The truth about age trends in the Grand National

[Gingertipster]

The truth about age trends and The Grand National

In the last 20 years of the Grand National (1989-2009 and not including the void 1993) there’s been 760 runners.

Of those 760 runners:
6yo 0 wins(0%), 7yo 0 wins (0%), 8yo 2 wins (10% of those 20 wins), 9yo 6 wins (30%), 10yo 5 wins (25%), 11yo 4 wins (20%), 12yo 3 wins (15%), 13yo 0 wins (0%), 14yo 0 wins (0%).

However, of those 760 runners:
10 runners (1.32% of the total runners) were 6 year olds,
28 (3.68%) were 7 year olds
100 (13.16%) were 8,
191 (25.13%) 9
182 (23.95%) 10
150 (19.74%) 11
70 (9.21%) 12
25 (3.29%) 13
4 (0.53%) 14

So with 6 year olds, if everything was fair, you could expect them to win 0 of those 20 (0.0132 x 20 = 0.264). They won none.
You could expect between 0 and 1 winner to be 7 year olds (0.0368 x 20 = 0.736). None were 7 year olds.
You could expect between 2 and 3 winners to be 8 year olds (0.1316 x 20 = 2.632). 2 winners were 8 year olds.
You could expect around 5 winners to be 9 year olds (0.2513 x 20 = 5.026). 6 winners were 9 year olds.
Around 5 winners to be 10 year olds (0.2395 x 20 = 4.79). 5 winners were 10 year olds.
Around 4 winners to be 11 year olds (0.1974 x 20 = 3.948). 4 winners were 11 year olds.
Around 2 winners to be 12 year olds (0.0921 x 20 = 1.842). 3 winners were 12 year olds.
Between 0 and 1 winners to be 13 year olds (0.0329 x 20 = 0.658). 0 winners were 13 year olds.
Around 0 14 year olds (0.0053 x 20 = 0.106). 0 winners were 14 year olds.

It can be seen that 9 year olds and 12 year olds have a slightly better (only by about 1 winner) record than can be expected.

What about the record of age groups to be placed in the first 5 in those 20 years? One year only 4 runners finished, so there were 99 placings in 20 years.

Of those 99:
0 were 6yo (0%), You could expect 1.32%
0 were 7 yo (0%), You could expect 3.62%
18 were 8yo (18% of the 99 placed), expected 13.16%
29 were 9 yo (29%), expected 25.13%
19 were 10yo (19%), expected 23.95%
24 were 11yo (24%), expected 19.74%
8 were 12yo (8%), expected 9.21%
1 was 13yo (1%), expected 3.29%
0 were 14yo (0%), expected 0.53%

8, 9 and 11 year olds have a slightly better record of placing than you’d expect if everything were equal. In contrast to the winners record, 12 year olds (along with 10 year olds have a slightly worse record than could be expected.

Conclusion:
It could be argued the best age is 9 years old. They may well have the right blend of experience and possibility of improvement for the race. However, this “advantage” is so small, to base a selection process on it would be foolish.

6 and 7 year olds may not have the required experience. However, the sample is so small that one winner in this group would turn them from being a bad age to a good age. Therefore, again to rule out this age group on age alone would be foolish.

13 and 14 year olds also have poor records which could change with just one win. The 13 year old to place was 5th in the 6 finisher 1994 race. It is fairly obvious these age groups are often on the downgrade and so less likely to produce a winner.

12 year olds don’t have the poor record some seem to think, with a higher percentage winning than could be expected. The place record being slightly less, suggests the good win performance could be a coincidence. Either way, being a 12 year old should not be regarded as a disadvantage.

Value Is Everything

[The Ante-Post King]

Snowy mornings

a 10yo Ginge! Good bit of information there my friend!

[Gerald]

I came to the conclusion that 8yos don’t do as well in Soft ground Nationals as in Good ground Nationals. However, I bent the figures a bit by either ruling out the 3rd & 4th in Red Marauder’s race, because they remounted, or just drawing a line through the race altogether, and coming to the conclusion that another race couldn’t have been run on the stated going because of the comparatively quick time it was run in. I don’t have the time to dig the figures out, as I’m keen to clear the decks and return to bioenergetics.

[Gingertipster]

This is the thread mentioned by Sean Boyce on At The Races / Get On! today.

Value Is Everything

[Gerald]

Yes, but did he quote you or me, Mark?

[Gingertipster]

Yes, but did he quote you or me, Mark?

How do you mean Gerald?

Did you send an e-mail too?

I sent him the information above and Sean e-mailed me back asking if the info was on here? I said yes, so he mentioned where to go to find more info, and how good the forum was.

Value Is Everything

[Gerald]

No, I don’t have atr, nor Racing UK. I was just assuming that he was mentioning some of your figures.

So, last year you pooh-poohed the idea of weight, which you completely convinced me of, and this year you did age – what have you got up your sleeve for next year?

[Author]

Posts