Hi,
Last year's winners are pretty much irrelevant. It just makes racing journalists sound knowledgeable. Many are failed punters. Many continue to fail as punters.
They also waffle on about what other horses did after horse X beat them or was beaten by horse X. As if that has any relevance to the run by horse X.
Most are too incompetent to actually be able to identify how good a particular run of an individual horse was. They have no idea how to adequately compare one horse with another taking into account relevant form factors like rating figures from the last run, fitness of horses, changes in barriers, jockeys, distances, track conditions and so on.
That's why many rely on what trainers tell them. It creates again an image of inside knowledge. The average punter doesn't speak to trainers. But really, do you think trainers are going to give any inside information to racing journalists so they can strut around like peacocks and publicise it across the country.
Just look at the way they give their tips ---all racing journalists do is point out what each horse has done in a recent run. Anyone with access, as they have, to detailed video comments can do that. The most incompetent racing journalists regularly point out what the horse that beat it has since done, or what horses it has beaten have since done.

They are not able to point out why the horse they pick as their top selection has better winning chances than the horse they pick as their second selection. That means they cannot rate horses.
Most punters would be far better off ignoring racing journalists and their losing tips.