayers) will make for fewer opportunities at wild prices but a 34-runner handicap over (thankfully) a largely-unaltered course should still make for some interesting values.

    The big question for me is whether it will prompt a further deterioration of each way terms from bookies.
    Over the years, we've seen place fractions go from generally 1/4 to 1/5 and having to wait longer to see extra places and NRNB offered.
    As an each way punter, wanting to take early prices, that's a big issue as I'm going to be even less inclined to bet ante-post on 140~144 rated horses when the cut is going to come at #34. I know if they declare I get my money back but many Irish runners scratch in preference for the Irish GN if it looks like they won't make the cut at Aintree.

    @bobmunro may or may not agree but, given the national participation in the betting on the race, it seems to me bookies have gone from viewing the National as a bit of a loss leader for capturing new accounts to THE race they can really milk. Affordability nonsense has encouraged that, I guess.

    I don't begrudge them pursuing maximum profit (they're not charities but are, these days, vital sponsors of the sport) but it would be a shame (and unjustified IMHO) if a 34-runner field meant a less punter-friendly market. 


    Out of curiosity, I've taken a look back historically at how my model's picks (since its first iteration in 2006) would have been affected if #35~40 hadn't run. 

    My model's successful 66/1+ picks (2009 winner Mon Mome, 2016 3rd Vics Canvas and 2022 3rd Delta Work) would all have made the cut but it would have lost the following returns:

    Win:
    2021 Minella Times (#35) backed at 40/1 (SP 11/1)

    Places:
    2007 2nd McKelvey (#35) backed at 20/1 (SP 12/1)
    2010 5th Hello Bud (#38) 50/1 (SP 20/1)
    2018 5th Milansbar (#37) 50/1 (SP 25/1)

    On the flip side, from these or others’ elimination, the model's picks would have gained 6th place in 2014 (Monbeg Dude) and in 2021 (Discorama).

    If I ignore my personal betting debacle in both 2018 and 2019 in deciding to give short-priced Tiger Roll the swerve when the model picked him both times, the model has been profitable in 14 of the 17 GNs since 2006 (7 winners & 6 runners-up, 2 by <1 length). By the way, of those 3 losing years, one (2012) was courtesy of Sunnyhillboy losing by a Nose, another (2014) by a data-input fuck up by me on Pineau De Re and the last (2023) when its top 3 picks (Delta Work, Mr Incredible and The Big Breakaway) all met with misfortune.
      
    Of course, losing any of those 4 returns from #35~40 would have hurt but although Minella Times’ absence would have made 2021 loss-making, the Dude placing would have just rescued 2014. 2010 was a bumper year anyway courtesy of Don't Push It's win (backed at 40/1) and, even if I didn't back Tiger Roll, the model did and would have withstood losing Milansbar in 2018).

    So the net result for the Model would have been neutral in terms of profitable years but 1 less winner, 1 less place and slightly smaller aggregate profit. 

    How it actually pans out for the model in future? We’ll see.


    But there’s a much more serious loss for the sport itself from cutting the field to 34.
    I’ll post my views about this separately, later.

  • edited October 2023

    The reduction in field size is a concern to me mainly because of the effect on smaller yards.

    'They will make the race classier rather than a lotto draw' - Willie Mullins and Gordon Elliott

    I'm sick of hearing endorsements of changes to racing, particularly a race like the GN, from big trainers , as though they represent racing.
    They are the few that will be advantaged by them. Sure Mullins and Elliott will lose the odd lesser-light from their GN entries but they'll likely account for an even bigger % of runners henceforth.

    Of course, it's easy to argue that a field of 34 must be "safer" than one of 40. BUT that's not the same thing as saying it's impossible to have a safe and competitive race with 40 runners.

    It's been done, for 2013 and several races after that, until the authorities got complacent yet again about the going and instructions to jockies. It's speed that makes the race unsafe - always was, is now and sadly probably will be again.

    And Barry Geraghty, Ruby Walsh and the like can shove their opinions where it don't shine as well. They (like all leading jockies) never lacked for a choice of ride in every big race.
    And that includes Rachel Blackmore, whose win on Minella Times, is the only comment the pathetic and sycophantic Racing Post could muster about lost opportunities (that of the first winning female jock). She and any other top female jock won't lack for opportunities. 

    The real losers, as always, will be relatively smaller yards, lesser jockeys and smaller owners - as well as the mystique of the race itself, with fewer genuine fairy-tales coming true.

    This race ALONE provided the occasional (sometimes once-in-a-lifetime) chance for national stardom, history-making and a big pot for true stayers from smaller yards, their owners and journeymen jockies who SELDOM or NEVER get a runner or ride in Blue Riband races and for whom even a place in the money is the stuff of personal legend.



    Let's consider whose successes would have been expunged from the history books in the last 10 years alone (since the post-2012 course changes):

    Winners:
    #35 Auroras Encore 2012  - prior year's Scottish National runner-up, Sue Smith's only GN winner and making Ryan Mania's career. There was nothing "lotto-like" about his powerfully staying-on win by 9L. This was the first GN after the major course changes after the sad events of 2012 - riders went at a sensible pace and, famously for the first time in memory, ALL 40 horses were still standing after Bechers with only 2 subsequent fallers, proving that it can be a safe race with 40 runners if the early pace is sensible.
    #35 Minella Times 2021

    Placed Horses: 
    #37 & #37 Alvarado - twice 4th, in 2014 and 2015 - Fergal O'Brien and, with State of Play and Cappa Bleu, one part of the Rucker family's and Paul Moloney's amazing GN record.
    #40 Royale Knight - 6th 2014 - former winner of Border and Durham Nationals, from the small yard of the astute Dr Richard Newland
    #37 Gas Line Boy - 5th in 2017, subsequent Grand Sefton winner over the course, trained by Ian Williams, ridden by Robbie Dunne
    #36 Bless The Wings - 3rd in 2016, twice runner up in previous Irish GNs and Cross-Country winner
    #37 Milansbar - 5th in 2016, previously twice runner-up in Midlands National  trained by Neil King, ridden (led the field for most of the race) by Bryony Frost
    #40 Road To Riches - 6th in 2016
    #36 Walk In The Mill - 4th in 2019 - former and subsequent Becher Chase winner, trained by Robert Walford, ridden by James Best
    #40 Blaklion - 6th in 2021 - former 4th in 2017 GN but this return a fantastic training feat after his injuries 

    But let's leave romanticism aside and consider stats, because these horses at the bottom of the weights merited their GN chance.
    The fact is, horses ranked 35~40 have punched above their weight in the last 10 GNs (since the post-2012 course changes): representing 13.9% of runners but contributing 20% (2 of 10) winners and 18.3% (11 of 60) of the first 6 past the post.

    It's not a surprise, given the staying credentials of these runners, unable to match the best over 3 miles but built for a trip. And those that will be penalised most in terms of exclusion from THE race they were made for are particularly the likes of Auroras Encore, Alvarado and McKelvey (0.75L 2nd in 2007 and winner of the 4m Summer National the previous July). These were Good ("Spring") ground lovers, perfect for an Aintree National, whose ratings tend to suffer on wet winter ground.

    It's a crying shame to exclude in the future many of the likes of these.

    If the field size must be cut for safety reasons (though the first few GNs after 2012 proved it doesn't) so be it. But IMHO there should be a direction made to the Handicapper, who retains discretion over the GN weights, to allot higher ratings to proven stayers, particularly those that excel on Good ground. The outperformance stats above indicate he should be doing so anyway.

    Even at a higher weight, at least allow them their once-in-a-lifetime shot at glory.


  • edited October 2023

    As observed/recalled by Chris Cook, writing in the RP:

    "The BHA's review of the Grand National from 2011 ....... considered the question of field size. This was their conclusion: 

    "The Review Group found no recurring trend whatsoever of horses systematically failing to get a clear sight of the fences as they prepared to jump them.  Virtually all the fallers reviewed during that period [2000 to 2011] had a clear run to the fence where they fell or unseated their jockey.

    "Furthermore, the Review Group considered research carried out through its Inspectorate team and established that the average available 'width of fence per horse' on the Grand National course was comparable to the averages for all licensed Jumps courses, including the width of fence per horse at other very high-profile jumps fixtures." 

    It's a pleasingly detailed rebuttal of the case for reducing the field size and was part of a 55-page report which, whether you agreed with it or not, was clearly a substantial and serious piece of work. 

    On this occasion, we're being asked to accept the opposite point of view on the basis of a Jockey Club press release.


    Speed has always been the problem. 34 runners won't change that.

  • As observed/recalled by Chris Cook, writing in the RP:

    "The BHA's review of the Grand National from 2011 ....... considered the question of field size. This was their conclusion: 

    "The Review Group found no recurring trend whatsoever of horses systematically failing to get a clear sight of the fences as they prepared to jump them.  Virtually all the fallers reviewed during that period [2000 to 2011] had a clear run to the fence where they fell or unseated their jockey.

    "Furthermore, the Review Group considered research carried out through its Inspectorate team and established that the average available 'width of fence per horse' on the Grand National course was comparable to the averages for all licensed Jumps courses, including the width of fence per horse at other very high-profile jumps fixtures." 

    It's a pleasingly detailed rebuttal of the case for reducing the field size and was part of a 55-page report which, whether you agreed with it or not, was clearly a substantial and serious piece of work. 

    On this occasion, we're being asked to accept the opposite point of view on the basis of a Jockey Club press release.


    Speed has always been the problem. 34 runners won't change that.


    I believe it's the JC/BHA saying to the naysayers - "Look, we're doing something". It matters not that it doesn't address any actual issues - something/anything will do.
  • As observed/recalled by Chris Cook, writing in the RP:

    "The BHA's review of the Grand National from 2011 ....... considered the question of field size. This was their conclusion: 

    "The Review Group found no recurring trend whatsoever of horses systematically failing to get a clear sight of the fences as they prepared to jump them.  Virtually all the fallers reviewed during that period [2000 to 2011] had a clear run to the fence where they fell or unseated their jockey.

    "Furthermore, the Review Group considered research carried out through its Inspectorate team and established that the average available 'width of fence per horse' on the Grand National course was comparable to the averages for all licensed Jumps courses, including the width of fence per horse at other very high-profile jumps fixtures." 

    It's a pleasingly detailed rebuttal of the case for reducing the field size and was part of a 55-page report which, whether you agreed with it or not, was clearly a substantial and serious piece of work. 

    On this occasion, we're being asked to accept the opposite point of view on the basis of a Jockey Club press release.


    Speed has always been the problem. 34 runners won't change that.

    This is what those that constantly advocate changes to the race don't appear to understand. Reducing the height of the fences has allowed the horses to go faster, without the respect for the fences that jockeys would have previously held.
    Reducing the size of the field will also allow horses to go faster.
    The only positive changes proposed are the going to be no firmer than "good to soft" and the reduction of the distance to the first fence.
    I don't think that those in charge of British horseracing understand the proverb " give them an inch and they'll take a mile".
  • edited October 2023

    As observed/recalled by Chris Cook, writing in the RP:

    "The BHA's review of the Grand National from 2011 ....... considered the question of field size. This was their conclusion: 

    "The Review Group found no recurring trend whatsoever of horses systematically failing to get a clear sight of the fences as they prepared to jump them.  Virtually all the fallers reviewed during that period [2000 to 2011] had a clear run to the fence where they fell or unseated their jockey.

    "Furthermore, the Review Group considered research carried out through its Inspectorate team and established that the average available 'width of fence per horse' on the Grand National course was comparable to the averages for all licensed Jumps courses, including the width of fence per horse at other very high-profile jumps fixtures." 

    It's a pleasingly detailed rebuttal of the case for reducing the field size and was part of a 55-page report which, whether you agreed with it or not, was clearly a substantial and serious piece of work. 

    On this occasion, we're being asked to accept the opposite point of view on the basis of a Jockey Club press release.


    Speed has always been the problem. 34 runners won't change that.

    This is what those that constantly advocate changes to the race don't appear to understand. Reducing the height of the fences has allowed the horses to go faster, without the respect for the fences that jockeys would have previously held.
    Reducing the size of the field will also allow horses to go faster.
    The only positive changes proposed are the going to be no firmer than "good to soft" and the reduction of the distance to the first fence.
    I don't think that those in charge of British horseracing understand the proverb " give them an inch and they'll take a mile".
    No firmer than 'Good to Soft' is sensible but reducing the run to the first has potential for unintended consequences. The current distance gives all the horses a chance to settle and to get up to racing speed, something they need to have the momentum to jump the fence. It also allows for depth to be established in the field thereby giving more space in front of each horse and fewer horses jumping the fence simultaneously. If there's any sense in my argument (there isn't always!) then based on that the distance to the first should be increased rather than reduced.
  • bobmunro said:

    As observed/recalled by Chris Cook, writing in the RP:

    "The BHA's review of the Grand National from 2011 ....... considered the question of field size. This was their conclusion: 

    "The Review Group found no recurring trend whatsoever of horses systematically failing to get a clear sight of the fences as they prepared to jump them.  Virtually all the fallers reviewed during that period [2000 to 2011] had a clear run to the fence where they fell or unseated their jockey.

    "Furthermore, the Review Group considered research carried out through its Inspectorate team and established that the average available 'width of fence per horse' on the Grand National course was comparable to the averages for all licensed Jumps courses, including the width of fence per horse at other very high-profile jumps fixtures." 

    It's a pleasingly detailed rebuttal of the case for reducing the field size and was part of a 55-page report which, whether you agreed with it or not, was clearly a substantial and serious piece of work. 

    On this occasion, we're being asked to accept the opposite point of view on the basis of a Jockey Club press release.


    Speed has always been the problem. 34 runners won't change that.

    This is what those that constantly advocate changes to the race don't appear to understand. Reducing the height of the fences has allowed the horses to go faster, without the respect for the fences that jockeys would have previously held.
    Reducing the size of the field will also allow horses to go faster.
    The only positive changes proposed are the going to be no firmer than "good to soft" and the reduction of the distance to the first fence.
    I don't think that those in charge of British horseracing understand the proverb " give them an inch and they'll take a mile".
    No firmer than 'Good to Soft' is sensible but reducing the run to the first has potential for unintended consequences. The current distance gives all the horses a chance to settle and to get up to racing speed, something they need to have the momentum to jump the fence. It also allows for depth to be established in the field thereby giving more space in front of each horse and fewer horses jumping the fence simultaneously. If there's any sense in my argument (there isn't always!) then based on that the distance to the first should be increased rather than reduced.
    There could be an argument either way. I still think that they will have sufficient distance to get up to racing speed.
    God knows what changes they'll make next if there are any fallers at the first. Perhaps they should turn the race into a time-trial and send horses out at one minute intervals and obviously, remove all the obstacles!
  • edited October 2023
    I think the unspoken issue is what does "Good to Soft" mean at Aintree?
    "Standard time" for the race is 9m 4s.
    IMHO you should not be comfortably or regularly beating standard time on proper Good to Soft, even in the most competitive of races.
    We've had 8 GNs since 2012 run on officially (principally) Good-to-Soft.
    4 of them have beaten Standard, 2 of them by more than 3 secs and Many Clouds win in 2015 with 11.09 on his back (on Good-to-Soft [Good places]) was 7.2 secs (about 1/2 furlong) fast of Standard. 
    That's Good ground (at a minimum) in my book and, in this era of extreme safety-consciousness, is asking for trouble.
  • Always one of the better threads on this forum.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited December 2023
    Becher Chase (2.05) day, in testing conditions (soft ground and strong wind).
    Several with big claims and light burdens, courtesy of topweight Coko Beach (9/1). Despite the career-high OR162, he'll have conditions in favour and should go well over fences he appears to relish. There's worse value in the field, given that weight hasn't been a barrier to success in this.

    The Big Breakaway (9/2 fav) was one of my top3 for April's GN but he met with early misfortune when made the meat in a sandwich on the inner at the 2nd. Closely related to Rathvinden, he's got the stamina to do the job and this is his time of year (close 2nd, staying on in last Welsh GN under 11-13).
    Has the GN again in his sights but, although he shoulders only 10-13 today (1lb lower OR than Chepstow), an unhappy experience over these fences often leaves a mental scar. With a less than stellar seasonal bow in the Badger Beer (5th, had to be niggled along early), I suspect I'll regret this but my money will go elsewhere.

    Ashtown Boy (5/1) bids for back-to-backs with 10-06, just +2lbs mark on his win under 11-05.

    But my shilling will be carried by HIGHLAND HUNTER (11/2).
    Runner up in the 2021 Welsh GN  off OR149 (2lbs lower today) when with Paul Nicholls, he's recently joined Fergal O'Brien who's yard is currently in fine form. Ran nicely on yard and seasonal debut (first time tongue-tie, worn again today, after a long lay off).
    Course debutant but reportedly went well over Lambourn's Aintree-like schooling fences.
    Closely related to the stout staying mare of yesteryear Ebony Jane, he'll love the ground and will get every yard.

    Should be a belter.
     

  • edited December 2023
    Bollocks - took off way too far off at The Chair. No chance for the jock.
  • edited December 2023
    1. 11yo Chambard for Venetia, very impressive
    2. Coko Beach - very brave run under 12st, held up, came to challenge the winner who just cruised away
    3. Percussion
    4. Celebre D'Allen
    5. Lounge Lizard

    Only 5 finish
  • Any tips for the Welsh national today?
    Cheers 
  • edited December 2023
    clb74 said:
    Any tips for the Welsh national today?
    Cheers 
    He won't be my only interest, and this may sound nuts being 12lbs wrong, but for me NOT SURE has serious e/w value at 40s.
    Closely related to Royal Athlete (top class Irish GN winner Our Duke, dour stayer Tipsy Mouse also in the family) and brother of the classy Balleycasey, he is sure to be at his best over further than the 3m furthest trip he's tried to date. As I once owned a full brother to Royal Athlete (sadly injury wrecked his career early, like so many) I know the quality of this family as a whole and they're not only bang at home at Chepstow but are versatile as to going. Stamina, stamina, stamina is their strength.
  • clb74 said:
    Any tips for the Welsh national today?
    Cheers 
    He won't be my only interest, and this may sound nuts being 12lbs wrong, but for me NOT SURE has serious e/w value at 40s.
    Closely related to Royal Athlete (top class Irish GN winner Our Duke, dour stayer Tipsy Mouse also in the family as well as the classy Balleycasey), he is sure to be at his best over further than the 3m furthest trip he's tried to date. As I once owned a full brother to Royal Athlete (sadly injury wrecked his career early, like so many) I know the quality of this family as a whole and they're not only bang at home at Chepstow but are versatile as to going. Stamina, stamina, stamina is their strength.
    Sorry peanuts had to lol this.
    I never make me mind up and the wife always moans about it.
    So not sure is right up my street
  • For those who have william hill accounts.
    Any horse twice the price on the win part of the bet today.
  • edited December 2023
    Another to carry my shilling with appealing e/w value is 8yo, Pipe-trained ONLY THE BOLD, also at 40s.
    Only seen over hurdles this season and only his 4th start over fences today, he's won both chase attempts at 24~25f (Soft & Hvy), finishing strongly both times.
    Like Not Sure, breeding strongly suggests progressive potential over further. Closely related to 1984 Welsh GN winner Righthand Man, inbred to Wild Risk and by the interesting sire Jeremy (Corach Rambler's sire).
    Jockey Jack Tudor won this with Potters Corner in 2019. 

  • edited December 2023
    I'm probably going to stick with my 2 long shots today.
    Some serious opposition, more than a few with very strong credentials but shortish prices.
    I'm a big fan of 2021 winner Iwilldoit but it's a massive ask to win it as 12 stone topweight. Similarly Chambard has a great chance if his Becher win hasn't taken too much out of him (won it in comfortable fashion so may not have) but 10 & 11/1 respectively is just too skinny for my e/w team.
    Should be a great renewal.
    Enjoy!!
  • Personally, I can't not back Chambard, who I was very pleased to have at 40s for the Kim Muir in 2022. Venetia is a great trainer and knows what it takes in races like this. Trying to smuggle in under a penalty before a rise in the weights, to me, strikes of someone trying to capitalise before the handicapper catches up, given it's a pretty short break.

    The admirable Truckers Lodge will also be carrying my shilling given his race record - enough for a place, at least, would be nice - and finally, at a massive price, Domaine De L'isle at 80s is worth the smallest of punts for me: two wins from four runs at Chepstow, and comes with absolutely ridiculous risks attached, but... could we see a horse like this revive itself out of nowhere more than once every 81 times? I think so.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Another to carry my shilling with appealing e/w value is 8yo, Pipe-trained ONLY THE BOLD, also at 40s.
    Only seen over hurdles this season and only his 4th start over fences today, he's won both chase attempts at 24~25f (Soft & Hvy), finishing strongly both times.
    Like Not Sure, breeding strongly suggests progressive potential over further. Closely related to 1984 Welsh GN winner Righthand Man, inbred to Wild Risk and by the interesting sire Jeremy (Corach Rambler's sire).
    Jockey Jack Tudor won this with Potters Corner in 2019. 

    My old man has a share in OTB and they are as optimistic as you can be of a good run in a race of this nature. They share your opinion that this test will really suit (marathon trip and, hopefully, deep ground) 
  • PaddyP17 said:
    Personally, I can't not back Chambard, who I was very pleased to have at 40s for the Kim Muir in 2022. Venetia is a great trainer and knows what it takes in races like this. Trying to smuggle in under a penalty before a rise in the weights, to me, strikes of someone trying to capitalise before the handicapper catches up, given it's a pretty short break.
    You've persuaded me @PaddyP17
    On the nose at 11s, completes my team of 3.

  • Cheers Peanuts, had your two each ways so a little bump to my account thanks to you. 
  • Nice one , Peanuts.
  • Nice one peanuts top man
  • edited December 2023
    IdleHans said:
    Cheers Peanuts, had your two each ways so a little bump to my account thanks to you. 
    Cheers @IdleHans
    Glad he made a return for us.
    Went nicely under a nice ride and what a run from Iwilldoit but no flies on the winner. 
    That Chepstow Trial has been a serious pointer down the years but everyone knows it so always a shortish price but, strewth, 8/1 looks massive now. Great for the Moore family.
  • IdleHans said:
    Cheers Peanuts, had your two each ways so a little bump to my account thanks to you. 
    Cheers @IdleHans
    Glad he made a return for us.
    Went nicely under a nice ride and what a run from Iwilldoit but no flies on the winner. 
    That Chepstow Trial has been a serious pointer down the years but everyone knows it so always a shortish price but, strewth, 8/1 looks massive now. Great for the Moore family.
    as you say Peanuts, a terrific day for Gary Moore and his apprentices, a treble in the days biggest three races
  • edited February 2

    Returning to the subject of the 15% cut in field size to 34, in an idle moment, I thought I'd run some stats on performance relative to representation for sections of the race card for the 10 GN renewals since the major race changes post-2012 (a decent sample now, comprising 395 runners and 60 finishing 1st~6th).
    The results are partly intuitive, in showing that the average SP of winners and frame-makers tends to increase going down the weights (the market, rationally or otherwise, tends to overrate quality v suitability for the GN test).
    But they also bear out the view that's underpinned my rationale for using a model down the years (since 2006 to be precise). That, as well as (but to a greater degree than) runners returning after having (in their previous GN) finished in the frame, runners from down the weights had shown the biggest relative outperformance of any part of the card.
    The 2 stats combined shows why it was the sweet spot for punters and why I think the ante-post market holds little appeal, at least to me.

    In reverse order (from #35~40, then in blocs of 6 until #1~4), out/under-performance by race card number in the 10 GNs from 2013: 

    #35~40

    Representation: 13.9%
    Wins (2): 20% - average SP 39/1 (Aurora's Encore [66/1] and Minella Times [11/1 but ante-post 40/1], both #35) 
    1~6th (12): 20% - SP 34/1 

    #29~34

    Rep: 15.2%
    Wins (2): 20% - SP 29/1
    1~6 (4): 6.7% - SP 39/1

    #23~28

    Rep: 15.2%
    Wins (2): 20% - SP 29/1
    1~6 (9): 15% - SP 29/1

    #17~22

    Rep: 15.2%
    Wins (1): 10% - SP 14/1
    1~6 (8): 13.3% - SP 32/1

    #11~16

    Rep: 15.2%
    Wins (1): 10% - SP 10/1
    1~6 (11): 18.3% - SP 22/1

    #5~10

    Rep: 15.2%
    Wins (0): 0%
    1~6 (9): 15% - SP 13/1

    #1~4: 

    Rep: 10%
    Wins (2): 20% - SP 14/1 (Many Clouds and Tiger Roll's 2nd win)
    1~6 (7): 11.7% - SP 11/1

    HOWEVER:
    a) Many Clouds, who won by 2L was a beneficiary of a 5lb compression in the weights [a practice no longer meaningfully applied] and
    b) Among those #1~4 in the card, those that had finished 1~6 in their previous GN run account for 1 winner and 4 of the frame-makers.

    Thus, the performance stats for those #1~4 in the card that had not previously made the frame in a GN are as follows:

    Rep (29): 7.3%
    Wins (1): 5% - SP 25/1
    1~6 (3): 5% - SP 15/1

    While the stats for all returning frame-makers (in their next run only), regardless of race card number, are as follows:

    Rep (34): 8.6%
    Wins (1): 10% - SP 4/1
    1~6 (8): 13.3% - average SP 19/1

    BY CONTRAST: from those #35~40 on the card, neither of the 2 winners and only 1 (Alvarado 2015) of the 12 frame-makers had placed in their previous GN run (indeed 9 of the 12 were having their GN debut).  



    Make of all this what you will but it points to why I'm finding the ante-post market for this year's GN particularly unappealing.
  • edited February 6

    Record 61 Irish-trained runners dominate as 94 entries are revealed for the 2024 Randox Grand National.


    Mullins has 13 (but do not include Gaillard Du Mesnil) and Elliott 26 (28% of the entries alone, to save you the maths).

    In alphabetical order:

    Adamantly Chosen (IRE)

    Ain't That A Shame (IRE)

    Amirite (IRE)

    Angels Dawn (IRE)

    Annual Invictus (IRE)

    Ash Tree Meadow (FR)

    Ashtown Lad (IRE)

    Asterion Forlonge (FR)

    Battleoverdoyen (IRE)

    Bronn (IRE)

    Busselton (FR)

    Capodanno

    Celebre d'Allen

    Cepage

    Chambard

    Chemical Energy

    Classic Getaway

    Coko Beach

    Conflated

    Corach Rambler

    Delta Work

    Desertmore House

    Diol Ker

    Dunboyne

    Dusart

    Eklat de Rire

    Eldorado Allen

    Embittered

    Empire Steel

    Fakiera

    Fakir d'Alene

    Fakir d'Oudairies

    Famous Bridge

    Fantastic Lady

    Farouk d'Alene

    Favori de Champdou

    Fiddlerontheroof

    Foxy Jacks

    Frontal Assault

    Full Back

    Fury Road

    Galia des Liteaux

    Galvin

    Gevrey

    Glengouly

    Good Boy Bobby

    Hewick

    Highland Hunter

    I Am Maximus

    Iron Bridge

    Its On The Line

    James du Berlais

    Janidil

    Kinondo Kwetu

    Kitty's Light

    Latenightpass

    Le Milos

    Letsbeclearaboutit

    Limerick Lace

    Longhouse Poet

    Mac Tottie

    Macs Charm

    Mahler Mission

    Malina Girl

    Meetingofthewaters

    Minella Crooner

    Minella Indo

    Minella Trump

    Mister Coffey

    Monbeg Genius

    Moroder

    Mr Incredible

    Nassalam

    Noble Yeats

    Ontheropes

    Panda Boy

    Placenet

    Revels Hill

    Riaan

    Roi Mage

    Royal Thief

    Run Wild Fred

    Sail Away

    Salvador Ziggy

    Samcro

    Shakem Up'arry

    So des Flos

    Stattler

    The Goffer

    Threeunderthrufive

    Tommie Beau

    Tullybeg

    Vanillier

    Where It All Began

  • I'm in no hurry to put my shillings down this year folks.
    The sweet spot for most of my model's early fancies has been down the weights but the reduced field size and Elliott's notoriously unreliable pointers to Irish or Aintree GN preferences (Fairyhouse is 12 days prior this year) makes early selections potentially a giant frustration and waste of time, at least pending the bookies going NRNB in meaningful numbers. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!