Peanuts - I have great respect for what you do. I don't think I'd have the bottle to put my neck on the line as you do each year. I think you've indicated that we are seeing a trend towards better class horses being given a serious chance in The National and today only goes to confirm this. That was a brilliant performance by Many Clouds today and I believe that his win will continue to enhance The National in terms of quality. Having said that, perhaps the most crucial factor this season was the bigger than usual gap between Cheltenham and Aintree.
Peanuts... Did anything catch your eye as a possible for next year?
Yeap, Many Clouds.
You'd have to say that Druids might have beaten him today had he not slipped and fallen 5 out (we'll never know) but whether he would be as well weighted relative to MC next time has to be in doubt.
Peanuts - I have great respect for what you do. I don't think I'd have the bottle to put my neck on the line as you do each year. I think you've indicated that we are seeing a trend towards better class horses being given a serious chance in The National and today only goes to confirm this. That was a brilliant performance by Many Clouds today and I believe that his win will continue to enhance The National in terms of quality. Having said that, perhaps the most crucial factor this season was the bigger than usual gap between Cheltenham and Aintree.
Cheers Chief, much appreciated I need to replay the race a few times and consider the whys and wherefores of the outperformers and disappointing runs (from the model's perspective). Initial reaction from the bald result is that, with the exception of winner and 5th (STFD), the placed horses ran broadly in the ballpark of the model's expectations (obviously not precisely as rated relatively but close enough) - St Are, Dude, Alvarado and Royale Knight. Druids was going as well as expected when unluckily tipping up and Portrait King really couldn't have gone any better up to departing 3 out (wouldn't have won it but might have made the frame had he stood up). Always have to expect underperformances of some of the fancied horses (bad luck, poor jumps, off days, plain wrong) but the winner and 5th need some thinking about. Homework for tomorrow.
I had tired my bets a little and didn't have enough on the Dude but fortunately had taken Peanuts early advice on STFD who bailed me out and I see a £1.75 profit. Happy days.
I had tired my bets a little and didn't have enough on the Dude but fortunately had taken Peanuts early advice on STFD who bailed me out and I see a £1.75 profit. Happy days.
Was that trading in and out of STFD on Betfair a few weeks ago Chief?
Well done peanuts again your knowledge of the national has astounded me, unfortunately I returned nothing because I placed them all on the nose but that's my choice.
Really interesting stuff again peanuts, I'm about a tenner down and betfair weirdly have been dripping winning returns through all afternoon and evening
Well done peanuts again your knowledge of the national has astounded me, unfortunately I returned nothing because I placed them all on the nose but that's my choice.
Really interesting stuff again peanuts, I'm about a tenner down and betfair weirdly have been dripping winning returns through all afternoon and evening
The winner will come next year
Cheers Gents. Glad you enjoyed the thread, as I have. Many thanks for all contributions, it's made it a good read and yet again a fun one to participate in.
For anyone who's not been to the actual event, I'd highly recommend it. Myself and Killer Kish were in the Lord Daresbury stand, which is worth paying the extra compared to Tattersalls. The only downside is putting up with that annoying scouse accent all day ! Oh, and I had Alvarado and Saint Are each way but lost overall !
DOUBLE ROSS (not sure he'll line up), THE DRUIDS NEPHEW and MONBEG DUDE are the only 3 in just red and white (barring a colour change)...............could do very well with a couple of those
Nice one, that's where my bullseye will be going. Maybe £30 on The Druids and £10 ew on The Dude.
Not so sad. Doubled my money and resisted betting on half the field. Just stick to the Red and White ones eh?
I hate to tell you this Chief but, looking at initial replay this morning, not only was the Dude hampered by the French faller at 1st Bechers (set him back around 4L) but, just as he was starting his run from about 15L back after 2nd Canal Turn he got quite badly blocked by, yes you've guessed it, the fall of Druids 5 out. Had to swerve quite sharply and cost him about 3L I reckon (so total approx 7L lost by the 2 incidents). He finished 7.75L behind the very worthy winner (who was superbly ridden handy by Aspell and enjoyed a trouble-free round and jumping brilliantly). You always have the risk of traffic problems with a hold-up runner so absolutely no sour grapes but it could have been very close at the finish without the 2 incidents. Not quite Flanagan and Hales but a tad galling that one of them was Red & White on Red & White LOL
thanks Peanuts for another interesting analysis .. a class horse won this year .. Hennessy winner and a gold cup candidate, all be it a flop in that one .. I had an e/w fourth .. could be a Hemmings double very soon ..his club Preston N E look like being runners up in the 1st Division .. a really nice, and VERY rich man is Trevor ((:>)
As a matter of interest Trevor Hemmings was born in Woolwich.
I had tired my bets a little and didn't have enough on the Dude but fortunately had taken Peanuts early advice on STFD who bailed me out and I see a £1.75 profit. Happy days.
Was that trading in and out of STFD on Betfair a few weeks ago Chief?
As a novice gambler I get a bit worried by trading so just stuck a few quid each way on him at 12.1 instead which got me through.
Cheers for the thread PM, once again a fascinating read and I look forward to next year. Made money 4 years in a row on the National now. Only small amounts but never had done beforehand!
I had tired my bets a little and didn't have enough on the Dude but fortunately had taken Peanuts early advice on STFD who bailed me out and I see a £1.75 profit. Happy days.
Was that trading in and out of STFD on Betfair a few weeks ago Chief?
As a novice gambler I get a bit worried by trading so just stuck a few quid each way on him at 12.1 instead which got me through.
Cheers for the thread PM, once again a fascinating read and I look forward to next year. Made money 4 years in a row on the National now. Only small amounts but never had done beforehand!
Nice one Athletico. Well done. Keep plugging away - the jackpot will come
Just to vent my spleen on one matter that is seriously bugging me - the "Official Going Description" from Aintree during the GN meeting; specifically that it is increasingly and patently total and utter tosh - such tosh that it cannot be anything other than deliberate deceit (IMHO).
It applies to all 3 days of the meeting every year (in recent times) but I'm going to focus on the GN itself.
Once again (no doubt for PR reasons), the going for the GN was described yesterday Officially as Good-to-Soft (Good in places). Yet the time recorded was 7.2 seconds FASTER than standard. Is it really likely that there was anything Good to Soft about the ground yesterday?
Now the "standard" time for the reduced distance may need some time to settle down. Fair enough but let's compare yesterday's GN with other recent GNs as regards Official Description, the time per furlong (no material difference in pace per furlong should arise from the 100 yard shortening of the trip after 2012, possibly a marginal difference from the fence modifications) and the Racing Post's time-based description of the going (with hindsight of course).
2015 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.12 secs (RP assessment to come - it is certain to be Good) 2014 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.49 secs (RP: Good) 2013 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.55 secs (RP: GS) 2012 Official: Gd(GS) - time per furlong: 15.14 secs (RP: Gd) 2011 Official: Gd(GS) - time per furlong: 15.03 secs (RP: Gd) 2010 Official: Gd(GS) - time per furlong: 15.13 secs (RP: Gd) 2009 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.91 secs (RP: Soft)
Two observations from these comparisons:
1. Yesterday's time (per furlong) was quicker than 2 of the 3 GNs run on Officially "Good(GS)" but described by the RP as Good, including the disastrous 2012 GN. Thankfully, fence and other modifications appear to be the main reason for no fatalities yesterday.
2. If we are to believe the Official Descriptions, it was run on similar ground to 2009, 2013 and 2014. Bear in mind that, though yesterday's winner may be the highest rated winner for many a year, the GN is a handicap and so weight should be a leveller. Indeed, Many Clouds was not a runaway winner (he had a 143-rated horse <2L behind and a 144-rated horse <8L behind).
Now, since 1 second = approx 4L, that means that winners of the other 3 GNs (run on Officially similar going) would have finished behind Many Clouds as follows:
2014: Pineau De Re +52.5L - or 11th yesterday, behind the eased-down Chance Du Roy 2013: Auroras Encore +61L - or 13th yesterday 2009: Mon Mome +112L - or behind the heavily eased Dolatulo, 106L the LAST of 19 finishers
While agreeing totally about the going, would missing out the fence on the 2nd circuit have made the time slightly quicker ?
Good thought Chief but I doubt it because they had to run around the outside of the fence and we're talking about the Canal Turn where they usually jump it on the angle as close as possible to the inner because of the 90 degree turn. If anything, I reckon it might have cost them time.
Great stuff on the going peanuts and making no excuses for my poor punting at Aintree yesterday my betting is all about the going as itsthe first place I start in eliminating horses from races.I phone all courses I'm betting at on the morning of the racing for the up to date going report.When I called Aintree yesterday about 8.30am on my travels up there they said it was good to soft and still raining but the rain wouldn't change the going at any stage of the day so I only focused on good to soft proven horses.
Timeform also had the official going as good yesterday.
The number of times one hears the Clerk of the Course say "we're currently good to soft but, once we've spoken to the jockeys, after the first race we'll probably change it to soft" is ridiculous.
And you can bet you're bottom dollar that by the 3rd race it's officially heavy!
Timeform also had the official going as good yesterday.
The number of times one hears the Clerk of the Course say "we're currently good to soft but, once we've spoken to the jockeys, after the first race we'll probably change it to soft" is ridiculous.
And you can bet you're bottom dollar that by the 3rd race it's officially heavy!
Spot on. Happens all the time and there's no excuse for it.
Totally agree killer and AA. The thing about the GN meeting is that, post 2012, they adopted the policy that the ground should be no quicker than Easy side of Good. Fine but they will clearly never now admit that it's faster than that. That's not only unfair to punters, it puts horses and jockeys at greater risk. More speed = more fallers. It's no co-incidence that the slowest of the last 3 GNs (2013) saw all runners clear Bechers - the first time ever. 2014 was faster - 4 didn't get clear Bechers Yesterday faster still - 7 didn't get past it OK, thankfully no fatalities yesterday (though it was close) and the fence modifications have clearly been very significant in reducing the potential damage to horses hitting them but just how fast are they prepared to let it get? Seems to me like complacency is setting in. OK but be honest about it. Stop calling it GS(Gd) when it patently isn't.
Peanuts I was reading today that since 2013 the National has been run over 4 miles 3 f and 110 yards which is 110 yards shorter than previous races.
That's right Chief. After the fatalities of 2012, one of the changes they made was to move the start 110 yards down the track and away from the stands to try to calm the often frenzied start. Seems to have worked. As regards my time analysis, I've accounted for that by using seconds per furlong. There really would be no material difference in secs per furlong expected simply by virtue of a drop from 36f to 35.5f. As expected, the Racing Post also calls Saturday's GN time-based going Good. IMHO, while it was not unsafe ground per se, it was clearly quick enough to permit a time that was effectively consistent with meaningful Good To Firm places - in any event "Faster side of Good". It is that speed combined with the obstacles that heightens the risk factor of the race. While changing the fence cores to plastic has certainly reduced injuries (e.g. Balthazar King, who pre-modifications could well have died having hit the fence half way up), many falls come from over-jumping or knuckling on landing rather than hitting the fence. Any faller is a potential fatality and creates a serious risk of injury to any that it brings down. That's a part of NH racing that we all, with regret, have to accept. I'm not so much objecting to heightened risk per se. If it is considered that fence and other changes have meaningfully reduced casualties such that quicker ground can be tolerated, fine - but they should be honest. Instead, they continue with a deception (on the general public) that they are producing going on the Easy side of Good when they are patently not. As a result, for punters, it's impossible to believe anything one is told about the going leading up to the GN.
Comments
I think you've indicated that we are seeing a trend towards better class horses being given a serious chance in The National and today only goes to confirm this. That was a brilliant performance by Many Clouds today and I believe that his win will continue to enhance The National in terms of quality.
Having said that, perhaps the most crucial factor this season was the bigger than usual gap between Cheltenham and Aintree.
You'd have to say that Druids might have beaten him today had he not slipped and fallen 5 out (we'll never know) but whether he would be as well weighted relative to MC next time has to be in doubt.
I need to replay the race a few times and consider the whys and wherefores of the outperformers and disappointing runs (from the model's perspective).
Initial reaction from the bald result is that, with the exception of winner and 5th (STFD), the placed horses ran broadly in the ballpark of the model's expectations (obviously not precisely as rated relatively but close enough) - St Are, Dude, Alvarado and Royale Knight. Druids was going as well as expected when unluckily tipping up and Portrait King really couldn't have gone any better up to departing 3 out (wouldn't have won it but might have made the frame had he stood up). Always have to expect underperformances of some of the fancied horses (bad luck, poor jumps, off days, plain wrong) but the winner and 5th need some thinking about.
Homework for tomorrow.
Roll on next year!!!!
The winner will come next year
The only downside is putting up with that annoying scouse accent all day !
Oh, and I had Alvarado and Saint Are each way but lost overall !
You always have the risk of traffic problems with a hold-up runner so absolutely no sour grapes but it could have been very close at the finish without the 2 incidents. Not quite Flanagan and Hales but a tad galling that one of them was Red & White on Red & White LOL
Cheers for the thread PM, once again a fascinating read and I look forward to next year. Made money 4 years in a row on the National now. Only small amounts but never had done beforehand!
It applies to all 3 days of the meeting every year (in recent times) but I'm going to focus on the GN itself.
Once again (no doubt for PR reasons), the going for the GN was described yesterday Officially as Good-to-Soft (Good in places). Yet the time recorded was 7.2 seconds FASTER than standard. Is it really likely that there was anything Good to Soft about the ground yesterday?
Now the "standard" time for the reduced distance may need some time to settle down. Fair enough but let's compare yesterday's GN with other recent GNs as regards Official Description, the time per furlong (no material difference in pace per furlong should arise from the 100 yard shortening of the trip after 2012, possibly a marginal difference from the fence modifications) and the Racing Post's time-based description of the going (with hindsight of course).
2015 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.12 secs (RP assessment to come - it is certain to be Good)
2014 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.49 secs (RP: Good)
2013 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.55 secs (RP: GS)
2012 Official: Gd(GS) - time per furlong: 15.14 secs (RP: Gd)
2011 Official: Gd(GS) - time per furlong: 15.03 secs (RP: Gd)
2010 Official: Gd(GS) - time per furlong: 15.13 secs (RP: Gd)
2009 Official: GS(Gd) - time per furlong: 15.91 secs (RP: Soft)
Two observations from these comparisons:
1. Yesterday's time (per furlong) was quicker than 2 of the 3 GNs run on Officially "Good(GS)" but described by the RP as Good, including the disastrous 2012 GN. Thankfully, fence and other modifications appear to be the main reason for no fatalities yesterday.
2. If we are to believe the Official Descriptions, it was run on similar ground to 2009, 2013 and 2014. Bear in mind that, though yesterday's winner may be the highest rated winner for many a year, the GN is a handicap and so weight should be a leveller. Indeed, Many Clouds was not a runaway winner (he had a 143-rated horse <2L behind and a 144-rated horse <8L behind).
Now, since 1 second = approx 4L, that means that winners of the other 3 GNs (run on Officially similar going) would have finished behind Many Clouds as follows:
2014: Pineau De Re +52.5L - or 11th yesterday, behind the eased-down Chance Du Roy
2013: Auroras Encore +61L - or 13th yesterday
2009: Mon Mome +112L - or behind the heavily eased Dolatulo, 106L the LAST of 19 finishers
Quite simply, it is a joke.
If anything, I reckon it might have cost them time.
Fine effort yesterday.
Enjoy your retirement old fella.
The number of times one hears the Clerk of the Course say "we're currently good to soft but, once we've spoken to the jockeys, after the first race we'll probably change it to soft" is ridiculous.
And you can bet you're bottom dollar that by the 3rd race it's officially heavy!
The thing about the GN meeting is that, post 2012, they adopted the policy that the ground should be no quicker than Easy side of Good. Fine but they will clearly never now admit that it's faster than that.
That's not only unfair to punters, it puts horses and jockeys at greater risk.
More speed = more fallers.
It's no co-incidence that the slowest of the last 3 GNs (2013) saw all runners clear Bechers - the first time ever.
2014 was faster - 4 didn't get clear Bechers
Yesterday faster still - 7 didn't get past it
OK, thankfully no fatalities yesterday (though it was close) and the fence modifications have clearly been very significant in reducing the potential damage to horses hitting them but just how fast are they prepared to let it get?
Seems to me like complacency is setting in. OK but be honest about it. Stop calling it GS(Gd) when it patently isn't.
I was reading today that since 2013 the National has been run over 4 miles 3 f and 110 yards which is 110 yards shorter than previous races.
As regards my time analysis, I've accounted for that by using seconds per furlong. There really would be no material difference in secs per furlong expected simply by virtue of a drop from 36f to 35.5f.
As expected, the Racing Post also calls Saturday's GN time-based going Good. IMHO, while it was not unsafe ground per se, it was clearly quick enough to permit a time that was effectively consistent with meaningful Good To Firm places - in any event "Faster side of Good".
It is that speed combined with the obstacles that heightens the risk factor of the race. While changing the fence cores to plastic has certainly reduced injuries (e.g. Balthazar King, who pre-modifications could well have died having hit the fence half way up), many falls come from over-jumping or knuckling on landing rather than hitting the fence. Any faller is a potential fatality and creates a serious risk of injury to any that it brings down. That's a part of NH racing that we all, with regret, have to accept.
I'm not so much objecting to heightened risk per se. If it is considered that fence and other changes have meaningfully reduced casualties such that quicker ground can be tolerated, fine - but they should be honest. Instead, they continue with a deception (on the general public) that they are producing going on the Easy side of Good when they are patently not.
As a result, for punters, it's impossible to believe anything one is told about the going leading up to the GN.