Grand National 2015

Maurice wrote:

I would say calling someone who offers a perfectly reasoned opinion ‘deluded’ insulting. I said at the start people wouldn’t like what I had to say and that has been borne out. But let me counter your assessment of the beaten horses (although I felt I’d already done so).

Purely on high ratings, it is one of the better race performances. But what if The Druids Nephew had won by 10 lengths? It would still be one of the better performances because he was highly rated to start with. Handicap performances, in my opinion, should be judged on by how much those involved performed in advance of their official mark. You will probably see this in the Free Handicap this week. The chances are they will finish fairly closely grouped and most will be rated 100+. Does that make the winner an outstanding prospect? Unlikely. If they finish strung out like washing that might be a different story.

Going into the race, Saint Are was nowhere near handicapped to get that close. As I said, I backed him in the race two years ago so I know his form. He had to win impressively last time just to get in and he has improved yet again. All credit to his trainer. Yes, he has good course form and people were happy to back him on that basis but so did others in the race and they got nowhere. Monbeg Dude was handicapped to run well and did so but he was asked to give a better horse – and equally well handicapped one – a long start. He might be a Welsh National winner but he’d need to be half a stone lower to win an Aintree one. Shutthefrontdoor was not well handicapped on his Irish national form. he was a ‘potential’ horse and proved it by outrunning his new mark.

You say there were no significant incidents in the race. Wasn’t The Druids Nephew’s departure a significant incident? Balthazar King’s fall? Ballycasey’s being brought down? Even Al Co (a Scottish national winner so a potential winner in your eyes) being hampered out of it at the first? I’m sorry but there are more holes in your argument than in a colander. The bottom line is that a lot of things needed to happen for Many Clouds to win. That was probably why I ended up looking elsewhere (The Druids Nephew, First Lieutenant, eg) for the winner.

I watched the race with the family. My brothers have been studying racing for longer than me and do nicely too. The first thing we agreed on at the end of the race was that it was brilliant that Many Clouds had won. This was a horse which had won the Hennessy and the Gold Cup trial. He wasn’t a year-long plot like Shutthefrontdoor. he wasn’t hidden in any way, shape or form. Neither was Saint Are. That was brilliant. It was one up the jacksy to the plotters and so-called shrewdies.

I’d like to think we can offer our opinions without resorting to insults just because we don’t agree.

I’m prepared to back up my opinion with hard cash going forward. Are you? If so, get on over to Betfair. I’ll lay you 25/1 many Clouds for next year’s race.

Maurice,
It’s great to see people explaining their point of view on these pages like you have. Welcome back and please stay around. Joe’s words may be a touch over-stated, but he is normally one of the most pleasant people on here. I don’t agree with your assesment, but can see why you might think the way you do.

Below is my write up of Many Clouds before the race. As you can see, he was “originally (compared to his February mark) let in 5 lbs better than in a conventional handicap, but handicapper had since dropped him, so just 2 lbs better than (the Saturday) current 162 mark”. So ignoring the poor run at Cheltenham he was 5 lbs well-in. The Druids Nephew (who was one of my biggest bets on the race @ 50/1 ante-post) was 10 lbs well-in. Soll and Rocky Creek were 9 lbs and Royal Rebellion (doubtful stayer) 7 lbs. That, along with The Druids Nephew going well (better than Many Clouds at the time) might suggest Many Clouds was a lucky winner. But Saint Are was going equally as well and Many Clouds is much more of a stayer than the Mullholland horse and therefore at the time of fall I thought MC the most likely winner. Being a staying type and shown himself progressive in each of his runs before disappointing in the Gold Cup; so as I said in the write up “potential for better at this trip if over his hard race last time”.

2) 4-1116 Many Clouds (8) 11-09 Oliver Sherwood 6/10 160 Leighton Aspell
Won Newbury Hennessey (3m2½f soft) off 151 mark (now 9 lbs worse), with 3¼ lengths to spare over Houblon Des Obeaux who gave 6 lbs. Progressed again to win Grade 2 BetBright Cup (3m1½f soft), gave 8lbs and beat Smad Place 1¼ lengths. Appears a stayer and dam’s sister was placed in Cheltenham 4 miler. Potential for better at this trip if over his hard race last time. But why was he below form in the Cheltenham Gold Cup? Surprising did not make up more ground at the end of a strongly run 3m2½f. 24½ lengths 6th to Coneygree. Just an off day? Or over the top for the season? Chase course times on the day suggest it was quicker than the official “Soft”. Improvement came on genuinely soft ground but it’s possible racing at marathon distances good-soft will be fine. Originally let in 5 lbs better than in a conventional handicap, but handicapper has since dropped him, so now just 2 lbs better than current 162 mark. Owner Trevor Hemmings loves this race, Hedgehunter 2005 and Ballabriggs 2011 successful. Like them – the genuine Many Clouds usually jumps well. But who’s decision it was to come here is debatable, trainer seemed less keen. Jockey Leighton Aspell won last year on Pineau De Re.
3.2% 28/1 (40/1) +0.75%

You say Saint Are was not well handicapped on what he’d done before. I agree, but he’d been put up a massive stone since his last run, so the handicapper thought he was improving fast. My write up said, “Saint Are may not be the best handicapped horse on what he’s done, but could yet improve at his beloved Aintree/Spring meeting”. He’d “Jumped well and further they went the better, responding to pressure” in the Becher and… “Also winner of 2012 3m1f handicap chase and 2011 3m Sefton novice hurdle on Mildmay Aintree course both at this meeting. Gives the impression could see further progress over extreme distances”. Everything to me indicated Saint Are was going to improve a lot more with the opportunity of running over an extreme trip at Aintree. I don’t see how Saint Are can be used to knock the form.

24) F-3331 Saint Are (9) 10-06 Tom George 6/10 143 Paddy Brennan (tt+cp)
Change of stables has paid dividends; jumping improved significantly, possibly due to a switch to racing prominently or the tongue tie. Only error at Catterick (3m1½f good-soft) coming at the first, showing best form for some time. Trouble is he’s made things harder here, up from 129 to 143 and never previously been successful off so high a mark. Eased for 7 lengths victory over Everaard who received 12 lbs; runner up was pushed along throughout and favourite Red Devil Boys lost all chance slipping on home turn. Saint Are may not be the best handicapped horse on what he’s done, but could yet improve at his beloved Aintree/Spring meeting. 3¾ lengths 3rd in Becher (3m2f good-soft) has progressed since, now 7 lbs worse off with winner Oscar Time. Jumped well and further they went the better, responding to pressure. Also winner of 2012 3m1f handicap chase and 2011 3m Sefton novice hurdle on Mildmay Aintree course both at this meeting. Goes on soft or good ground. Gives the impression could see further progress over extreme distances.
4.5% 22/1 (33/1) +1.56%

Monbeg Dude had been dropped a bit by the handicapper lately and came back to his best. Am not so sure he was as unlucky as some have suggested. Pace of the race this year (for once) strong, so did not disadvantage the hold up horses as much as other years. At the elbow looked as though he was going to finish closer than he did. You only need to rate Monbeg Dude (and Alvarado) as running to his best – to rate Many Clouds as putting up a class performance. Alvarado finished closer to Many Clouds (11½ lengths) than he did Pineau De Re (16½). But the handicapper had taken account of him being given a poor ride last year and put him on a mark as if he’d finished only 7 lengths behind Pineau De Re.

Shutthefrontdoor you claim was poorly handicapped, I disagree. True, not as well handicapped as TDN, Rocky Creek, Soll or indeed Many Clouds; but not badly handicapped. Unexposed and won with far more than the 8 lengths margin suggests over only 3m last time and had/has more improvement in him. The Irish Grand National over just 3m5f was not a truly run affair, winning by quickening up; yesterday’s race a different scenario and am not sure he truly stayed Saturday’s trip the way it was run.

Rocky Creek did not show his form, normally travels well through his races and pushed along after a circuit. Soll also disappointing. Balthazar King’s was over-hyped, grand horse though he is, totally exposed as an 11 year old handicapped right up to his best with plenty of racing behind him. Ballycasey had absolutely no chance of staying. Al Co ran abysmally in the Becher, admittedly when stable not in as good form as they are now. First Lieutenent’s chance was exaggerated by the Press just because everyone wants to see a woman winning. Well handicapped on his best form, but you’ve got to go back some way to see it. Even allowing for the ground not being ideal for him, should have run better in his races this season. I know some people thought he was being laid out for this, but you don’t deliberately lose Grade 1 races when the horse has the form to go close/win… Unless of course you know he’s on the downgrade and not up to winning them; which in turn means he is not as well handicapped as his old form makes out.

Just because others came in to the race better handicapped and some other stayers fell/did not show their form, does not mean the race “fell apart” imo.

I am kicking myself too. In February I put a saver bet on him @ 54/1 and said (in my DLAP thread) would go in again once an intended runner. Combination of the Cheltenham run and good ground changed my mind. Have backed both Many Clouds and Saint Are for next year.

Maurice wrote:

For what it’s worth, it will take some unusual circumstances for TDN to be back on my radar for next year. He’ll be much higher and it’s possible he might not enjoy a return visit. I’m already thinking about the Hennessy and what might emerge from that.

In the last few years, any previous runner has not gone on to win in a subsequent year. I think Mon Mome was the last. Although I do back previous runners, maybe this is through sentiment (Balthazar King this year) although I did have a strong feeling for Soll. I think VTC uses this as a guide also.

Maurice, I don’t know you. You positioned yourself as a straight talker at the outset. My posts were equally straight. I’ve deluded myself on many occasions, and still do when I need to justify decisions. But I don’t do so with betting and racing analysis. If you found the term insulting, then I apologise.

Your seemingly strict reliance on form seems to me the wrong way to analyse a race like the National. I think it’s a poor tool in general for betting, and seldom use it myself in its strict sense of pounds for lengths etc.

Much more relevant for the GN, imo, is a personal assessment of each horse’s potential. I had a small bet on MC purely because I had fancied him so much for the GC. But, with that weight, I could not propose him as a serious tip, as I’d concluded that after the fence changes, lightweights would dominate.

But, as I mentioned in a post earlier in the thread, after watching the Topham and Foxhunters, I was convinced that Aintree had made some unpublicised changes returning the fences to something like a decent challenge, which brought MC back into the picture, though I still believed he’d struggle. A few decent judges on here tipped Saint Are, who was my main bet. Being put up a stone means little to a horse who loves Aintree (Always Waining, anybody?). He was also in form and had an excellent weight, whatever his mark.

TDN is a nice horse, but having looked again at his festival win I had him down as a non stayer. Future years will tell us whether that was right or not. Yes, Balthazar King would have run well. Ballycasey? A most inconsistent horse about whom you could draw no conclusions imo. Al Co would have had a chance on his Scottish National form, so there are two runners I’d agree deserve some speculative consideration. But does that constitute a race falling in MC’s lap? Not for me.

As to the emotion of it, I try to keep it out of my betting, but won’t disregard it when watching one of the best and bravest performances I’ve ever seen. He won his Hennessy in the same fashion and he epitomises, for me, the grandest of staying chasers.

As for the 25/1 offer, no thanks. I’ve taken some with both bookies who were offering it, and I dislike such public challenges. I accept you’re only putting your money where your mouth is, but it’s not for me.

Red Rum 77 wrote:

On that basis you would have dismissed West Tip in 1986 as he fell at Becher’s second time in 1985 going like the probable winner.

Not necessarily so, although I didn’t back WT second time. Things were different then, including the handicapping so it’s a different ball game altogether now.

Thanks to everyone for rescuing the discussion and bringing it back to an absorbing analytical debate.

A few more observations in answer to some of the point raised:

My detailed analyses of the Grand National go back many, many years. On the scale I use – and I would emphasise at this stage that we’re talking about the scale I use – it would be rare for a winner of the race to run less than 12lbs above its OR. Pineau De Re, for example, ran 16lbs above last year but the handicapper only put him up 8lbs (still more than MC so arguably rated him a better winner) and even the third, Double Seven (anyone remember him?), the 10/1jf, ran 13lbs better.

The year before, Auroras Encore was 13lbs well in on my figures and won the race by running to the same mark as when beaten in a photo in the Ayr National off 4lbs higher. RPRs went 2lbs better!

It would have been hard to imagine anything bettering those two marks so I wouldn’t conclude that the race ‘fell into their lap’ regardless of what may have happened to others during the race.

Looking back through the history of the race, right now I can’t think of any winner who didn’t hit a mark of 12lbs or more above its OR. I tend to hold off on my final figures until I’ve got the paper copy of the form book in front of me but my initial reaction is that Many Clouds has run 10lbs better than its OR, which is bang on what I anticipated. I just anticipated three or four hitting 12 or more. That’s why I can’t help but conclude that it was a substandard result – hence taking a step beyond that and using the phrase ‘fell into its lap’. I can’t help thinking if they ran the race again in six months time off the exact same weights, Many Clouds probably wouldn’t win.

Another thing I should add is that my approach to this race is different from any other. It is a unique test and requires a unique approach so I don’t use ‘normal’ handicapping methods. At the same time, though, I’m not a great believer in trends. The one thing I’ve argued for many years is that you can forget the trends; if a horse is badly handicapped no trend will make it win. Surely anyone who follows trends will have dismissed Many Clouds very early in their deliberations. He was a very late dismissal for me purely on that ’10lbs’ figure. To me it just wasn’t enough given the class of opposition.

As for First Lieutenant, the jockey had nothing to do with it for me but there’s no doubt that was a factor in his price (I was on at 33/1). This was a horse who once had an OR of 170 but was now off 154 and who had looked on the way back around Christmas time. I attributed his subsequent moderate run to connections’ desire to get him into the race off a good mark and his one run after the weights came out was over hurdles to keep him fresh. In fact, strip out that run and twelve of his previous 13 races were Grade 1s.

Think some folk are getting carried away with Many Clouds, a significant contributory factor to his win was his 5lb allowance c/o Doctor Phil Smith. 25/1 is absolutely no value and 10/1 laughable.

While he was well in this year it’s quite possible he could be badly in next year c/o Dr Phil who has stated he will be 7lbs higher whatever happens. That’s without the 12 months in between where anything could happen. I hope folk are taking NRNB if availing themselves of 25/1.

I tend to agree that the GN takes its toll but let’s look at the past winners

2014 – Pineau De Re Age 11 – Probably on the downgrade anyway and mainly been running over hurdles.
2013 – Auroras Encore Age 11 – Probably on the downgrade but only ran twice after before injury pensioned him off.
2012 – Neptune Collonges Age 11 – Immediately retired.
2011 – Ballabriggs Age 10 – Possibly on the downgrade anyway. Race probably did take its toll as the horse won in unseasonly warm weather and required medical attention afterwards.
2010 – Don’t Push It Age 10 – Only ran in one subsequent Chase, the 2011 GN in which he finished 3rd. All other runs over Hurdles.
2009 – Mon Mome Age 9 – Possibly did improve with a 3rd in next season’s Gold Cup.
2008 – Comply Or Die Age 9 – A good effort by finishing 2nd to Mon Mome in the next year’s renewal.
2007 – Silver Birch Age 10 – Did not run for another 2 years after his win so probably on the downgrade anyway
2006 – Numbersixvalverde Age 10 – possibly on the downgrade and only ran another 4 races after his win. Race possibly did take its toll.
2005 – Hedgehunter Age 9 – Franked the form by running 2nd in next season’s Gold Cup and Grand National.

2015 – Many Clouds Age 8 – Definitely room for improvement at such a young age, been the youngest since Bindaree (also aged 8) who then went on to win a Welsh National.

So although the stats say National winners never produce the same or better again, most of these horses were probably on the downgrade anyway.

Unless it’s a Gold Cup type (Hedgehunter/Many Clouds) once a horse has has won a Grand National – connections are not exactly interested in winning any other race. Everything is focused around keeping its mark until the next Grand National. Therefore, it’s understandable so few ever win another race. Most Grand National winners don’t have the same scope for further improvement that the progressive 8 year old Many Clouds has. It’s precisely the fact so many punters are put off by stats like this that makes Many Clouds a good value bet @ 25/1.

Will Many Clouds win next year? Probably not.
Does Many Clouds have a good chance of winning? No
Does Many Clouds have a 20% chance of winning? No
Does Many Clouds have a 10% chance? No
Does Many Clouds have a better than 4% (25/1) chance? imo Yes.

Also,
If Many Clouds does improve again, say in the Henessey – it’s not necessarily a bad thing for his National chances. Mark might go up but (unlike other winners) because 11-10 is topweight will also mean some of his rivals will be out of the handicap/have less chance.