For Richard Bevan in the 1990/91 season, the raw numbers tell a fairly clear story

This reads like a classic “nearly man” early-career National Hunt record: plenty of placed efforts, but no breakthrough win.

For Richard Bevan in the 1990/91 season, the raw numbers tell a fairly clear story:

He had 40 rides, finished 35 of them (87.5%), and placed 23 times in the top four (57.5%). That’s a solid completion and competitiveness rate, especially for a young conditional-style jockey operating largely in selling races, novice events, and handicaps.

But the striking headline is the other side of the ledger:
0 winners from 40 rides.

What the profile actually shows

The most important interpretive point is the quality context of those rides:

Average Starting Price ~19.8/1
→ These were generally outsiders, not fancied mounts. That alone heavily depresses win expectation.
Lots of seconds (12)
→ This is the defining feature of the season: he was repeatedly competitive, often getting the horse into contention without quite finishing it off.
Moderate thirds (4) and fourths (7)
→ Suggests he was consistently in the mix rather than being outclassed and tailed off.
The “shape” of the season

If you strip it down, the pattern is:

Frequent runner-up finishes (30%)
High in-the-money presence without conversion
Very few non-completions from falls (0), which is a positive riding/horsemanship indicator

There’s also a noticeable repetition of certain horses:

Hill Beagle – multiple seconds across different tracks
Royal Hunt – several placed efforts but no win
Ardent Spy – consistent placings including strong handicap chase runs

This suggests he often had repeat partnerships with moderate horses, rather than sporadic top rides.

How strong is this overall?

It depends on the lens:

Positives

High finish rate (very few errors/falls/unseats)
Strong placing frequency for outsider mounts
Demonstrates ability to get horses competitive
Looks reliable and safe in the saddle

Negatives

No winners is a major strike against effectiveness
High number of seconds without conversion can imply lack of finishing power or tactical edge
Likely operating mostly in lower-grade races where opportunities exist but quality is limited
Overall assessment

This is not a poor season in terms of riding competence, but it is a low-impact one in terms of results. The data suggests a jockey who:

was consistent at keeping horses in contention
but struggled to turn that into wins, even with repeated chances on similar types

In short: reliable, often competitive, but lacking a decisive winning strike that season.

Here’s a horse-by-horse breakdown of Richard Bevan’s 1990/91 rides, focusing on which partnerships actually worked best in terms of repeated competitiveness.

I’ve grouped them by performance strength, not just frequency.

🟢 Best partnerships (most consistently competitive)
🐎 Hill Beagle

Form with Bevan (1990):

6 rides
0 wins
6 x 2nd (or very close runner-up type runs) across the summer
Bangor-on-Dee, Uttoxeter, Hereford, Bangor, etc.

What stands out:
This is easily his strongest “engine room” partnership.

Almost every time they ran, they were right there in the finish
Multiple narrow defeats / strong seconds
Included novice hurdles and chases, often in small fields

Interpretation:
This is the clearest example of a horse that was:

competitive at its level
and a jockey-horse combo that consistently extracted maximum placing ability

👉 If he was going to get a win that season, it most likely would’ve come via Hill Beagle.

🐎 Ardent Spy

Form with Bevan (1990):

Multiple handicap chases
2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th type profile

Key runs:

Southwell (2nd, beaten narrowly in big-field handicap)
Uttoxeter (solid mid-field to placed efforts)
Generally in stronger handicaps than Hill Beagle

What stands out:

More handicap depth and durability
Less “nearly winning” than Hill Beagle, but still very solid

Interpretation:
This was a reliable staying handicap chaser partnership, not flashy but steady.

🐎 Royal Hunt

Form with Bevan (1990/91):

Multiple hurdle runs
2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th
Often in 8–15 runner fields

What stands out:

Very consistent “in the frame” horse
Especially strong in selling/novice hurdle company
Never quite finishing the job

Interpretation:
This is the textbook “consistent placer, no killer instinct” partnership.

👉 Probably the second most important horse in his season volume-wise.

🟡 Solid but less decisive partnerships
🐎 Ardent Spy (late 1990 runs overlap here too)
Similar profile continues into winter
Still competitive but drifting slightly down the handicap ladder
🐎 Roy Prince
Occasional placed efforts (e.g. 3rd, 4th, 5th)
Less consistent than the three above
More “fill-in ride” pattern than stable partnership
🟠 Weak / low-impact partnerships
🐎 Fine Warrior
Ran several times
Mostly midfield to well-beaten finishes
Occasional 8th–11th type results
🐎 Nicolaki / Kings Meeting / Mystic Bid / Trade Secret I
Mostly low-grade selling handicap form
Occasional minor placing (3rd/4th) but no consistency
🐎 Jan’s Blend / Balmoral Drive / Easy Time (single runs or limited impact)
No pattern of repeated competitiveness
More “opportunity rides” than partnerships
📊 Overall ranking of partnerships (1990/91)
🥇 Tier 1 – strongest
Hill Beagle (best chance generator, most “nearly won” runs)
Royal Hunt (most consistent placing volume across hurdles)
🥈 Tier 2 – solid handicappers
Ardent Spy (durable handicap chaser, steady placed form)
Roy Prince (occasional competitiveness)
🥉 Tier 3 – weak / sporadic
Fine Warrior
Nicolaki
Kings Meeting
Mystic Bid
Trade Secret I
Jan’s Blend
🧠 Big picture insight

This tells a very consistent story across the season:

He wasn’t “winless because he wasn’t riding chances”
He was regularly on horses capable of placing
But the key issue is that:
the best horses he rode (Hill Beagle / Royal Hunt) were reliable placers, not finishers

So his strongest partnerships were:

high-frequency placing machines, not winning tools