Wednesday’s Kempton AW card features three contests for two-year-olds, providing a valuable snapshot of juvenile form at this stage of the season. TRH will be covering this meeting, as well as the following Wednesday’s fixture, with a focus on the numbers behind these youngsters. We have compiled some revealing statistics that highlight which trainers consistently excel with their juveniles and which have struggled to make an impact. Below is a list of those represented at Kempton this week—a quick glance will remind members where the strengths and weaknesses lie in this age group. Please digest.

01 Charlie Appleby  59   38%   +24.66
02 Andrew Balding   43   18%   -25.01
03 Ralph Beckett    31   21%   -21.13
04 J & T Gosden     29   24%   -23.77
05 Hugo Palmer      26   16%   +20.91
06 S & E Crisford   24   24%    -5.50
07 Roger Varian     20   22%   -33.19
08 Clive Cox        18   17%   +68.76
09 Ed Walker        18   10%   -97.22
10 Tom Dascombe     14   16%   -20.63
11 Jonathan Portman 10   14%    +5.00
12 Marco Botti       9   17%    -4.17
13 Harry Charlton    7   11%   -34.03
14 Mark Prescott     6    9%   -31.17
15 Oliver Sangster   3   14%   -10.75
16 James Fanshawe    3    5%   -46.50
17 Tom Clover        2    5%   -31.57
18 Dominic F-Davis   0    0%   -16.00

Let’s be honest—did you know James Fanshawe has sent out just three juvenile winners this year, striking at only 5%? Would you be tempted to back another Fanshawe two-year-old next season? Sir Mark Prescott fares a little better, but still modestly, with a 9% return in this age group. Contrast that with Charlie Appleby: backing his juveniles blind has delivered a handsome profit, and it’s worth remembering he often doubles up in races. These numbers tell their own story, and they set the stage perfectly for our look at which trainers thrive—and which falter—with their two-year-olds.

This list is worth keeping and revisiting in 2026—it will serve as a valuable reminder and aid to decision-making. Training two-year-olds is a very different challenge from handling older horses; it requires a distinct skill to keep them sound, well, and ultimately successful on the track.

So, what context, pertinence, and relevance do our numbers carry for this meeting—or any other? TRH would argue they have IMMENSE context, pertinence, and relevance.

Please note: we are sharing this information freely until the end of the year. From 1 January 2026, access will continue by way of a small subscription.

∼

The Racing Horse offers betting insights grounded in analysis, discipline, and experience. However, all advice is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or gambling advice. Betting carries risk, and losses can exceed deposits. Readers are urged to wager responsibly, within their means. We do not encourage impulsive betting or chase losses. If you feel your gambling is becoming problematic, seek support from organisations such as GamCare or BeGambleAware.