planetf1.com

LKS1 wrote:Yes, I disagree that Alonso/Hamilton/Vettel (at this point in time) deserve to be in the top 10 GOAT list.

I'm going to quote lamo here because he puts it better than I can:

lamo wrote:I'm just curious with regards to your top 10, Schumacher aside - does a single driver who made their debut after 1984 feature on it?

Formula one is only 67 years old, how many you got from the last 33 years?

Alonso is 36, Hamilton is 32 and Vettel is 30. They have all done more races and more seasons than Senna by now. There's more than enough data to judge them.

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Funny how in this case, I'm going to defend Hamilton actually. Out of the 3, I think that his legacy is the most secure.

Hamilton has GOAT level statistics and and has proved himself against great teammates (Alonso, Button, Rosberg), coming out on top against all of them. You can't really dispute his greatness at this point.

Alonso and Vettel don't tick the box in at least one category. Alonso does not have GOAT level statistics. Vettel does, but hasn't proved himself against a variety of teammates.

Alonso has gone 11 years without a title and has burned bridges with his team more than once. That's a stick you can always beat him with. You can beat Vettel with the Ricciardo stick unless he goes up against him again and beats him. If Vettel beats Ricciardo in equal cars in 2019, it will do his reputation a world of good.

You've pointed out why (at the moment) none of them 'deserve' to be in the top 10 list.

Lewis showed serious shortcomings in '11 (and made himself look silly tweeting telemetry desperately trying to explain why he was out-qualified by Button) etc. etc.....

Seb was beaten by Ric. when the car didn't suit him - even though he was established at the team and should have been able to find a way around his car problems.

Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him.

KingVoid wrote:To save this from becoming another Ferrari vs Mercedes debate (we already have a thread for that):

Is anyone in disagreement with me that Alonso, Hamilton and probably Vettel all deserve to be in the top 10 all time list?

My top 10 is (in no particular order): Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Ascari, Lauda, Hamilton and Alonso/Vettel.

My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

Alonso at this point slightly ahead of Vettel. However, Alonso is pretty much at the end of his career. I can't see him getting back into a winning car soon, and when he does, he'll be close to 40. Vettel is 30 and still has 5 prime years left to go.

If Vettel does the following two things:

1. Win a championship with Ferrari
2. Beat Ricciardo in a rematch (rumors suggest that they could be teammates again at Ferrari in 2019)

Then he has surpassed Alonso on the all-time list and firmly placed himself in the top 10.

My top 10 would be

Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Prost, Clark, Alonso, Stewart, Ascari, Hamilton and Moss.

Vettel would be just outside - 11th or 12th.

mikeyg123 wrote:My top 10 would be

Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Prost, Clark, Alonso, Stewart, Ascari, Hamilton and Moss.

Vettel would be just outside - 11th or 12th.

Ha, that's almost the exact same as me. The only exception is that I have Lauda instead of Moss in my top 10.

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Vettel faced Webber when he was aging past his prime.

How was Webber past his prime in 2009? Vettel was 21 that season and in his first year with Red Bull, and immediately beat Webber 15-2 in qualifying (Webber had previously never lost a qualifying battle against a teammate).

To be fair to Webber, 2009 was a struggle.
The effects of the broken leg on his pre-season shouldn't be overlooked.

mas wrote:

Invade wrote:Regarding Hamilton vs Alonso - I get the feeling that several top teams would be clamouring for Hamilton and yet I don't hear much talk of Mercedes or Ferrari chasing Alonso but instead much more of the talk surrounds where Ricciardo and Verstappen will end up, neither of which are remotely as accomplished as Alonso is right now. We heard the rumours of Mercedes being interested in Vettel and how much Ferrari love working with Vettel, whose stock is still pretty sky high.

What does that say about Alonso?

I'm asking seriously and not rhetorically.

He's too difficult and troublesome and expensive for the results he delivers. It's all about him, always. Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull just don't need the aggravation because they know they can develop a winning car without him with cheaper younger less stroppy drivers. He's a McLaren/Renault type driver now where money, ego are not problems and they need to extract the maximum from suboptimal packages.

LKS1 wrote:Lewis showed serious shortcomings in '11 (and made himself look silly tweeting telemetry desperately trying to explain why he was out-qualified by Button) etc. etc.....

You are grasping at straws if you think that this proves Lewis doesn't belong in the top 10.

All the great drivers have flaws. Prost, Senna and Schumacher all deliberately took out a rival at one point in their careers; something Lewis has never done.

Lewis had one bad season in 2011, but otherwise beat Button convincingly in both 2010 and 2012.

If you are going to judge that Lewis is not a top 10 driver based on what he did in 2011 or Spa 2012, then Lewis will probably never be a top 10 driver in your eyes.

KingVoid wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:My top 10 would be

Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Prost, Clark, Alonso, Stewart, Ascari, Hamilton and Moss.

Vettel would be just outside - 11th or 12th.

Ha, that's almost the exact same as me. The only exception is that I have Lauda instead of Moss in my top 10.

I find it difficult to place candidates who I've never seen drive before, so although I think the records of drivers like Fangio and Clark should entitle them to top ten status, I have no real idea of where they fit overall.

So with that in mind, my top ten would be something like:

Senna
Schumacher
Prost
Alonso
Vettel
Piquet (pre '87. After his accident he was not the same IMO)
Hamilton
Mansell

...Fangio & Clark somewhere in the mix above, just not sure where. Everything below Alonso isn't set in stone, either.

LKS1 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Funny how in this case, I'm going to defend Hamilton actually. Out of the 3, I think that his legacy is the most secure.

Hamilton has GOAT level statistics and and has proved himself against great teammates (Alonso, Button, Rosberg), coming out on top against all of them. You can't really dispute his greatness at this point.

Alonso and Vettel don't tick the box in at least one category. Alonso does not have GOAT level statistics. Vettel does, but hasn't proved himself against a variety of teammates.

Alonso has gone 11 years without a title and has burned bridges with his team more than once. That's a stick you can always beat him with. You can beat Vettel with the Ricciardo stick unless he goes up against him again and beats him. If Vettel beats Ricciardo in equal cars in 2019, it will do his reputation a world of good.

You've pointed out why (at the moment) none of them 'deserve' to be in the top 10 list.

Lewis showed serious shortcomings in '11 (and made himself look silly tweeting telemetry desperately trying to explain why he was out-qualified by Button) etc. etc.....

Seb was beaten by Ric. when the car didn't suit him - even though he was established at the team and should have been able to find a way around his car problems.

Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him.

Although Hamilton's not my favourite driver by a long shot and things like his telemetry tweets and mind games don't help with that, I think you're being unfair to him as a driver by counting those against him in terms of where he rates among the best drivers. Alonso I feel also has had more than his fair share of bad luck, which plays a great part in terms of knowing whether a team will come good in future. If e.g. he'd chosen Red Bull in 2009 he may well have been a 6 times WDC by now and the fact he's not is not down to his driving ability IMO.

KingVoid wrote:

LKS1 wrote:Yes, I disagree that Alonso/Hamilton/Vettel (at this point in time) deserve to be in the top 10 GOAT list.

I'm going to quote lamo here because he puts it better than I can:

lamo wrote:I'm just curious with regards to your top 10, Schumacher aside - does a single driver who made their debut after 1984 feature on it?

Formula one is only 67 years old, how many you got from the last 33 years?

Alonso is 36, Hamilton is 32 and Vettel is 30. They have all done more races and more seasons than Senna by now. There's more than enough data to judge them.

Good point.

For us relatively 'newbies' - our personal lists depend on not only the years we've watched F1, but also the opinion of those who've been watching for decades longer.

Fortunately for this forum, there are still a few around - even though we've lost POBR .

Unfortunately for this forum, they seem to post less nowadays.

I've never really thought about my, personal top 10 as I only started watching in '98 (?), and so am unable to judge earlier drivers. But I respect the opinion of those who were watching at the time, and are still watching.

Zoue wrote:

LKS1 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Funny how in this case, I'm going to defend Hamilton actually. Out of the 3, I think that his legacy is the most secure.

Hamilton has GOAT level statistics and and has proved himself against great teammates (Alonso, Button, Rosberg), coming out on top against all of them. You can't really dispute his greatness at this point.

Alonso and Vettel don't tick the box in at least one category. Alonso does not have GOAT level statistics. Vettel does, but hasn't proved himself against a variety of teammates.

Alonso has gone 11 years without a title and has burned bridges with his team more than once. That's a stick you can always beat him with. You can beat Vettel with the Ricciardo stick unless he goes up against him again and beats him. If Vettel beats Ricciardo in equal cars in 2019, it will do his reputation a world of good.

You've pointed out why (at the moment) none of them 'deserve' to be in the top 10 list.

Lewis showed serious shortcomings in '11 (and made himself look silly tweeting telemetry desperately trying to explain why he was out-qualified by Button) etc. etc.....

Seb was beaten by Ric. when the car didn't suit him - even though he was established at the team and should have been able to find a way around his car problems.

Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him.

Although Hamilton's not my favourite driver by a long shot and things like his telemetry tweets and mind games don't help with that, I think you're being unfair to him as a driver by counting those against him in terms of where he rates among the best drivers. Alonso I feel also has had more than his fair share of bad luck, which plays a great part in terms of knowing whether a team will come good in future. If e.g. he'd chosen Red Bull in 2009 he may well have been a 6 times WDC by now and the fact he's not is not down to his driving ability IMO.

Why am I being unfair? We're talking about top 10 GOATs, and '11 was a serious failure when he fell prey to his own arrogance.

Re. Alonso, I repeat "Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him".

In short, both (along with Seb) have serious question marks when it comes to top 10 GOATs. We need to wait until the end of their career (unlike most top 10 GOATs?) to decide where they 'fit in' the list.

LKS1 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

LKS1 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Funny how in this case, I'm going to defend Hamilton actually. Out of the 3, I think that his legacy is the most secure.

Hamilton has GOAT level statistics and and has proved himself against great teammates (Alonso, Button, Rosberg), coming out on top against all of them. You can't really dispute his greatness at this point.

Alonso and Vettel don't tick the box in at least one category. Alonso does not have GOAT level statistics. Vettel does, but hasn't proved himself against a variety of teammates.

Alonso has gone 11 years without a title and has burned bridges with his team more than once. That's a stick you can always beat him with. You can beat Vettel with the Ricciardo stick unless he goes up against him again and beats him. If Vettel beats Ricciardo in equal cars in 2019, it will do his reputation a world of good.

You've pointed out why (at the moment) none of them 'deserve' to be in the top 10 list.

Lewis showed serious shortcomings in '11 (and made himself look silly tweeting telemetry desperately trying to explain why he was out-qualified by Button) etc. etc.....

Seb was beaten by Ric. when the car didn't suit him - even though he was established at the team and should have been able to find a way around his car problems.

Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him.

Although Hamilton's not my favourite driver by a long shot and things like his telemetry tweets and mind games don't help with that, I think you're being unfair to him as a driver by counting those against him in terms of where he rates among the best drivers. Alonso I feel also has had more than his fair share of bad luck, which plays a great part in terms of knowing whether a team will come good in future. If e.g. he'd chosen Red Bull in 2009 he may well have been a 6 times WDC by now and the fact he's not is not down to his driving ability IMO.

Why am I being unfair? We're talking about top 10 GOATs, and '11 was a serious failure when he fell prey to his own arrogance.

Re. Alonso, I repeat "Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him".

In short, both (along with Seb) have serious question marks when it comes to top 10 GOATs. We need to wait until the end of their career (unlike most top 10 GOATs?) to decide where they 'fit in' the list.

You won't find 10 F1 drivers to put ahead of him with perfect careers.

I don't see why you have to wait to the end of their careers. You do for a definitive position but you can just as easily judge where they stand right now.

bonecrasher wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:This championship wasn't about some sort of "inherent" advantage. This was about Ferrari coming unglued right when they had the opportunity to strike. 3 bad races in a row in crunch time (for various reasons). That's what determined the championship (assuming Hamilton hangs on to win it); not some car disadvantage. Ferrari have generally been a match for Mercedes; quicker sometimes and slower at others. They didn't lose because of the performance of the car. They lost due to reliability and mistakes.

The reliability/errors factor certainly contributed to Mercedes sitting pretty at the moment, but even without that Mercedes were usually the car to beat. This WDC was won as much on Saturday as it was on Sunday, if not more so. And in that the Mercedes have unquestionably been the car to beat

Despite the numerous times we've gone through the season race by race and shown that the Ferrari has been at least the equal of Mercedes over the course of the year, you still make this claim? That just reflects poorly on your integrity to be blunt. This has been your end-game since before the season started. Trying to position Ferrari and Vettel as dealing with a car deficit so that if they lose you have an excuse. They were not at a performance deficit overall, and anyone who's honest about the season can see that. The performance of the cars didn't create this situation. It was the performance of the team that created it. Walking away from their strongest tracks empty handed is the reason Ferrari have dropped so far back.

I don't think there's any need for a post like that. Doesn't reflect well on you tbh.

Throughout our discussions I've always maintained that the Merc has had a qualifying advantage. For you to suddenly spout out of nowhere that this shows a lack of integrity on my part is somewhat bizarre. Based on what, exactly? That I dare to have a different opinion to you? Clearly you're letting your bias affect your judgement and you're not able to leave emotions out of it. Shame, really

The narrative has been to build up Vettel as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Eventually you'll realise that it's the exact same narrative for Hamilton

KingVoid wrote:My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

That's a bit silly. Vettel has only ever left the Red Bull camp, who raised and nurtured him into the driver he has become. Alonso didn't leave Renault in acrimonious circumstances either

I don't expect Vettel to ever have a fall out with Ferrari but it's still a bit soon to make statements like the above when he has effectively only ever parted with one team

mcdo wrote:

KingVoid wrote:My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

That's a bit silly. Vettel has only ever left the Red Bull camp, who raised and nurtured him into the driver he has become. Alonso didn't leave Renault in acrimonious circumstances either

I don't expect Vettel to ever have a fall out with Ferrari but it's still a bit soon to make statements like the above when he has effectively only ever parted with one team

Would BMW Sauber count? I don't remember the terms of his leaving that team at the time

Siao7 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

KingVoid wrote:My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

That's a bit silly. Vettel has only ever left the Red Bull camp, who raised and nurtured him into the driver he has become. Alonso didn't leave Renault in acrimonious circumstances either

I don't expect Vettel to ever have a fall out with Ferrari but it's still a bit soon to make statements like the above when he has effectively only ever parted with one team

Would BMW Sauber count? I don't remember the terms of his leaving that team at the time

He was only ever loaned to BMW Sauber.

mcdo wrote:

KingVoid wrote:My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

That's a bit silly. Vettel has only ever left the Red Bull camp, who raised and nurtured him into the driver he has become. Alonso didn't leave Renault in acrimonious circumstances either

I don't expect Vettel to ever have a fall out with Ferrari but it's still a bit soon to make statements like the above when he has effectively only ever parted with one team

You've already forgotten '06 - when Alonso said something along the lines of the team were against him?

It's a shame, but Alonso is largely the author of his own misfortunes. And yes, I do think it's unfortunate, as he's otherwise a great driver and without the serious arrogance/personality issues - would likely have more WDCs and likely end up in the 'top 10'.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

KingVoid wrote:My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

That's a bit silly. Vettel has only ever left the Red Bull camp, who raised and nurtured him into the driver he has become. Alonso didn't leave Renault in acrimonious circumstances either

I don't expect Vettel to ever have a fall out with Ferrari but it's still a bit soon to make statements like the above when he has effectively only ever parted with one team

Would BMW Sauber count? I don't remember the terms of his leaving that team at the time

He was only ever loaned to BMW Sauber.

Thanks, I couldn't quite remember the situation, only that his first go at F1 was with them.

mcdo wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Vettel as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Eventually you'll realise that it's the exact same narrative for Hamilton

Exactly.

It reminds me of how '07 is being 're-written' - but at least this time it's being argued in the present.

LKS1 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Vettel as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Eventually you'll realise that it's the exact same narrative for Hamilton

Exactly.

It reminds me of how '07 is being 're-written' - but at least this time it's being argued in the present.

It's not unusual to re-evaluate past events when you receive new information.

LKS1 wrote: Why am I being unfair? We're talking about top 10 GOATs, and '11 was a serious failure when he fell prey to his own arrogance.

Re. Alonso, I repeat "Alonso's arrogance has been his downfall, and the catalyst for teams with top drivers deciding that regardless of his driving skills - they have no interest in employing him".

In short, both (along with Seb) have serious question marks when it comes to top 10 GOATs. We need to wait until the end of their career (unlike most top 10 GOATs?) to decide where they 'fit in' the list.

I think Hamilton's '11 should be 'personal issues' rather than 'arrogance'. Personal issues that he has since got on top of, and IMO has used to become the strongest mentally in the current field.

I don't believe top teams have no interest in employing Alonso, either. He just joined the top teams at the wrong times.

He joined McLaren expecting them to deliver, but they delivered him a teammate which meant you had arguably the two best drivers in the same team. When has that ever ended on friendly terms?
Went to Renault where he had previously won 2 WDCs.
Went to Ferrari, the biggest team in F1, who never gave him a car to win a WDC (although he did a fair attempt at it in '12).
Left Ferrari to join the McLaren Honda project, yet another huge team, but the engine was absolutely horrific.

I see no evidence there of teams being afraid to touch him. Brawn targeted Hamilton for the Merc seat which gave them the star they wanted, Red Bull went with a promote their own strategy around the time they started to be considered a team you'd really want to drive for.

I think your definition of GOAT is based on hazy memories, as are most people's. People are inclined to be more forgiving of those in the past than they are of those of today.

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Funny how in this case, I'm going to defend Hamilton actually. Out of the 3, I think that his legacy is the most secure.

Hamilton has GOAT level statistics and and has proved himself against great teammates (Alonso, Button, Rosberg), coming out on top against all of them. You can't really dispute his greatness at this point.

Alonso and Vettel don't tick the box in at least one category. Alonso does not have GOAT level statistics. Vettel does, but hasn't proved himself against a variety of teammates.

Alonso has gone 11 years without a title and has burned bridges with his team more than once. That's a stick you can always beat him with. You can beat Vettel with the Ricciardo stick unless he goes up against him again and beats him. If Vettel beats Ricciardo in equal cars in 2019, it will do his reputation a world of good.

It's not a great stick when it's not a spec series, he's been in two of the biggest teams during that time but they've never given him the quickest car and he's returned to 2 of the 3 teams he supposedly burnt bridges with.

The problem with debates like this is it assumes everyone worships stats. This isn't tennis where everyone has equal opportunity to achieve those stats, you're a total slave to what your team provides you in this game. Swap his cars with Lewis or Seb's and who do you think has the stats?.

Once we know how good they are the stats are just a reflection of their machinery and how long they sat in the best cars. By saying how do we decide who's the best and saying someone's in the conversation because of their stats and someone's in the conversation despite their stats you're already answering the question yourself.

It's a lot easier to imagine Alonso beating Webber or Rosberg and sitting here as a 4-7xwdc with 70+wins and poles than it is to imagine what the other two could achieve in Alonso's cars simply because it throws up far more questions by virtue of where those cars were, both mentally and ability-wise.

It's not that they couldn't, I personally think Lewis would and Seb could, but you get that it raises more questions than 'can he beat that team mate' as that's what it took to achieve the vast majority of those poles and wins in the best car. Just beating Massa doesn't give you 2012 for example.

As ever it's an endless debate and there is no right or wrong answer but comes down to what you like I guess. I was always more Clark and Senna rather than Schumacher so my lack of fondness stat wise is ingrained and makes me almost biased against it.

I'm having a Lewis week this week and think he's the current best but it's got SFA to do with his stats. I'd have rather he went to RB in 2013 and beat Seb and be sitting here as a 2xwdc with 30 wins and poles(or whatever) than what he has now. And I'd bet his stock would be higher right now despite having half the stats.

Covalent wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Hamilton as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Corrected for accuracy.

I have been laughing at the "uncorrected for accuracy" version all weekend. Apparently there is indeed and alternate universe!

LKS1 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

KingVoid wrote:My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

That's a bit silly. Vettel has only ever left the Red Bull camp, who raised and nurtured him into the driver he has become. Alonso didn't leave Renault in acrimonious circumstances either

I don't expect Vettel to ever have a fall out with Ferrari but it's still a bit soon to make statements like the above when he has effectively only ever parted with one team

You've already forgotten '06 - when Alonso said something along the lines of the team were against him?

It's a shame, but Alonso is largely the author of his own misfortunes. And yes, I do think it's unfortunate, as he's otherwise a great driver and without the serious arrogance/personality issues - would likely have more WDCs and likely end up in the 'top 10'.

It's impossible to deny that he has said a few stupid things out of frustration over the years. But there was never any kind of bust up at Renault. They've always had great time for him. And his McLaren contract was signed many months before he made that particular remark, so it didn't play any role in his departure

My list is from the mid eighties on wards (what I have seen) so it misses early eighties Piquet and Lauda.

Senna
Schumacher
(these two are cemented to the top of my list, the rest is subject to move)
Prost
Alonso*
Hamilton*
Vettel*
Mansell
Hakkinen
Rosberg
Button

*can potentially overtake Prost still

This is probably a bit harsh on the 1990's and early 2000's drivers, but Schumacher made most of them look pretty average overall. Honorable mentions to Raikkonen, Montoya and Barrichello.

Invade wrote: Generally when I've read about F1, Senna is so incredibly adored and considered obviously greater than Prost or even Schumacher, yet when I take a look at Prost-Senna I'm not even sure Senna is greater/better than Prost overall. To actually understand I'd need to read far more thoroughly about their careers, their rivalry, and actually watch all or most of the races because as far as I could see Prost was just as productive as Senna in bringing home points, wins and trophies and had fantastic race pace.

This is just my opinion ! But ......
I was a Prost fan, and eventually a Senna fan. They were the yin and yang <?> of drivers at that time.
Prost "The professor", and Senna "The raw emotion of racing".

Both were probably equal as far as production, but it was how they got those results.
Prost really depended on thinking his way through a race, he was calculated, and probably ushered in the more technical aspect of racecraft.
Senna was raw talent, charged with emotion and pure skill.

I think Senna was the last of the pure "racers".

Both drivers were great talents, and I cannot really pick betweeen the 2 for results .. but I know my favorite became Senna because of the pureness of his racing.

Put it this way ... If I knew I needed to get across London quickly ...... If I had a day's notice, I would have Prost plan it and drive me.
If it was a right now situation, I would be throwing the keys to Senna.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:The fact is though if not for Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball with crashes/reliability these last 3 races then Vettel would be leading the WDC in what you say is an inferior car and quite comfortably at that so Vettel > Hamilton.

And if Hamilton did not get a headrest issue in Baku, or a gearbox penalty in Austria, or made several mistakes in Bahrain, or underachieved grossly relative to the potential of his car in Russia/Monaco - then Vettel would not be leading the WDC no matter how well he drove.

The fact of the matter is that Mercedes has clearly and unarguably been better in qualifying this season, and been roughly equal in race pace. When you take into consideration the fact that it's very difficult to overtake in these cars, and the fact that Mercedes has an inherit top speed advantage which makes it easier to overtake/defend, it becomes very obvious to why Mercedes has been the best car this season (all things considered).

The only way Ferrari has been equal is if you look at race pace in a vacuum without acknowledging the relevance of qualifying pace or top speed.

Hamilton's problems in Russia and Monaco can be related to the car itself, issues now that Bottas is having, the car is very inconsistent in performance, with Mercedes you don't know what you are going to get before the car turns up for just about any race, how did Vettel perform in 2014 when the car was not right for him?

What you are simply doing here is just an over simplication, clearly a case can be made here also for the Ferrari being the more consistent and with that the better car.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Despite the numerous times we've gone through the season race by race and shown that the Ferrari has been at least the equal of Mercedes over the course of the year, you still make this claim? That just reflects poorly on your integrity to be blunt. This has been your end-game since before the season started. Trying to position Ferrari and Vettel as dealing with a car deficit so that if they lose you have an excuse. They were not at a performance deficit overall, and anyone who's honest about the season can see that. The performance of the cars didn't create this situation. It was the performance of the team that created it. Walking away from their strongest tracks empty handed is the reason Ferrari have dropped so far back.

It's basically built around a belief that Vettel > Hamilton.

All it needs is a belief that Vettel = Hamilton. Not exactly shocking

That's just going on past experience, what you typed would make a change.

The fact is though if not for Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball with crashes/reliability these last 3 races then Vettel would be leading the WDC in what you say is an inferior car and quite comfortably at that so Vettel > Hamilton.

By that logic then surely Rosberg > Hamilton? I mean, if we are going to just ignore all mechanical issues and just look at the points table then why bother discussing?

I think you had a logic fail there by using the same criteria you get Hamilton > Rosberg, in this instance we know the cars are the same so are equal.

From your standpoint we not only have Vettel > Hamilton but also Mercedes > Ferrari.

Covalent wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Hamilton as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Corrected for accuracy.

Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Funny how in this case, I'm going to defend Hamilton actually. Out of the 3, I think that his legacy is the most secure.

Hamilton has GOAT level statistics and and has proved himself against great teammates (Alonso, Button, Rosberg), coming out on top against all of them. You can't really dispute his greatness at this point.

Alonso and Vettel don't tick the box in at least one category. Alonso does not have GOAT level statistics. Vettel does, but hasn't proved himself against a variety of teammates.

Alonso has gone 11 years without a title and has burned bridges with his team more than once. That's a stick you can always beat him with. You can beat Vettel with the Ricciardo stick unless he goes up against him again and beats him. If Vettel beats Ricciardo in equal cars in 2019, it will do his reputation a world of good.

I seem to be at odds with many of your posts but with this post you totally nailed it, sometimes I can be a bit sceptical of posters but in future I will take on board more of what you say.

Invade wrote:Regarding Hamilton vs Alonso - I get the feeling that several top teams would be clamouring for Hamilton and yet I don't hear much talk of Mercedes or Ferrari chasing Alonso but instead much more of the talk surrounds where Ricciardo and Verstappen will end up, neither of which are remotely as accomplished as Alonso is right now. We heard the rumours of Mercedes being interested in Vettel and how much Ferrari love working with Vettel, whose stock is still pretty sky high.

What does that say about Alonso?

I'm asking seriously and not rhetorically.

Alonso has the reputation for being a team within a team.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: It's basically built around a belief that Vettel > Hamilton.

All it needs is a belief that Vettel = Hamilton. Not exactly shocking

That's just going on past experience, what you typed would make a change.

The fact is though if not for Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball with crashes/reliability these last 3 races then Vettel would be leading the WDC in what you say is an inferior car and quite comfortably at that so Vettel > Hamilton.

By that logic then surely Rosberg > Hamilton? I mean, if we are going to just ignore all mechanical issues and just look at the points table then why bother discussing?

I think you had a logic fail there by using the same criteria you get Hamilton > Rosberg, in this instance we know the cars are the same so are equal.

From your standpoint we not only have Vettel > Hamilton but also Mercedes > Ferrari.

well, speaking of logic fails, if the Ferrari is better than the Mercedes then it would be quite hard to say Vettel > Hamilton, as then he should be leading the title.

I think Vettel is better, but I think the differences are fairly small. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think that if they swapped seats we'd probably be seeing Vettel winning his 5th title. He's proven in the past that he's no slouch in winning from pole, either and the Merc is the car to be in from a qualifying perspective.

If you take the view that Vettel and Hamilton are fairly equal, then it's not so hard to imagine that the Mercedes is the slightly better car overall.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Hamilton as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Corrected for accuracy.

Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

And I've never eaten a pine cone, how very strange. And relevant.

The problem with comparing today's drivers with those of the past is that we know far, far more about them and about what actually happened.

In Bygone times we only knew the result and what we read or hear about things through official channels.
Go back to the earlier days and we don't have much of a clue as to what really went on. How much was choreographed, how much was one driver favoured, even down to if it was a very rich driver or otherwise, how much of their own money did they spend on bringing something they themselves to their car and not the other car?

It is not that long since team bosses said 'no we cannot do that, we can not afford it this year'. There is also much that happened in teir personal lives that affected the drivers, and the way they interacted with others.

It is said today, usually jokingly (or half so) that a driver let one driver past to get a drive with their team and blocked the following car.

I remember waiting for a mag each week or month, which was the only way we knew anything except the published result. I also remember going to some venues and seeing some of the background stuff, and it was not what it was portrayed in the movies, or seen in the Sky warm up today.

We really can not compare what we know and what we were told.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: All it needs is a belief that Vettel = Hamilton. Not exactly shocking

That's just going on past experience, what you typed would make a change.

The fact is though if not for Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball with crashes/reliability these last 3 races then Vettel would be leading the WDC in what you say is an inferior car and quite comfortably at that so Vettel > Hamilton.

By that logic then surely Rosberg > Hamilton? I mean, if we are going to just ignore all mechanical issues and just look at the points table then why bother discussing?

I think you had a logic fail there by using the same criteria you get Hamilton > Rosberg, in this instance we know the cars are the same so are equal.

From your standpoint we not only have Vettel > Hamilton but also Mercedes > Ferrari.

well, speaking of logic fails, if the Ferrari is better than the Mercedes then it would be quite hard to say Vettel > Hamilton, as then he should be leading the title.

I think Vettel is better, but I think the differences are fairly small. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think that if they swapped seats we'd probably be seeing Vettel winning his 5th title. He's proven in the past that he's no slouch in winning from pole, either and the Merc is the car to be in from a qualifying perspective.

If you take the view that Vettel and Hamilton are fairly equal, then it's not so hard to imagine that the Mercedes is the slightly better car overall.

So your view is exactly as I defined it.

It's very hard to get seasons were the best cars are so close in performance, I believe this is one of those seasons and was a great battle between Hamilton and Vettel let the best man win sort of thing, but no we have to have caveats in favour of one driver.

It's clear that the Mercedes has some great strengths but also some great weaknesses, but it's the strengths that are highlighted and the weaknesses that are ignored, and it's the Mercedes in need of a big redesign and not the Ferrari.

This was as close to a 50/50 battle as you could hope to have with Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball in the last 3 races, 2 of which he probably wins.

It's a shame the narrative has to be that Hamiton was both lucky and also in the best car to win the title, it goes against Hamilton being the special driver you called him.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Hamilton as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Corrected for accuracy.

Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

And I've never eaten a pine cone, how very strange. And relevant.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: That's just going on past experience, what you typed would make a change.

The fact is though if not for Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball with crashes/reliability these last 3 races then Vettel would be leading the WDC in what you say is an inferior car and quite comfortably at that so Vettel > Hamilton.

By that logic then surely Rosberg > Hamilton? I mean, if we are going to just ignore all mechanical issues and just look at the points table then why bother discussing?

I think you had a logic fail there by using the same criteria you get Hamilton > Rosberg, in this instance we know the cars are the same so are equal.

From your standpoint we not only have Vettel > Hamilton but also Mercedes > Ferrari.

well, speaking of logic fails, if the Ferrari is better than the Mercedes then it would be quite hard to say Vettel > Hamilton, as then he should be leading the title.

I think Vettel is better, but I think the differences are fairly small. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think that if they swapped seats we'd probably be seeing Vettel winning his 5th title. He's proven in the past that he's no slouch in winning from pole, either and the Merc is the car to be in from a qualifying perspective.

If you take the view that Vettel and Hamilton are fairly equal, then it's not so hard to imagine that the Mercedes is the slightly better car overall.

So your view is exactly as I defined it.

It's very hard to get seasons were the best cars are so close in performance, I believe this is one of those seasons and was a great battle between Hamilton and Vettel let the best man win sort of thing, but no we have to have caveats in favour of one driver.

It's clear that the Mercedes has some great strengths but also some great weaknesses, but it's the strengths that are highlighted and the weaknesses that are ignored, and it's the Mercedes in need of a big redesign and not the Ferrari.

This was as close to a 50/50 battle as you could hope to say with Ferrari/Vettel dropping the ball in the last 3 races, 2 of which he probably wins.

It's a shame the narrative has to be that Hamiton was both lucky and also in the best car to win the title, it goes against Hamilton being the special driver you called him.

There's only a caveat if you make one. If you see that Mercedes does indeed have a qualifying advantage, why is it wrong to call it out?

The advantage Mercedes has is small, but it is still there. The fact is that both Vettel and Hamilton are special - the way they dominate their team mates attests to that. And at this level a small advantage is significant. But it doesn't mean that the driver is able to cruise. Everything is not a binary choice and having a small advantage doesn't mean that the driver is then 2nd rate.

Great discussion and a lot of interesting posts. Some of it could be considered off-topic but personally, I see no issue in threads taking a bit of a detour and I still think it's mainly relevant in ranking who is becoming the best of the era.

Regarding the topic, I'd make one general point that Hamilton and Vettel are certainly not hurting their cases in the ongoing season. Vettel has put together a couple of very strong seasons now since joining Ferrari including 2017 and Hamilton himself has impressed. Both continue to consolidate their standing as truly great drivers and there remains time for them to continue to make a difference and showcase their talents.

I think both drivers have shown clear evolution over the last few seasons. Hamilton has really learned to manage his racing in a greater variety of ways and with more composure, and Vettel is successfully helping to lead a team himself back into a position that has promise of Championship glory. Both, however, may need to accept in the near future a tougher team-mate and it might have to happen concurrently. If one team upgrades substantially then the WCC will likely be out of reach for the other team barring a rather substantial car advantage. Right now, Bottas and Kimi kinda cancel each other out but things probably change if you switch Bottas with Ricciardo - I see Ricc as in the sort of.. half a notch below the current multiple world champs and half a notch above everyone else category, with the exception being Verstappen who might already be in the process of maturing to a level equal to that of Ricc or approaching the multiple world champs.

Poker wrote:

Invade wrote: Generally when I've read about F1, Senna is so incredibly adored and considered obviously greater than Prost or even Schumacher, yet when I take a look at Prost-Senna I'm not even sure Senna is greater/better than Prost overall. To actually understand I'd need to read far more thoroughly about their careers, their rivalry, and actually watch all or most of the races because as far as I could see Prost was just as productive as Senna in bringing home points, wins and trophies and had fantastic race pace.

This is just my opinion ! But ......
I was a Prost fan, and eventually a Senna fan. They were the yin and yang <?> of drivers at that time.
Prost "The professor", and Senna "The raw emotion of racing".

Both were probably equal as far as production, but it was how they got those results.
Prost really depended on thinking his way through a race, he was calculated, and probably ushered in the more technical aspect of racecraft.
Senna was raw talent, charged with emotion and pure skill.

I think Senna was the last of the pure "racers".

Both drivers were great talents, and I cannot really pick betweeen the 2 for results .. but I know my favorite became Senna because of the pureness of his racing.

Put it this way ... If I knew I needed to get across London quickly ...... If I had a day's notice, I would have Prost plan it and drive me.
If it was a right now situation, I would be throwing the keys to Senna.

That's a very poetic and fascinating way to put it and describe the differences and yet parity between the two racers. I guess though that the extra sort of thrilling, immediate and sensory nature of Senna presents a more romantic and compelling perception for most - and most of us tend to love our brilliant and otherworldly performances in sport as the ultimate expression of sporting talent and genius. In other words, there's more to it than being equally productive and that's even assuming equal conditions; it's also much about how one produces.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Hamilton as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Corrected for accuracy.

Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

And I've never eaten a pine cone, how very strange. And relevant.

...and what you're saying is relevant?