Trends analyst Matt Tombs is back with his third article of 2026, which looks at Cheltenham Festival saddlecloths…
When someone with the knowledge and experience of racing of JP McManus makes a suggestion for reform it warrants plenty of respect. That’s even more so in McManus’ case as he makes interventions rarely, he’s not one to shoot from the hip with every idea that comes into his head.
Nevertheless, whilst respecting such an opinion it is quite possible to strongly disagree with it, as I do with McManus’ suggested reforms to field sizes in the Cheltenham Festival handicaps.
McManus’ main point was to argue for a reduction in field sizes to a maximum of 18. Field sizes for the 12 handicaps last year varied between 16 for the Cross Country and 26 for the County and what was the Coral Cup. It is the latter 2 races and the Martin Pipe, (maximum field of 24,) which McManus specifically mentioned. A first step towards McManus’ plan has occurred with the County and ‘Coral Cup’ maximum fields reduced to 24 this year.
It’s not clear to me whether he believes there is a safety issue or not – he says he doesn’t “want to raise the safety argument,” but I think its worth dealing with that issue at the outset. 252 horses contested the 12 handicaps at the Festival last season. There were 5 fallers, 2 unseats and 2 horses were brought down – i.e. a rate of 3.5%. 8 of those 9 have raced again with 1 fatality, a rate of 0.3%. It’s a comparatively small sample but not out of line with jumps racing generally.
By way of comparison 183 horses ran in the conditions races over obstacles with 9 fallers and 3 unseats – i.e. a rate of 6.5%. 10 of those 12 have run again and Quilixios is due to do so in the Champion Chase – with 1 fatality, a rate of 0.5%. The handicaps in fact produced lower rates of falls, unseats, horses being brought down and fatalities than the conditions races, despite the average field size in the handicaps being 21.0 compared to 12.2 in those conditions races.
None of the 3 races McManus specifically highlighted, (‘Coral Cup’, County & Pipe) had any horse fall, unseat or be brought down. At the last 3 Festivals the only horse to come down in those 3 races was Elvis Mail who unseated in the 2023 Coral Cup, (and won 10 days later). It’s hard to argue that field sizes are causing a safety issue in those 3 handicaps – but that hasn’t stopped field size reductions.
McManus’ main argument for big reductions in field sizes is to say that both the Festival races and those earlier in the season would be improved if there were fewer Festival spots available. He argued that horses would run more and be campaigned more openly over the winter to get a run at the Festival.
There is logic in that theory but I doubt it translates into practice. Connections that are savvy enough to know roughly on which mark the handicap cut typically falls, campaign their horses to get a mark just above that typical cut level. They can generally do that in the same number of starts by preparing their horse to run to a higher mark in their early races. They should want the handicapper to have as few races as possible to assess a plotted up horse so I wouldn’t expect horses to run materially more.
This debate needs the context of the appetite to compete in the Festival handicaps these days. In the 7 handicap chases only 24 horses in total were balloted out last year. In the handicap hurdles for a second year in a row the County didn’t fill and 3, 8, 14 & 19 horses were balloted out of the Pertemps, Martin Pipe, Fred Winter and Coral Cup respectively.
Go back 10 years and 72 horses were balloted out of the Martin Pipe alone – more than were balloted out of all 12 handicaps in total last year. The main problem at hand isn’t about needing to get horses to run more or be more openly campaigned during the winter – it is trying to get enough horses to run in the Festival handicaps to make them as competitive as they have traditionally been. We need to be encouraging connections to target the Festival handicaps more not make it harder and so put them off.
That’s not helped by the ever-increasing number of options. A key reason the County has had 16 and 17 runners in the last 2 renewals is that as well as the Imperial Cup 6 days earlier, the Morebattle, run 13 days before the County, was changed to a handicap in 2021.
In addition, the requirement for horses to have run 5 times over hurdles to qualify for the non-juvenile handicap hurdles has had the welcome effect of pushing more novices into the Grade 1s, (and to a lesser extent that may be happening over fences with 4 runs required). But as with many positive changes there is an associated negative – fewer horses for the handicaps.
The position in the market of the winners of the 12 Festival handicaps last season was 1-4-1-1-7-1-4-3-12-8-1-3. In other words 9 of the 12 were from the first 4 in the market. It’s doubtful whether these handicaps are competitive enough to take such field size reductions.
That’s a lot of theory and everyone will have their own opinions on it. However, we do have some evidence of the impact of reducing the maximum field sizes of the Festival handicaps as it has happened already. The maximum field sizes for the County and Coral Cup used to be 30. Since they were reduced I have noticed no increase in how often horses have run earlier in the season, nor of more open campaigning.
The County & Coral Cup maximum field sizes were reduced from 30 to 28 in 2007 and to 26 in 2015. Yet if you look at the 3 different regimes this century, the average previous number of runs that season (in jumps races) by the winner is as follows:
Coral Cup
County
There are of course other factors at play here with horses now having fewer races generally per season than earlier in the century and having more of their races in the spring – but reducing field sizes hasn’t resulted in the winners running more often to make the cut.
One argument I could see for reducing field sizes would be if horses at the bottom of the weights were getting an unfair advantage, so I looked at the stats about which saddlecloth number winners have carried.
The overall strike rate this century of horses carrying saddlecloths 1-18 is 4.9% and the strike-rate for those carrying 19+ is 3.1%. (In the 3 races McManus highlights, the ‘Coral Cup’, County and Martin Pipe, those figures are similar at 4.6% and 3.0% respectively.)
It will come as no surprise to many that horses near the top of the weights have a slight advantage over those towards the bottom. Equally, those carrying saddlecloths of 19 or higher have a fair record – there aren’t stacks of no-hopers getting in the way. Results suggest the field sizes were working very well.
If the field sizes were further reduced as McManus suggests, who would be likely to benefit if all the handicaps had a maximum field of 18, (or less with it remaining 16 in the Cross Country)?
This century, horses with a saddlecloth of 19 or higher have comprised 21% of the fields. Such horses have comprised the following % of winners from the 5 trainers who have trained 10 or more Festival handicap winners this century:
There are only 2 owners who have had significant numbers of handicap winners – again the % of those winners that carried a saddlecloth of 19 or higher is given:
It will surprise few that big reductions in the field sizes would very much advantage the big trainers and owners who have more of the horses higher in the handicap, (a point McManus tacitly acknowledged).
Turning to actual betting opportunities at this year’s Festival, which saddlecloths – i.e., which part of the weights – tend to be favoured in the different handicaps?
The simplest way to analyse this is to take the average saddlecloth number of the winner this century – but races with smaller fields would, all other things being equal, produce winners with a lower average saddlecloth number.
If instead you divide the total number of runners by the winners’ saddlecloth number it should give a more accurate picture. The higher the result the better those higher in the weights are doing as set out in the grid below:
| Martin Pipe | 3.4 |
| Cross Country | 2.8 |
| Kim Muir | 2.3 |
| Pertemps | 2.2 |
| ‘Coral Cup’ | 2.2 |
| Fred Winter | 2.1 |
| Plate | 1.9 |
| Novice Handicap Chase | 1.9 |
| County | 1.7 |
| Ultima | 1.7 |
| Grand Annual | 1.5 |
NB – this excludes the National Hunt Chase, which has had only 1 renewal as handicap.
2 races jump out as contests where those near the top of the weights have a significant advantage.
The first is the Cross Country. Unlike the ancient banks course at Punchestown, which pre-dates the conventional tracks, Cheltenham’s cross-country course had to be shoehorned into the middle of Prestbury Park. In consequence the track is very tight and there are few opportunities to gallop until the business end.
Going so steadily makes it much easier to give weight away and the course specialists, often towards the top of the weights, have a big advantage. In 4 of the 12 renewals as a handicap you’d have got paid out on the horse wearing saddlecloth number 1 as the winner.
Stumptown and Favori De Champdou look set carry saddlecloths 1 and 2 this year. Don’t be put off by the weight they have to concede – there’s every chance they’ll be the first 2 home.
The other is the Martin Pipe. This has a 145 ratings ceiling, (from 2009-11 the ceiling was 140,) and has become a magnet for embryonic Grade 1 horses that had been very lightly raced. The 145 ceiling keeps out the proven high-class horses which are eligible to run in the ‘Coral Cup.’
That tends to leave the Martin Pipe with a much lower-class overall field, (as should be the case as a 0-145,) but with a smattering of really classy novices and lightly raced second season hurdlers, who can often outclass their 145-and-below opposition.
Those embryonic Grade 1 horses, unsurprisingly, tend to be not far below the 145 ceiling. With field sizes having been 21-24:
7 of the 17 Martin Pipes have gone to horses wearing saddlecloths 1-3
10 of the 17 to horses wearing saddlecloths 1-6
This year top-weight The Passing Wife is on 143, with Murcia on 142 and Its Bilbo, Chart Topper, Kateira & Sony Bill on 141.
Whether part of the handicap is strongly favoured is an element few punters factor in – so there can be a real edge if you have a plausible theory about it that’s been backed up by previous results. I think the trend for the winners of those 2 handicaps to typically come from amongst the top weights will continue.
Subscribe to the Matchbook Betting Podcast here
Subscribe to the Matchbook YouTube channel here
