Grand National Preview 2008

[Seen]

My old thread revamped to include last years race....


There are many statistics attatched to the Grand National which are churned out year after year. But which ones are actually useful? If there is logic behind a statistic, then the chances are that it will help pinpoint the likely winner. However, without a logical explanation, a statistic could well be just coincidental. This is my reasoning....

Weight Band & Class Band
These two stats go hand in hand, and are usually the first to mind when analysing this race. Regarding the Weight Band, during the last 23 years, all winners carried between 10-0 & 11-1. This can be quite easily explained logically. This is like no other race, and the effort demanded of the runners is more than your average long distance chase. The early pace is ferocious, the field size is huge, the fences are bigger and the course is a huge 2m2f oval with long, energy-sapping straights. There are no undulations or tight turns to break up the pace, so horses rarely get a chance for a breather. The faster the pace is, the more weight tells. Horses carrying above 11st simply don't have enough energy left at the end of the race to mount a winning challenge.
Also, you have to remember that these horses are being asked to jump higher, and drop further, than in an ordinary race. No wonder big-weight carriers don't win the National. Those racing from out of the handicap have not got the class to win this event, unless the ground becomes bottomless, which is extremely unlikely this year.
The Class Band stats tell us that all winners in the last 16 years were Officially Rated between 136 & 155, and every year we are told to concentrate on horses within this group. Personally, I just can't see the logic in this. If there was no ceiling on the weight band, and we were told to concentrate on horses rated 139 and above, then fair enough, logic tells us that horses rated lower than this simply do not have the class to win this race. But how can a horse have too much class for a race? A horse is either up to the task, or not. The reason there appears to be a ceiling on this band is because of the way it is tied-in with the weight band - the higher the horses rating, the higher the weight, and once above 11st, the weight prevents them from winning. So ignore the Class Band and concentrate on the Weight Band.

Jumping Ability
Obviously you need a competent jumper to win the National, but are the fences as severe as they are made out to be? My opinion is that the fences at Park courses such as Haydock and Kempton are just as difficult (or even more difficult) as the Aintree obstacles. The Aintree fences have loose birch on top and allow horses to brush through the top of them without falling. The fences at Haydock, for example, are far stiffer in structure and if a horse hits the top, it's odds-on it'll capsize. Of course I'm not suggesting that the National fences are easier to jump than your average fence at other courses, the sheer size of them cause many horses problems, and the fact that several fences have their landing side lower than the take-off side, regularly catches inexperienced chasers out.
The first few fences usually have more casualties than any other fences, this is not because they are more difficult to jump, but because the field is at it's biggest in the early stages. The less room to manoeuvre a horse has, the harder it finds it to approach the fence properly - if it's stride is wrong it has no room to put itself right. Also the horses view will often be restricted, and seeing the fence late can be disasterous, not forgetting that if a rival horse falls in front of it, then the chances of having room to sidestep it are slim. The pace is furious in these early stages and there is no room for error. A lot depends on luck, no matter how efficient a jumper a horse is. I recall backing Docklands Express in the early 90's simply because he had never fallen, and he fell at the first. Party Politics, a giant of a horse who almost stepped over these fences, won the race in 1992, finished 2nd in 1995, yet fell at the third in 1996.
The first six fences make up just 20% of the 30 fences, yet in 2006 9 of the 17 fallers (53%) failed to get past the 6th fence (5 fell at the first), in 2004 14 of the 22 fallers (64%) came to grief by the 6th fence, and in 2002 56% of the fallers suffered the same fate. In 2000 43% of the 21 fallers came to grief over one of the first 6 fences. In 1999, 33% of the fallers fell before the 7th fence. In 1998 an amazing 65% of the fallers (11 of the 17) failed to get past the 6th fence. In 1994 8 of the 21 fallers (38%) were out of the race by the 6th fence. So being able to jump at speed in a big field is vital, and every single one of the 16 winners since 1991 had either won or placed in a chase with at least 14 runners. This is a vital stat and is completely logical.

Fitness
Some horses are attempting to win the race after a lengthy break since their last outing - but this is a stat that is very much against them. We have to ask why this is. There are many horses which are actually best when fresh, so why do they not win the National? My view is that if a trainer has a horse he is aiming at the National, then even if the horse needs a rest between races, he would give it at least one or two outings during the season to keep the horse ticking over. An outing even as late as early March would give the horse plenty of time to recover. So any horse that arrives at the National without a recent run has almost certainly had problems, which is bad news as to win the National a horse must be at his physical peak. Also horses that are best fresh are often fragile creatures, which are unsuited to this tough event. All winners since at least 1988 had had their previous outing between 16 and 49 days before this race, which seems a logical stat.

Previous Winners
Not since Red Rum has a Grand National winner won the race again, even though plenty have tried. Why is this? Many races throughout the year are won by a horse that won the race the previous season, so why not this one. After all, the horse is proven over the fences, stays the trip, acts in a big field, likes the course, and can win in the Spring. One explanation is the weight, a National winner will be asked to carry a fair amount of extra weight the following year, and this often proves their downfall. My personal opinion of this is that the race is such a test for a horse, to win it takes so much out of a horse, that they are never really the same again. 2005 winner and 2006 runner-up Hedgehunter has a monumental task here with 11-12 to carry (only 9th last year with same weight).

Trip
All winners bar one since 1988 had won a chase over at least 3m 1f - the only one that hadn't was MONTYS PASS, who had won an A class 3m hcap at Listowel. The misconception that a 2m 4f horse can outspeed the plodders causes many horses to be entered each year which have no chance of staying the trip. Before the fences were modified, the pace was slower as the jockeys were more careful over the fences, and this enabled the 2m 4f horses to hunt up the leaders before being unleashed on the run-in and using their pace to win the race. But nowadays the pace finds these horses out year after year. 16 of the last 17 winners had won or been placed in a race over 3m3f or further.

Age
Between 8 and 12 is the favoured age band. 7yo's lack the experience and 13yo's and older are simply to old to be competitive in this extreme test. 9 of the last 12 winners were aged 9 or 10.

Previous Runs
All but one of the winners since 1991 had won a race worth at least £19,000. The one that hadn't, Party Politics, had finished 2nd twice in events worth £23,000 and £37,000.

Experience
Any horse competing here as a novice or in only their second season, is unlikely to win. All winners bar two (BINDAREE and NUMBERSIXVALVERDE) since 1990 were in their 3rd or 4th season chasing.

Time Of Year
All winners since 1988 had won previously in either January, February, March or April.

Other stats of importance...

No French bred horse has won this race since 1909 due to their style of breeding (horses in France don't race over extreme distances so they breed them to have more speed infuence than stamina) and with the physical demands of this race they always seem to be stretched past their limit - plenty have gone close (CLAN ROYAL a good example) without quite getting home, and although the other 'Nationals' have been won by these types, the demands of this race just seems too much for them.

6 of the last 7 winners had previously jumped these fences before (3 fell, 3 placed) - the only one that hadn't was NUMBERSIXVALDEVERDE who had proved his worth by winning another gruelling race, the Irish National. 3 of the last 4 winners had contested (and run well in) the previous years event, so don't be put off a horse just because it wasn't good enough to win it before.

A lot of the runners have already proved their stamina by winning or placing in marathon events but there are still plenty who we can't be sure about. Take a look through their previous runs over trips of 3m or shorter - a National winner shouldn't really have the natural pace to travel well throughout over these distances, so look out for telltale signs that the horse has struggled to quicken when the pace has lifted, race comments like "outpaced 4 out, stayed on" and "dropped rear 13th, kept on under pressure run-in". Most of the recent winners have these comments littered about in their earlier form in shorter races.

Too early for me to do a shortlist but 3 I'm interested in at the moment are

McKELVEY (22/1) - I really fancied this one last year and he surely would have won but for going lame on the run-in. 11-0 to carry which is borderline but 2 quiet runs over hurdles (pleased his trainer, he was clearly running to get fit) suggest he's ready to go close again. Main worry would be how much last years race took out of him but a big price nonetheless.

PHILSON RUN (28/1) - this one reminds me of AMBERLEIGH HOUSE - that one finished 3rd at a big price in 2003 before winning the following year - after a gallant 4th @ 100/1 last year. The ground was too fast last year too, so with slightly easier underfoot conditions this time there's no reason he won't go close.

NAUNTON BROOK (66/1) - not the most obvious contender but overpriced for sure. Was 125/1 last year but took them along for a fair way despite the 1st time blinkers not working. His trainer has won this twice recently and I think he could go well for a long way at big odds.

[selectabet]

Great stuff Seen.

I knocked up a quick spreadsheet based on this and gave each criteria a weighting (I know next to nothing about the nags so it was based on what I thought was most important and what was least).

Anyways it chucked out Mr. Pointment, Vodka Blue & Naunton Brook (same as you Seen) who all ranked joint highest, followed by Comply or Die, Over the Creek and Royal County Star.

Needs a bit of tweaking nearer the race I think but interesting that we both rated Naunton Brook highly.

[Seen]

MR POINTMENT and VODKA BLEU have too much weight.

COMPLY OR DIE has worn blinkers on his last 2 starts, would be a negative if he wears them again (horses with headgear have a poor record as it impairs their vision).

OVER THE CREEK and ROYAL COUNTY STAR are 2nd season chasers.

[jbgb007uk]

Bewleys Berry - H Johnson stable were in poor form when he was pulled up at Haydock, that day was a blow out. He was going really well when crumpling at Beechers (second time round) last year, he was carrying 10 stone 7 then. He then reappeared in the Becher when second to Mr Appointment.

The thing that impressed me was how well he settled that day, he was keen last year and needs to be put in the race later this year under 11 stone. Another year older and another year stronger, and could he be the 3rd 10 year old winner in a row?

[selectabet]

Cheers Seen. Yeah, I tried another way of looking at it based on the weight range being the most important. That pretty much ruled out Mr Pointment and Vodka Bleu straight away.

I wasn't able to find out about which season the horses were on so thanks for clearing that up.

Which order of importance would you place the various criteria?

[Seen]

Weight would be number 1 in order of importance - people keep saying "this is the year when the winner will carry more than 11st" but they've been saying that for the last 7 years at least. It might well happen this year but that doesn't mean they're not at a huge disadvantage.

2nd would be age - rule out all runners younger than 8 and older than 12 with confidence.

Other criteria are of less importance and you can be flexible - don't totally dismiss a horse if it fails on one stat for example (apart from weight or age), but ideally you want a horse who was proven stamina (has won over 3m 1f or further) and can jump in big fields (placed in a chase with 14 or more runners).

[kompressaur]

I split this from the other thread Seen to avoid confusion. Well it confused me

Don't forget to BUY SEEN'S BOOK folks

[selectabet]

Cheers Seen.

Thats the order I had them in (hey maybe I do know something about the nags )

I'll add a link to your book on my blog article too.

[selectabet]

When is the final declaration?

[alexross]

interesting thread (i know jack about horses)

Seen, where did u get all the background info/stats on the nags sir?

[slick]

great stuff once more Seen lets hope this time we bag that winner, the racingpost online is probably the best site for info and stats alex, you may need to sign up as a user but its all free and well worth it.

[crowie]

Originally Posted by Seen

Weight would be number 1 in order of importance - people keep saying "this is the year when the winner will carry more than 11st" but they've been saying that for the last 7 years at least. It might well happen this year but that doesn't mean they're not at a huge disadvantage.

Seen,

Would never disagree with your analysis about weights as its practically the first thing I look at in the National field, usually draw a line at 11st and rule out anything above that and you have knocked out a fair percentage of the field.

You can see the last few winners

1984 Hallo Dandy 10 10-02
1985 Last Suspect 11 10-05
1986 West Tip 9 10-11
1987 Maori Venture 11 10-13
1988 Rhyme 'n' Reason 9 11-00
1989 Little Polveir 12 10-03
1990 Mr Frisk 11 10-06
1991 Seagram 11 10-06
1992 Party Politics 8 10-07
1994 Miinnehoma 11 10-08
1995 Royal Athlete 12 10-06
1996 Rough Quest 10 10-07
1997 Lord Gyllene 9 10-00
1998 Earth Summit 10 10-05
1999 Bobbyjo 9 10-00
2000 Papillon 9 10-12
2001 Red Marauder 11 10-11
2002 Bindaree 8 10-04
2003 Monty's Pass 10 10-07
2004 Amberleigh House 12 10-10
2005 Hedgehunter 9 11-01
2006 Numbersixvalverde 10 10-08
2007 Silver Birch 10 10-06

And its only been the pretty exceptional Hedgehunter that has carried over the 11st mark and then it was only 1lb over.



However have you any thoughts on this year maybe being a little bit different in terms of weight carrying?


Reason I am thinking this is that in most years the National is 40 runners and in most years bottom weight is 10st. Sure there maybe a couple running out of the handicap but there is usually a fair few who are running of their proper weights but who are running with much lighter weights than those carrying 11st and above.

But looking at this years field and now that Ollie Magern is out it looks like the 40th horse, at the moment, is going to be Philson Run but its going to be carrying 10-8.

While its still a big ask to carry more than 11st to win there is also not as many lighter weighted horses in the race this year. 14 of the above winners all carried less than 10-8 to win and you can understand them being at an advantage running over such a distance in previous years over those carrying 11st+.

This year the biggest advantage over the 11st+ horses is only going to be 6lbs, not the upto 1st it has been in previous years.


I know you said that everyone says each year that this will be the year a heavier weighted one wins and I have to admit I usually dismiss this out of hand but this year it would be a bit more likely IMO due to the compression of the weights/handicap.

[ONEDUNME]

I think you have something there Crowie. As I've said before, I certainly wouldn't rule out any of my fancies due to previous stats and with the gap narrowing, and the going not looking like it's going to be too testing (which would make the weight even more significant) I'm looking at things up to 11st 3 at the moment.

[traeth]

I'm glad that others are considering 11st + horses as my initial list is as follows , which includes some horses carrying 11+, i'm also going for french bred horses.
Thankfully others on here also consider some of these

Vodka Bleu
L´Ami
Contraband
Mckelvey ... i was on him last year
Naunton Brook

[jbgb007uk]

French Bred????