I dont know how else to spell this out. If (and i have shown that I disagree) we take your stats on face value, that still doesnt show that "BIG stables are less dominant". What I have tried to show you is that I believe its the smaller stables who may have had 2 or 3 winners, that may now have had only 1 winner.
I genuinely dont believe that there have been any"big stables that have been less dominant"
Feel free to provide any evidence...
PS - how do you define "big" stables?I can only think of a handful of trainers(at best), so it shouldnt be too hard for you to bring up the evidence