BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
User avatar
schumi7
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by schumi7 »

Oh well, I'm sure Michael won't lose any sleep over this.
米克尔 科琳娜 吉娜 米克
Keep Fighting Michael!


Ciao Jules

BrazilLastCorner2008
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by BrazilLastCorner2008 »

Some of the comments below the BBC article are embarassing. One guy claiming Schueys 7 titles are as dubious as Armstrongs TDF titles :S
2008
2014
2015
2017
2018
2019


Keep Fighting Michael

User avatar
schumi7
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by schumi7 »

BrazilLastCorner2008 wrote:Some of the comments below the BBC article are embarassing. One guy claiming Schueys 7 titles are as dubious as Armstrongs TDF titles :S

:lol: Oh dear
米克尔 科琳娜 吉娜 米克
Keep Fighting Michael!


Ciao Jules

User avatar
flavio81
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:56 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by flavio81 »

For me Prost is numero UNO. At least if we consider drivers of 1980-present.

#2 you can put Lauda, Schumacher, Senna, any one you like, i'm fine with it. I'd personally choose Lauda. Sometimes i'd even consider Lauda should rank above Prost.

Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993. In 1994 Senna was regularly phoning Prost and telling him something like "Alain, help me, this Schumacher guy gives me a lot of headaches"...

Siao7
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Siao7 »

flavio81 wrote:For me Prost is numero UNO. At least if we consider drivers of 1980-present.

#2 you can put Lauda, Schumacher, Senna, any one you like, i'm fine with it. I'd personally choose Lauda. Sometimes i'd even consider Lauda should rank above Prost.

Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993. In 1994 Senna was regularly phoning Prost and telling him something like "Alain, help me, this Schumacher guy gives me a lot of headaches"...


Never heard that before. Is there in an interview or something? Where did you hear this?

User avatar
sennafan24
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by sennafan24 »

flavio81 wrote:Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993.


Steady on Mr Anti Senna

1993 Senna tooled him with a inferior car (the Beneton was a better version of the McLaren engine wise), 1993 was the year for me where Senna proved himself the most with what he did with what he had to work with. 1992 fair enough with your point, but 1993 you must be kidding.

Senna actually said to Prost "I find it hard to be motivated against him" unless you know something I don't. By the end though by most accounts Senna respected him though.

User avatar
Bentrovato
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Bentrovato »

Senna, Prost and Schumacher are top 3 as they competed more or less in a similar era. Fangio and Clark were absolutely greats, but in a different era. Sterling Moss? I'd put him #6. This is the BBC though. They don't care about objectivity. We're British and we are going to do as we see fit. Good work .

User avatar
Laura23
Posts: 8767
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Location: London

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Laura23 »

sennafan24 wrote:
flavio81 wrote:Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993.


Steady on Mr Anti Senna

1993 Senna tooled him with a inferior car (the Beneton was a better version of the McLaren engine wise), 1993 was the year for me where Senna proved himself the most with what he did with what he had to work with. 1992 fair enough with your point, but 1993 you must be kidding.

Senna actually said to Prost "I find it hard to be motivated against him" unless you know something I don't. By the end though by most accounts Senna respected him though.

Senna was a 3xWDC and had been in F1 for nearly 10 years in 1993. Schumacher had one race win and was only in his second full season. There were meany times in races during 92 and 93 where Schumacher held his own against a much more experienced Senna. In fact in 1992 Schumacher finished ahead of Senna in the WDC, in only his first full season of F1. That's why Senna got worried, because he knew with experience Schumacher was a big big danger to him.
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...

User avatar
Dexter Morgan
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:06 am
Location: Falkirk,Scotland

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Dexter Morgan »

SchumieRules wrote:
flavio81 wrote:For me Prost is numero UNO. At least if we consider drivers of 1980-present.

#2 you can put Lauda, Schumacher, Senna, any one you like, i'm fine with it. I'd personally choose Lauda. Sometimes i'd even consider Lauda should rank above Prost.

Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993. In 1994 Senna was regularly phoning Prost and telling him something like "Alain, help me, this Schumacher guy gives me a lot of headaches"...


Steady on,Senna was phoning Prost telling him that the racing just wasn't the same without his great rival and then good friend. Senna had no need to worry about Schumacher yet he was still the fastest driver on the grid and had every pole position so far in 1994 but reliability had cost him dearly in the races.
R.I.P. Maria De Villota

maharaja
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by maharaja »

greenwizard13 wrote:When will the british press stop fighting World War II???

Every time there's a story about a German I can almost hear Churchill's speak inside my head: "...we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be...we shall never surrender..."

It was 70 years ago people. Just get over it...

It has nothing to do with the WW2. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Schummi is German. It is just English (or British) sport nationalism that you can see in any sport. If Schummi is British, the list would be: 1. Schumacher; 2. Empty.... 9. empty... 10. Clark...

But, he is not British, so Clark has to be in front of him.

Anyway, the point is that British media will never have any objectivity when it comes to these ratings. They just can't, and it is the same in all sports. In football, they are always "favorites" :uhoh: before any major international competition, and of course, they never win anything. And they never will. I used to live in Germany before I moved to London, and there is huge difference on how German media cover their sport. Of course, if you watch RTL they will be very happy if that annoying Vettel wins, but most of the time they are realistic about their chances. It is the same for football and other sports. In most of good newspapers you can read balanced reports either on F1 or on football.

In Britain, media are just not capable of any objectivity if it is about their sportsmen, and you have to accept it and let it be. At least it is interesting to watch how disappointed they are after any international football competition :twisted:

And don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against English/British sport, I am huge Hamilton's fan. I just ignore all this hype created by their media.

Zekenwolf
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Royal Wootton Bassett

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Zekenwolf »

Kolby wrote:Top three would be Ayrton Senna, Juan Manuel Fangio and Jim Clark maybe?


Without doubt and probably in that order ie #1,#2 and #3.
Vettel / Raikkonen / Button

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7797
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by dizlexik »

Laura23 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
flavio81 wrote:Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993.


Steady on Mr Anti Senna

1993 Senna tooled him with a inferior car (the Beneton was a better version of the McLaren engine wise), 1993 was the year for me where Senna proved himself the most with what he did with what he had to work with. 1992 fair enough with your point, but 1993 you must be kidding.

Senna actually said to Prost "I find it hard to be motivated against him" unless you know something I don't. By the end though by most accounts Senna respected him though.

Senna was a 3xWDC and had been in F1 for nearly 10 years in 1993. Schumacher had one race win and was only in his second full season. There were meany times in races during 92 and 93 where Schumacher held his own against a much more experienced Senna. In fact in 1992 Schumacher finished ahead of Senna in the WDC, in only his first full season of F1. That's why Senna got worried, because he knew with experience Schumacher was a big big danger to him.

:thumbup: :thumbup:
eeee

Anupam
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:36 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Anupam »

maharaja wrote:
greenwizard13 wrote:When will the british press stop fighting World War II???

Every time there's a story about a German I can almost hear Churchill's speak inside my head: "...we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be...we shall never surrender..."

It was 70 years ago people. Just get over it...

It has nothing to do with the WW2. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Schummi is German. It is just English (or British) sport nationalism that you can see in any sport. If Schummi is British, the list would be: 1. Schumacher; 2. Empty.... 9. empty... 10. Clark...

But, he is not British, so Clark has to be in front of him.

Anyway, the point is that British media will never have any objectivity when it comes to these ratings. They just can't, and it is the same in all sports. In football, they are always "favorites" :uhoh: before any major international competition, and of course, they never win anything. And they never will. I used to live in Germany before I moved to London, and there is huge difference on how German media cover their sport. Of course, if you watch RTL they will be very happy if that annoying Vettel wins, but most of the time they are realistic about their chances. It is the same for football and other sports. In most of good newspapers you can read balanced reports either on F1 or on football.

In Britain, media are just not capable of any objectivity if it is about their sportsmen, and you have to accept it and let it be. At least it is interesting to watch how disappointed they are after any international football competition :twisted:

And don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against English/British sport, I am huge Hamilton's fan. I just ignore all this hype created by their media.



Having lived in Munich/Berlin/London for a while, I *COMPLETELY* agree with you. The British media is seemingly absolutely incapable of being objective - worse still, they do this under a pretence of being totally unbiased.

Which is a shame, because the general British F1 viewers I've met are almost always a lot more open, knowledgeable, and unbiased.

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Greg92 »

SchumieRules wrote:Impressive stuff indeed, but numbers don't always show the truth. You say that he beat Lauda in the same machinery for example. Just check the Lauda DNF's that year and the two races he missed, to see what the numbers tell you. Yes he did beat Lauda, but Lauda finished only 3 races. The whole year.


In any case, it's not that Schumacher was racing against grannies on wheelchairs. He was racing against good drivers, often in much better cars. And for season after season he was near the top. Always. Never had an off-year, no matter how bad the car was. This consistency to deliver at a top level for such a lengthy period is no accident, nor a product of a weak field, nor cheating or whatever. Also, people forget that his best years were not in the 00's, but before that. Back when he didn't have the best car and he didn't win the title. The races he delivered then were beyond imagination. Prost and many other drivers were not that dominant in the "less than best" cars. Hell, Prost was sacked twice for slagging the teams he drove for, both Renault and Ferrari.


Anyway, it is almost pointless to try and separate the best drivers at this level. They were all brilliant in their own respect


Exactly. There was a long thread once about the lack of competition against Schumacher. There was another thread about today's grid being the best grid ever. I believe in both cases it's all about interpretation and relativity. Here's how I see it:

Schumacher dominated in dominant cars, won championships in good cars and won races in bad cars. Here are his full F1 season results from 1991: 14*, 3, 4, 1, 1, 3, 2**, 2, 5*, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 9, 8, 14* (* Partial season; ** Disqualified)

Controversy aside, from 1992 to 2006, Schumacher finished only twice outside the top 3 and one of them was due to missing a bunch of races in a season where he should have won the title seeing as his teammate barely missed it.

No other driver before or after has even come close to such results. So the question is, was it because Schumacher faced a weak grid, because he had great cars or because he was consistently very good?

Before answering that, I'd like to look at the other topic, is today's grid really good? The general opinion is positive about it I think. People say today's grid is one of if not THE best ever. Too many drivers and champions that can take the title any year. That's correct IMO but why is that so? Well, one answer is because there are 5-6 drivers very close to each other performance-wise. That might be correct too. But my question is, is there any one among them that can dominate? Well, certainly not Kimi who was beaten by Massa, not Hamilton who was beaten by Button, not Button who was beaten by Hamilton and at the risk of starting a new war, not even Alonso who was beaten by Hamilton all in the same cars. Despite the last one though, the only two drivers that come close to Schumacher’s domination are Alonso and Vettel at the moment. However, Vettel’s career, though promising, is still very short to draw conclusions from, without mentioning here Webber that has kept him honest. Alonso meanwhile hasn’t had quite the results Schumacher had. For comparison, here are Alonso’s F1 results to date: 23, 6, 4, 1, 1, 3, 5, 9, 2, 4, 2* (*Current season). Not too shabby but even ignoring his first season, his average finish for his next 10 seasons is 3.6 or 3.7 depending on this year’s result while Schumacher’s was 2.3 for the first 10 years including 1999 or 1.9 for the first 10 years excluding 1999. As another reference, Schumacher’s career season finish, even including the last 3 seasons is 3.5.

Now, could Alonso dominate F1 like Schumacher in better circumstances? Surely I think. Had Alonso played it better in 2007 he might have won both 2007 and 2008. He most probably would be unable to do anything about Button in 2009 but he might be able to win 2010 with some more consistency and he has a good chance to win it this year anyway.

That would make Alonso a 6 time WDC with only two seasons lost to Button in a dominant Brawn and Vettel in a dominant Red Bull. Can you imagine that alternate reality? What about Hamilton and Kimi with 0 titles? What about Vettel with only one title in a dominant car? Would you still call it the best grid ever? Would you call Alonso the greatest driver ever? Before answering, realize this, the only two WDCs alongside Alonso on the grid would be Button and Vettel the two most questioned WDCs currently and they would be ranked higher than Hamilton and Kimi, both great drivers but both title-less.

My point is that Alonso winning more championships wouldn't alter the quality of the grid but it would definitely alter our perception. So my final question is, was that the case with Schumacher? Was the grid of Schumacher, Villeneuve Jr, Hill, Hakkinen, Frentzen and Alesi as good as the grid of Alonso, Vettel, Button, Kimi, Hamilton and Webber?

Anupam
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:36 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Anupam »

Greg92 wrote:Exactly. There was a long thread once about the lack of competition against Schumacher. There was another thread about today's grid being the best grid ever. I believe in both cases it's all about interpretation and relativity. Here's how I see it:

Schumacher dominated in dominant cars, won championships in good cars and won races in bad cars. Here are his full F1 season results from 1991: 14*, 3, 4, 1, 1, 3, 2**, 2, 5*, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 9, 8, 14* (* Partial season; ** Disqualified)

Controversy aside, from 1992 to 2006, Schumacher finished only twice outside the top 3 and one of them was due to missing a bunch of races in a season where he should have won the title seeing as his teammate barely missed it.

No other driver before or after has even come close to such results. So the question is, was it because Schumacher faced a weak grid, because he had great cars or because he was consistently very good?

Before answering that, I'd like to look at the other topic, is today's grid really good? The general opinion is positive about it I think. People say today's grid is one of if not THE best ever. Too many drivers and champions that can take the title any year. That's correct IMO but why is that so? Well, one answer is because there are 5-6 drivers very close to each other performance-wise. That might be correct too. But my question is, is there any one among them that can dominate? Well, certainly not Kimi who was beaten by Massa, not Hamilton who was beaten by Button, not Button who was beaten by Hamilton and at the risk of starting a new war, not even Alonso who was beaten by Hamilton all in the same cars. Despite the last one though, the only two drivers that come close to Schumacher’s domination are Alonso and Vettel at the moment. However, Vettel’s career, though promising, is still very short to draw conclusions from, without mentioning here Webber that has kept him honest. Alonso meanwhile hasn’t had quite the results Schumacher had. For comparison, here are Alonso’s F1 results to date: 23, 6, 4, 1, 1, 3, 5, 9, 2, 4, 2* (*Current season). Not too shabby but even ignoring his first season, his average finish for his next 10 seasons is 3.6 or 3.7 depending on this year’s result while Schumacher’s was 2.3 for the first 10 years including 1999 or 1.9 for the first 10 years excluding 1999. As another reference, Schumacher’s career season finish, even including the last 3 seasons is 3.5.

Now, could Alonso dominate F1 like Schumacher in better circumstances? Surely I think. Had Alonso played it better in 2007 he might have won both 2007 and 2008. He most probably would be unable to do anything about Button in 2009 but he might be able to win 2010 with some more consistency and he has a good chance to win it this year anyway.

That would make Alonso a 6 time WDC with only two seasons lost to Button in a dominant Brawn and Vettel in a dominant Red Bull. Can you imagine that alternate reality? What about Hamilton and Kimi with 0 titles? What about Vettel with only one title in a dominant car? Would you still call it the best grid ever? Would you call Alonso the greatest driver ever? Before answering, realize this, the only two WDCs alongside Alonso on the grid would be Button and Vettel the two most questioned WDCs currently and they would be ranked higher than Hamilton and Kimi, both great drivers but both title-less.

My point is that Alonso winning more championships wouldn't alter the quality of the grid but it would definitely alter our perception. So my final question is, was that the case with Schumacher? Was the grid of Schumacher, Villeneuve Jr, Hill, Hakkinen, Frentzen and Alesi as good as the grid of Alonso, Vettel, Button, Kimi, Hamilton and Webber?



Very, very well-said. People complaining about the weak grid fail to consider the alternate possibility that maybe Schumacher was just so much better that his domination made the rest of the field look weak.

benmc
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by benmc »

Anupam wrote:Very, very well-said. People complaining about the weak grid fail to consider the alternate possibility that maybe Schumacher was just so much better that his domination made the rest of the field look weak.


Completely disagree.

No doubt that Schumacher was much better than his opposition, but his opposition was not the best. You have to look past the results and look at the drivers individual strengths and weaknesses. Some of Schumacher's opponents had small or sometimes significant weaknesses which mean they compare badly to the current drivers, or to Senna's main rivals.

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.
- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.
- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Alonso, and now Vettel, are more complete than Hakkinen was and far more complete than Hill and Villeneuve ever were. There are no real noticeable weaknesses in their driving.

Alonso has proven virtually everything there is to prove. Even when his one notable weakness (fighting with a top team-mate) was exposed, he still fought for the WDC. Otherwise, he has been a model of consistency, speed and racecraft. There were doubts about his wet weather ability but he put those to bed this season with the win in Malaysia and two pole positions in Britain and Germany.

Vettel has proven that he can be completely dominant with a car advantage seemingly much smaller than that enjoyed by Hill and Villeneuve. In doing so, he demonstrated great consistency, finishing on the podium in all but two races, and one of those came in circumstances outside of his control. This year he's put the doubts about his racecraft to bed by pulling off several impressive passes, and proved that he doesn't need the best car to be a title contender.

Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition.

That's not all - Raikkonen fought for the WDC with Schumacher in 2003 with a car that wasn't significantly superior (at all) to Schumacher's while Button has proven himself by demonstrating great consistency, ability to dominate with the right car, and giving Hamilton a strong test in the same equipment.

The current bunch aren't the greatest generation ever - They are very good but the 60s and 80s generation represent incredible benchmarks.
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

User avatar
sennafan24
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by sennafan24 »

Laura23 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
flavio81 wrote:Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993.


Steady on Mr Anti Senna

1993 Senna tooled him with a inferior car (the Beneton was a better version of the McLaren engine wise), 1993 was the year for me where Senna proved himself the most with what he did with what he had to work with. 1992 fair enough with your point, but 1993 you must be kidding.

Senna actually said to Prost "I find it hard to be motivated against him" unless you know something I don't. By the end though by most accounts Senna respected him though.

Senna was a 3xWDC and had been in F1 for nearly 10 years in 1993. Schumacher had one race win and was only in his second full season. There were meany times in races during 92 and 93 where Schumacher held his own against a much more experienced Senna. In fact in 1992 Schumacher finished ahead of Senna in the WDC, in only his first full season of F1. That's why Senna got worried, because he knew with experience Schumacher was a big big danger to him.


I actually said he did hold his own in 1992, points wise they were close with Schumi winning.

By 1993, Schumi was in a better car and you cannot tell me in year 3 he was not at least close to how good he was in 1994. If we factor in like I said that the 1993 Benetton was a better version of Senna's Mclaren and Senna beat him by over 20 points, I would not say he held his own that year.

I am not having a go at Schumi, I am actually a big fan. There is a reason why Schumi felt Senna was the best driver he ever encountered.

User avatar
Rachie_D
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Rachie_D »

SchumieRules wrote:
lonix2011 wrote:One thing I find hilarious is the uproar thats occurred on twitter and targets Andrew. Like it or not they both probably discussed it (murray and Andrew) and regardless if you like those two or not it is THEIR opinion and they are backed by facts as well. Like when Murray said at the end - shadowed by the fact he was always number 1.

And we dont know who the final 3 are and unless you watched every driver in the last 70 years of F1 then frankly tough. You may not agree with it but get over it.


Murray is pro-Schumacher. Always been and he has named him as his No 1 in the past.

Benson on the other hand is notoriously anti-Schumacher.


Make what you want from this, but the fact that Benson is the chief editor and that Schumacher ended up 4th makes me think that he had his way over Murray. This however doesn't mean that the 3 drivers left aren't supposed to be there. All top 5 for me should be there without any order if possible.


Care to answer to what people asked you above?


I'm sure I read that it was all the people working on the F1 team did their top drivers and it was worked out like that! If that's the case then it's not one opinion it's the whole BBC getting it wrong (one way or the other according to the majority of comments on twitter) haha.
http://rachie-d18.deviantart.com/ - Where I do drawings and such.
Image

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Greg92 »

benmc wrote:
Anupam wrote:Very, very well-said. People complaining about the weak grid fail to consider the alternate possibility that maybe Schumacher was just so much better that his domination made the rest of the field look weak.


Completely disagree.

No doubt that Schumacher was much better than his opposition, but his opposition was not the best. You have to look past the results and look at the drivers individual strengths and weaknesses. Some of Schumacher's opponents had small or sometimes significant weaknesses which mean they compare badly to the current drivers, or to Senna's main rivals.

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.
- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.
- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Alonso, and now Vettel, are more complete than Hakkinen was and far more complete than Hill and Villeneuve ever were. There are no real noticeable weaknesses in their driving.

Alonso has proven virtually everything there is to prove. Even when his one notable weakness (fighting with a top team-mate) was exposed, he still fought for the WDC. Otherwise, he has been a model of consistency, speed and racecraft. There were doubts about his wet weather ability but he put those to bed this season with the win in Malaysia and two pole positions in Britain and Germany.

Vettel has proven that he can be completely dominant with a car advantage seemingly much smaller than that enjoyed by Hill and Villeneuve. In doing so, he demonstrated great consistency, finishing on the podium in all but two races, and one of those came in circumstances outside of his control. This year he's put the doubts about his racecraft to bed by pulling off several impressive passes, and proved that he doesn't need the best car to be a title contender.

Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition.

That's not all - Raikkonen fought for the WDC with Schumacher in 2003 with a car that wasn't significantly superior (at all) to Schumacher's while Button has proven himself by demonstrating great consistency, ability to dominate with the right car, and giving Hamilton a strong test in the same equipment.

The current bunch aren't the greatest generation ever - They are very good but the 60s and 80s generation represent incredible benchmarks.


I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion of the drivers but I can't help feeling that you're intentionally representing them negatively or positively to suit your argument. For example:

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.

Well, doesn't that sound a bit familiar with Hamilton as well? Exceptional driver, very talented but also too error prone.

- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.

Not much different from Button, is it? Wasn't Button slated this year for his run of poor results? Wasn't he also ridiculed for his poor results in the second half of 2009 when Brawn started falling behind and Barrichello did better than him?

- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Not much different from Kimi either. If you think about it, they had pretty similar styles, very fast when on the lead, not brilliant in the wet and not exceptional strategy-wise.

Besides this, there's this other gem: "Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition."

Interesting because by the same token, Alonso has never proven himself against such tough opposition. When I said that you're intentionally representing them differently to suit your argument, this is exactly what I had in mind. You mention this as a weakness for Alonso but go on to finish his expose in a high note, how he fought for the WDC, has been consistent etc and even say that he proved naysayers wrong about his wet weather skills this year with his win in Malaysia when he did nothing exceptional in the wet (tell me, how many people did he pass in the wet to get from 10th to first?). However, when it comes to Schumacher, the only thing you say about him is that he never proved himself against such a tough opposition. Nothing about him consistently challenging for the championship? Nothing about him being probably the best ever in the rain or up there on the top anyway?

I'm not saying the grid of 90s was better than the grid of the next decade but I don't see much difference between them either to convince me that the current one is much better. The question is who's going to be your measuring stick. Schumacher proved to be head and shoulders above his competition. Maybe he was too good, maybe his competition was too weak. But which driver has been the equivalent of Schumacher in the new era? No one, because no one has been able to dominate or compete at such a high level. Vettel's career as I said seems promising to do just so but is still too short while Alonso hasn't been able to come very close to it. But assuming it's Alonso for some resemblances, why hasn't he dominated? Maybe this grid is too strong or maybe Alonso isn't too good. After all, let's not forget that just like Schumacher, Alonso is still unproven against a strong teammate.

nani
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:05 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by nani »

Greg92 wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:Impressive stuff indeed, but numbers don't always show the truth. You say that he beat Lauda in the same machinery for example. Just check the Lauda DNF's that year and the two races he missed, to see what the numbers tell you. Yes he did beat Lauda, but Lauda finished only 3 races. The whole year.


In any case, it's not that Schumacher was racing against grannies on wheelchairs. He was racing against good drivers, often in much better cars. And for season after season he was near the top. Always. Never had an off-year, no matter how bad the car was. This consistency to deliver at a top level for such a lengthy period is no accident, nor a product of a weak field, nor cheating or whatever. Also, people forget that his best years were not in the 00's, but before that. Back when he didn't have the best car and he didn't win the title. The races he delivered then were beyond imagination. Prost and many other drivers were not that dominant in the "less than best" cars. Hell, Prost was sacked twice for slagging the teams he drove for, both Renault and Ferrari.


Anyway, it is almost pointless to try and separate the best drivers at this level. They were all brilliant in their own respect


Exactly. There was a long thread once about the lack of competition against Schumacher. There was another thread about today's grid being the best grid ever. I believe in both cases it's all about interpretation and relativity. Here's how I see it:

Schumacher dominated in dominant cars, won championships in good cars and won races in bad cars. Here are his full F1 season results from 1991: 14*, 3, 4, 1, 1, 3, 2**, 2, 5*, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 9, 8, 14* (* Partial season; ** Disqualified)

Controversy aside, from 1992 to 2006, Schumacher finished only twice outside the top 3 and one of them was due to missing a bunch of races in a season where he should have won the title seeing as his teammate barely missed it.

No other driver before or after has even come close to such results. So the question is, was it because Schumacher faced a weak grid, because he had great cars or because he was consistently very good?

Before answering that, I'd like to look at the other topic, is today's grid really good? The general opinion is positive about it I think. People say today's grid is one of if not THE best ever. Too many drivers and champions that can take the title any year. That's correct IMO but why is that so? Well, one answer is because there are 5-6 drivers very close to each other performance-wise. That might be correct too. But my question is, is there any one among them that can dominate? Well, certainly not Kimi who was beaten by Massa, not Hamilton who was beaten by Button, not Button who was beaten by Hamilton and at the risk of starting a new war, not even Alonso who was beaten by Hamilton all in the same cars. Despite the last one though, the only two drivers that come close to Schumacher’s domination are Alonso and Vettel at the moment. However, Vettel’s career, though promising, is still very short to draw conclusions from, without mentioning here Webber that has kept him honest. Alonso meanwhile hasn’t had quite the results Schumacher had. For comparison, here are Alonso’s F1 results to date: 23, 6, 4, 1, 1, 3, 5, 9, 2, 4, 2* (*Current season). Not too shabby but even ignoring his first season, his average finish for his next 10 seasons is 3.6 or 3.7 depending on this year’s result while Schumacher’s was 2.3 for the first 10 years including 1999 or 1.9 for the first 10 years excluding 1999. As another reference, Schumacher’s career season finish, even including the last 3 seasons is 3.5.

Now, could Alonso dominate F1 like Schumacher in better circumstances? Surely I think. Had Alonso played it better in 2007 he might have won both 2007 and 2008. He most probably would be unable to do anything about Button in 2009 but he might be able to win 2010 with some more consistency and he has a good chance to win it this year anyway.

That would make Alonso a 6 time WDC with only two seasons lost to Button in a dominant Brawn and Vettel in a dominant Red Bull. Can you imagine that alternate reality? What about Hamilton and Kimi with 0 titles? What about Vettel with only one title in a dominant car? Would you still call it the best grid ever? Would you call Alonso the greatest driver ever? Before answering, realize this, the only two WDCs alongside Alonso on the grid would be Button and Vettel the two most questioned WDCs currently and they would be ranked higher than Hamilton and Kimi, both great drivers but both title-less.

My point is that Alonso winning more championships wouldn't alter the quality of the grid but it would definitely alter our perception. So my final question is, was that the case with Schumacher? Was the grid of Schumacher, Villeneuve Jr, Hill, Hakkinen, Frentzen and Alesi as good as the grid of Alonso, Vettel, Button, Kimi, Hamilton and Webber?


i have the same feeling, but couldn't put into words. Very well said, deserve noble prize for this.

User avatar
diego
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:48 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by diego »

BrazilLastCorner2008 wrote:Some of the comments below the BBC article are embarassing. One guy claiming Schueys 7 titles are as dubious as Armstrongs TDF titles :S

Hahahahaha! Now I have heard it all. :lol:

callMEcrazy
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:16 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by callMEcrazy »

Greg92 wrote:
benmc wrote:
Anupam wrote:Very, very well-said. People complaining about the weak grid fail to consider the alternate possibility that maybe Schumacher was just so much better that his domination made the rest of the field look weak.


Completely disagree.

No doubt that Schumacher was much better than his opposition, but his opposition was not the best. You have to look past the results and look at the drivers individual strengths and weaknesses. Some of Schumacher's opponents had small or sometimes significant weaknesses which mean they compare badly to the current drivers, or to Senna's main rivals.

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.
- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.
- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Alonso, and now Vettel, are more complete than Hakkinen was and far more complete than Hill and Villeneuve ever were. There are no real noticeable weaknesses in their driving.

Alonso has proven virtually everything there is to prove. Even when his one notable weakness (fighting with a top team-mate) was exposed, he still fought for the WDC. Otherwise, he has been a model of consistency, speed and racecraft. There were doubts about his wet weather ability but he put those to bed this season with the win in Malaysia and two pole positions in Britain and Germany.

Vettel has proven that he can be completely dominant with a car advantage seemingly much smaller than that enjoyed by Hill and Villeneuve. In doing so, he demonstrated great consistency, finishing on the podium in all but two races, and one of those came in circumstances outside of his control. This year he's put the doubts about his racecraft to bed by pulling off several impressive passes, and proved that he doesn't need the best car to be a title contender.

Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition.

That's not all - Raikkonen fought for the WDC with Schumacher in 2003 with a car that wasn't significantly superior (at all) to Schumacher's while Button has proven himself by demonstrating great consistency, ability to dominate with the right car, and giving Hamilton a strong test in the same equipment.

The current bunch aren't the greatest generation ever - They are very good but the 60s and 80s generation represent incredible benchmarks.


I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion of the drivers but I can't help feeling that you're intentionally representing them negatively or positively to suit your argument. For example:

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.

Well, doesn't that sound a bit familiar with Hamilton as well? Exceptional driver, very talented but also too error prone.

- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.

Not much different from Button, is it? Wasn't Button slated this year for his run of poor results? Wasn't he also ridiculed for his poor results in the second half of 2009 when Brawn started falling behind and Barrichello did better than him?

- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Not much different from Kimi either. If you think about it, they had pretty similar styles, very fast when on the lead, not brilliant in the wet and not exceptional strategy-wise.

Besides this, there's this other gem: "Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition."

Interesting because by the same token, Alonso has never proven himself against such tough opposition. When I said that you're intentionally representing them differently to suit your argument, this is exactly what I had in mind. You mention this as a weakness for Alonso but go on to finish his expose in a high note, how he fought for the WDC, has been consistent etc and even say that he proved naysayers wrong about his wet weather skills this year with his win in Malaysia when he did nothing exceptional in the wet (tell me, how many people did he pass in the wet to get from 10th to first?). However, when it comes to Schumacher, the only thing you say about him is that he never proved himself against such a tough opposition. Nothing about him consistently challenging for the championship? Nothing about him being probably the best ever in the rain or up there on the top anyway?

I'm not saying the grid of 90s was better than the grid of the next decade but I don't see much difference between them either to convince me that the current one is much better. The question is who's going to be your measuring stick. Schumacher proved to be head and shoulders above his competition. Maybe he was too good, maybe his competition was too weak. But which driver has been the equivalent of Schumacher in the new era? No one, because no one has been able to dominate or compete at such a high level. Vettel's career as I said seems promising to do just so but is still too short while Alonso hasn't been able to come very close to it. But assuming it's Alonso for some resemblances, why hasn't he dominated? Maybe this grid is too strong or maybe Alonso isn't too good. After all, let's not forget that just like Schumacher, Alonso is still unproven against a strong teammate.


The comparison between Hill and Hamilton is probably fair. They made a few mistakes. But Schumacher never faced many good drivers at a time. These days you got Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Button and Kimi. All of them are high class. Schumacher never had to face for than 2 good drivers at a time. You can say Alonso failed his acid test against Hamilton but Schumacher never even took that test and retired when Ferrari tried to force him to.

#4 seems right for Schumacher to me. He deserves all the success he got but the fact is his stats were born of some exceptional circumstances and you can't (or shouldn't) put him at #1 just because of them.
Image

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Zoue »

Greg92 wrote:
benmc wrote:
Anupam wrote:Very, very well-said. People complaining about the weak grid fail to consider the alternate possibility that maybe Schumacher was just so much better that his domination made the rest of the field look weak.


Completely disagree.

No doubt that Schumacher was much better than his opposition, but his opposition was not the best. You have to look past the results and look at the drivers individual strengths and weaknesses. Some of Schumacher's opponents had small or sometimes significant weaknesses which mean they compare badly to the current drivers, or to Senna's main rivals.

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.
- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.
- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Alonso, and now Vettel, are more complete than Hakkinen was and far more complete than Hill and Villeneuve ever were. There are no real noticeable weaknesses in their driving.

Alonso has proven virtually everything there is to prove. Even when his one notable weakness (fighting with a top team-mate) was exposed, he still fought for the WDC. Otherwise, he has been a model of consistency, speed and racecraft. There were doubts about his wet weather ability but he put those to bed this season with the win in Malaysia and two pole positions in Britain and Germany.

Vettel has proven that he can be completely dominant with a car advantage seemingly much smaller than that enjoyed by Hill and Villeneuve. In doing so, he demonstrated great consistency, finishing on the podium in all but two races, and one of those came in circumstances outside of his control. This year he's put the doubts about his racecraft to bed by pulling off several impressive passes, and proved that he doesn't need the best car to be a title contender.

Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition.

That's not all - Raikkonen fought for the WDC with Schumacher in 2003 with a car that wasn't significantly superior (at all) to Schumacher's while Button has proven himself by demonstrating great consistency, ability to dominate with the right car, and giving Hamilton a strong test in the same equipment.

The current bunch aren't the greatest generation ever - They are very good but the 60s and 80s generation represent incredible benchmarks.


I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion of the drivers but I can't help feeling that you're intentionally representing them negatively or positively to suit your argument. For example:

- Hill was very fast and some of his best drives (Suzuka '94, Hungary '97) were simply exceptional, but he was too error prone in comparison to the current top drivers.

Well, doesn't that sound a bit familiar with Hamilton as well? Exceptional driver, very talented but also too error prone.

- Villeneuve was superb at his best (see his Indy 500 win for proof) but he struggled to get the maximum out of the car on a regular basis, which meant that even when he had a clear car advantage, he struggled to win the WDC.

Not much different from Button, is it? Wasn't Button slated this year for his run of poor results? Wasn't he also ridiculed for his poor results in the second half of 2009 when Brawn started falling behind and Barrichello did better than him?

- Hakkinen was an exceptional driver, much better than Damon and JV, though he wasn't brilliant in the wet and seemed like he was more comfortable when controlling a race from the front.

Not much different from Kimi either. If you think about it, they had pretty similar styles, very fast when on the lead, not brilliant in the wet and not exceptional strategy-wise.

Besides this, there's this other gem: "Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition."

Interesting because by the same token, Alonso has never proven himself against such tough opposition. When I said that you're intentionally representing them differently to suit your argument, this is exactly what I had in mind. You mention this as a weakness for Alonso but go on to finish his expose in a high note, how he fought for the WDC, has been consistent etc and even say that he proved naysayers wrong about his wet weather skills this year with his win in Malaysia when he did nothing exceptional in the wet (tell me, how many people did he pass in the wet to get from 10th to first?). However, when it comes to Schumacher, the only thing you say about him is that he never proved himself against such a tough opposition. Nothing about him consistently challenging for the championship? Nothing about him being probably the best ever in the rain or up there on the top anyway?

I'm not saying the grid of 90s was better than the grid of the next decade but I don't see much difference between them either to convince me that the current one is much better. The question is who's going to be your measuring stick. Schumacher proved to be head and shoulders above his competition. Maybe he was too good, maybe his competition was too weak. But which driver has been the equivalent of Schumacher in the new era? No one, because no one has been able to dominate or compete at such a high level. Vettel's career as I said seems promising to do just so but is still too short while Alonso hasn't been able to come very close to it. But assuming it's Alonso for some resemblances, why hasn't he dominated? Maybe this grid is too strong or maybe Alonso isn't too good. After all, let's not forget that just like Schumacher, Alonso is still unproven against a strong teammate.

Some interesting points.

I agree with you that perception has a big influence on the way we define great drivers, but that only reinforces my opinion of the drivers of the 80s, 90s and the current crop. After Senna died the perception of the time was that there was a bit of a void with regards talent as he was the last of the "greats" of recent history still driving. The 80s and very early 90s caught people's imagination with the constant battles for supremacy between Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Senna and Mansell. At the time they were acknowledged as far ahead of the rest of the field. With Senna gone, people looked around for someone to carry the baton and Schumacher emerged as the most exciting contender.

The thing is, he was pretty much the only one. Hill, JV and the others emerged as possible challengers to Michael's crown but really only because there was nobody else. They may well have been competent drivers, but I really don't remember people talking about them in the same way as the legends mentioned above. Hill got some press in the UK but largely because he was British and it was more a sense of desperation to re-imagine old battles, and it just wasn't the same. There just wasn't the number of genuinely exciting challengers that we were used to. So I do think that the 90s was not the most competitive of eras, largely because I remember the perceptions of the time

Zekenwolf
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Royal Wootton Bassett

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Zekenwolf »

Anupam wrote: The British media is seemingly absolutely incapable of being objective - worse still, they do this under a pretence of being totally unbiased.Which is a shame, because the general British F1 viewers I've met are almost always a lot more open, knowledgeable, and unbiased.


I have to agree with this 100%. One of the most pathetic examples of that is Tom Cary, the F1 correspondant for the Daily Telegraph. His reviews are poor, uninteresting and biased and yet he pretends as though no one realises the fact.

Furthermore, it is difficult to compare one era with another. Drivers in the long past got away with a lot that a contemporary driver cannot even dream of. Media those days had very limited coverage and a lot of things that happened behind the scenes never became public. These days, if a driver sneezes in the wrong place, he can risk a scandal.

Tahke Fangio for example. Undoubtedly one of the all time great drivers but he was anything but the gentleman that he has often been described as in many posts. Fangio did pretty much as he liked and never hesitated to blackmail his own team to get what he wanted - and he almost invariably had the best machine available. This article http://www.sportscars.tv/Newfiles/jackiestewart.html is interesting. It is mainly about Jackie Stewart, but it throws some light about our slightly warped views about F1 drivers of a bygone era, including Fangio.
Vettel / Raikkonen / Button

Fiki
Posts: 8249
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Fiki »

Zekenwolf wrote: Tahke Fangio for example. Undoubtedly one of the all time great drivers but he was anything but the gentleman that he has often been described as in many posts. Fangio did pretty much as he liked and never hesitated to blackmail his own team to get what he wanted - and he almost invariably had the best machine available. This article http://www.sportscars.tv/Newfiles/jackiestewart.html is interesting. It is mainly about Jackie Stewart, but it throws some light about our slightly warped views about F1 drivers of a bygone era, including Fangio.
Thanks for posting that article. I' m going to re-read it again soon, but this really struck me:
It reached the point where he (Stewart) was often reproached for having "desanctified" and demythified the Champion. And it's true that, if he succeeded in becoming a star, Jackie Stewart never built himself a legend. He's a chap who does his job admirably, a "pro" who is the best in his speciality. But no statue. In this respect, without any doubt, he did not know how to raise himself to the rank of an idol, to which Fangio and Clark acceded without even trying: the one because, as a mature and simple man, he fascinated the public by his tranquil, natural, peasant force and equanimity; the other because, as a young man touched by grace, he seemed to accomplish the greatest exploits with stupefying ease, as though it was the most natural thing in the world, and because he sought happiness more than glory or power in racing. This is all much too sketchy, of course, and almost a caricature. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it explains why Stewart, the model professional, in drawing admiration, has not inspired sympathy.

I wonder how this writer/observer views Schumacher.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

XploZiV
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by XploZiV »

flavio81 wrote:For me Prost is numero UNO. At least if we consider drivers of 1980-present.

#2 you can put Lauda, Schumacher, Senna, any one you like, i'm fine with it. I'd personally choose Lauda. Sometimes i'd even consider Lauda should rank above Prost.

Schumi did more or less prove himself against Senna in 1992 and 1993. In 1994 Senna was regularly phoning Prost and telling him something like "Alain, help me, this Schumacher guy gives me a lot of headaches"...


Senna phoned Prost regularly after 1993 and up until his accident in 1994. It was about his motivation, the ill-handling Williams, the safety of the drivers and that he had concerns that Benetton were using illegal devices (TC). Not exactly so much how you make it seem.

And this was said and confirmed by Prost and Sir Frank as footage used for the Senna movie.
-Ayrton Senna fan-

2013 follower of :

Fernando Alonso

lonix2011
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:41 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by lonix2011 »

Anupam wrote:
maharaja wrote:Having lived in Munich/Berlin/London for a while, I *COMPLETELY* agree with you. The British media is seemingly absolutely incapable of being objective - worse still, they do this under a pretence of being totally unbiased.

Which is a shame, because the general British F1 viewers I've met are almost always a lot more open, knowledgeable, and unbiased.


And having lived in Germany and Spain I can tell you the British press are no different in fact I consider Germany and Spain far worse. When the likes of Alonso/MSC did things wrong the press from those nations said nothing and at times claimed their drivers were victims. When British sportsman do anything wrong even look at another woman they are branded as pigs (some times worse) they are also shot down and treated badly.

You have absolutely no clue about the works of the Press, the British press actually enjoy one thing more than a hero and that is a hero that can be taken down. Germany's press branded MSC as a god and nothing less, when he did things wrong it was everyone elses fault. It wasnt until he rammed JV that they finally admitted he was a danger on the track and even then some claimed to defend him saying he was "Closing" the gap.

As again for the British press, the British press has given the likes of MSC/Alonso massive respect over the years in fact there have been articles to congratulate them on their drives. Even given MSC great praise for returning to the sport and cheer when he was aiming for podium places. (never mind that because the brit press hates MSC..... cough). Even after the fiasco of 2007 Alonso has been considered as the best driver by the british press but again never mind that...
Each time a British driver does something wrong aka Lewis last season he was treated very badly - never mind that either...

Get over your self and the stupid british press you tend to read what you want and ignore the actual facts. I have heard "British Press" a lot especially on this forum and I have yet to see ANY evidence. In fact if I showed the evidence of British press going mad at our own sportsman and giving praise to non Brits - it would be a long list. You only have to look at how we treat our own football team to see the actual truth.

Think you need to seriously open your eyes and look at facts.

benmc
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by benmc »

Greg92 wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion of the drivers but I can't help feeling that you're intentionally representing them negatively or positively to suit your argument.

I have better things to do with my time than to twist things in a negative way on an internet forum. I say it because it's what I believe I have seen. I see major weaknesses in some of Schumacher's opponents that I don't see in the top drivers of today, or the 1980s.

Greg92 wrote:(Regarding Hill) Well, doesn't that sound a bit familiar with Hamilton as well? Exceptional driver, very talented but also too error prone.

(Regarding JV) Not much different from Button, is it? Wasn't Button slated this year for his run of poor results? Wasn't he also ridiculed for his poor results in the second half of 2009 when Brawn started falling behind and Barrichello did better than him?

(Regarding Hakkinen) Not much different from Kimi either. If you think about it, they had pretty similar styles, very fast when on the lead, not brilliant in the wet and not exceptional strategy-wise.

1. Those are definitely traits that Damon and Lewis have in common. What I will say is that Hill appeared to have a car capable of fighting for the WDC every year he was at Williams, which is not really something I would say for Hamilton's cars from 2009-2011. And then this year when he did have the car, he was bitten by misfortune at every other race. Also, Hamilton has been partnered by two WDC team-mates for four of his six years.

Damon earned his position at the top by comparing well to Prost in '93. But if I'm comparing Damon to Jenson and Alonso then I have to say that while Damon was very fast, Jenson is much more consistent and for that reason alone I'd rate Jenson better. And then I'd rate Alonso higher than Jenson. The fact that Hamilton not only took on such strong opposition, but actually beat them, is IMO an indicator of his ability compared to Hill.

2. Ummm... Yes. A lot different from Button. When Button had the clear best car in 2009, he dominated Grands Prix on a consistent basis. JV didn't do that. He had quite a few Grands Prix where he just vanished and really underperformed, even with a great car. As you admit, Button's performances fell away when the car fell away. Alongside Hamilton, he has proven that he can put in good performances on a consistent basis and win races almost as often as Hamilton in equal equipment. The run of poor results he had this year are really the exception rather than the norm.

3. Agreed. I think Hakkinen was a bit better than Kimi, although I feel Kimi had exceptional all-round racecraft. I just don't think Hakkinen was quite as complete as Alonso and Vettel now. Very close though.

Greg92 wrote:Besides this, there's this other gem: "Hamilton too is up there - He has shown at times that he struggles when the pressure is on, but has proved himself by beating fellow WDCs Alonso and Button in equal equipment - Schumacher never proved himself against such tough opposition."

Interesting because by the same token, Alonso has never proven himself against such tough opposition. When I said that you're intentionally representing them differently to suit your argument, this is exactly what I had in mind. You mention this as a weakness for Alonso but go on to finish his expose in a high note, how he fought for the WDC, has been consistent etc and even say that he proved naysayers wrong about his wet weather skills this year with his win in Malaysia when he did nothing exceptional in the wet (tell me, how many people did he pass in the wet to get from 10th to first?). However, when it comes to Schumacher, the only thing you say about him is that he never proved himself against such a tough opposition. Nothing about him consistently challenging for the championship? Nothing about him being probably the best ever in the rain or up there on the top anyway?

1. How on earth can you say Alonso never proved himself against tough opposition when he was Hamilton's team-mate?
You mean he is 'unproven' merely because he lost the points battle? I'm sorry, but no. If we want to say that about Alonso then we might as well completely dismiss Button and Webber as unproven because they couldn't beat Hamilton and Vettel.
My point about Alonso is that when a psychological weakness was exposed, his on track performances were not affected so much. And that is a testament to how complete he is. In fact, when both drivers finished GPs, Alonso was ahead of Hamilton more often than not.
Just because Schumacher didn't take on top drivers doesn't mean he was unproven. It simply means that he didn't establish his ability relative to other greats, like Senna and Prost did. Whether that makes him a lesser driver than Senna and Prost is down to your opinion - Personally, I don't think it does. But some would disagree, which I accept.

2. Tell me how many people Vettel passed in the wet at Monza 2008. Then tell me how that drive was not exceptional.
They were basically the same kind of drive: Victories in slower cars in wet weather. Alonso made a couple of passes however. One was Webber at the restart, another was Perez, though Perez had just come out of the pits on cold tyres.

3. I don't need to say anything about Schumacher. His achievements speak for themselves. See my earlier post addressing Senna's death and the way it affected Schumacher's legacy. I have no doubt that Schumacher is in the 'Greatest ever' conversation. I think he might be the most complete driver F1 has ever seen. But the relatively weak opposition he competed against will always affect perceptions of him, whether you disagree with said perceptions or not.

Greg92 wrote:I'm not saying the grid of 90s was better than the grid of the next decade but I don't see much difference between them either to convince me that the current one is much better. The question is who's going to be your measuring stick. Schumacher proved to be head and shoulders above his competition. Maybe he was too good, maybe his competition was too weak. But which driver has been the equivalent of Schumacher in the new era? No one, because no one has been able to dominate or compete at such a high level. Vettel's career as I said seems promising to do just so but is still too short while Alonso hasn't been able to come very close to it. But assuming it's Alonso for some resemblances, why hasn't he dominated? Maybe this grid is too strong or maybe Alonso isn't too good. After all, let's not forget that just like Schumacher, Alonso is still unproven against a strong teammate.

This just reads like 'Nobody has established dominance, therefore they are all relatively weak'. That's a bit like saying Federer isn't one of the best tennis players ever because he couldn't maintain his dominance when Nadal and Djokovic (and now possibly Murray) peaked.

Perhaps that isn't your point. But to ask which driver has been the equivalent of Schumacher is a bad question to ask me. A driver doesn't need to be dominant to show greatness, and I never claimed that there was anybody on the current grid as good as Schumacher anyway.
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

Siao7
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Siao7 »

lonix2011 wrote:
Anupam wrote:
maharaja wrote:Having lived in Munich/Berlin/London for a while, I *COMPLETELY* agree with you. The British media is seemingly absolutely incapable of being objective - worse still, they do this under a pretence of being totally unbiased.

Which is a shame, because the general British F1 viewers I've met are almost always a lot more open, knowledgeable, and unbiased.


And having lived in Germany and Spain I can tell you the British press are no different in fact I consider Germany and Spain far worse. When the likes of Alonso/MSC did things wrong the press from those nations said nothing and at times claimed their drivers were victims. When British sportsman do anything wrong even look at another woman they are branded as pigs (some times worse) they are also shot down and treated badly.

You have absolutely no clue about the works of the Press, the British press actually enjoy one thing more than a hero and that is a hero that can be taken down. Germany's press branded MSC as a god and nothing less, when he did things wrong it was everyone elses fault. It wasnt until he rammed JV that they finally admitted he was a danger on the track and even then some claimed to defend him saying he was "Closing" the gap.

As again for the British press, the British press has given the likes of MSC/Alonso massive respect over the years in fact there have been articles to congratulate them on their drives. Even given MSC great praise for returning to the sport and cheer when he was aiming for podium places. (never mind that because the brit press hates MSC..... cough). Even after the fiasco of 2007 Alonso has been considered as the best driver by the british press but again never mind that...
Each time a British driver does something wrong aka Lewis last season he was treated very badly - never mind that either...

Get over your self and the stupid british press you tend to read what you want and ignore the actual facts. I have heard "British Press" a lot especially on this forum and I have yet to see ANY evidence. In fact if I showed the evidence of British press going mad at our own sportsman and giving praise to non Brits - it would be a long list. You only have to look at how we treat our own football team to see the actual truth.

Think you need to seriously open your eyes and look at facts.


I can agree with this. The British press is a strange one. They love to hyper someone, then they love even more to tear them to shreds...

benmc
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by benmc »

Zoue wrote:Some interesting points.

I agree with you that perception has a big influence on the way we define great drivers, but that only reinforces my opinion of the drivers of the 80s, 90s and the current crop. After Senna died the perception of the time was that there was a bit of a void with regards talent as he was the last of the "greats" of recent history still driving. The 80s and very early 90s caught people's imagination with the constant battles for supremacy between Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Senna and Mansell. At the time they were acknowledged as far ahead of the rest of the field. With Senna gone, people looked around for someone to carry the baton and Schumacher emerged as the most exciting contender.

The thing is, he was pretty much the only one. Hill, JV and the others emerged as possible challengers to Michael's crown but really only because there was nobody else. They may well have been competent drivers, but I really don't remember people talking about them in the same way as the legends mentioned above. Hill got some press in the UK but largely because he was British and it was more a sense of desperation to re-imagine old battles, and it just wasn't the same. There just wasn't the number of genuinely exciting challengers that we were used to. So I do think that the 90s was not the most competitive of eras, largely because I remember the perceptions of the time


Exactly! A big part of emerging at the top in F1 is being in the right position at the right time. That is true for many drivers, including Hill and Villeneuve.
That doesn't mean Hill and JV did not deserve their positions at the top of the sport. Hill earned his position by holding his own against Prost during 1993 and then by leading the Williams team into a title fight in the tough months after Senna's death. Villeneuve earned his position by winning the Indy 500 from two laps down (the Indy 505) and then fighting for wins alongside Hill from his very first race.
However, I completely agree that Senna was the last of the greats at that time and the only great to emerge afterwards was Schumacher. Hakkinen was very very good but he was no Prost and arguably no Piquet either.
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

User avatar
Blake
Posts: 6820
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA
Contact:

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Blake »

lonix2011 wrote:
Get over your self and the stupid british press you tend to read what you want and ignore the actual facts. I have heard "British Press" a lot especially on this forum and I have yet to see ANY evidence. In fact if I showed the evidence of British press going mad at our own sportsman and giving praise to non Brits - it would be a long list. You only have to look at how we treat our own football team to see the actual truth.

Think you need to seriously open your eyes and look at facts.


Ah, yes... the unbiased British press. How dumb of anybody else to not realize that. Of course, the press in other countries NEVER criticize their heroes... because they are all forgiving and blindered. But the British press... an example for all of how to look at your heroes in a totally unbiased way, never make excuses or pump up a 'local'...

Of course you have yet to see "ANY evidence". And you most likely never will, no matter how much it might be right in front of your eyes. I am not going to get into a swimming pool contest with you over this as it would change nothing about how you see things, but trust me, there is bias in every media, no matter what country, and only the most naive of fans would think otherwise, ionix.
;)
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

lonix2011
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:41 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by lonix2011 »

Blake wrote:
lonix2011 wrote:
Get over your self and the stupid british press you tend to read what you want and ignore the actual facts. I have heard "British Press" a lot especially on this forum and I have yet to see ANY evidence. In fact if I showed the evidence of British press going mad at our own sportsman and giving praise to non Brits - it would be a long list. You only have to look at how we treat our own football team to see the actual truth.

Think you need to seriously open your eyes and look at facts.


Ah, yes... the unbiased British press. How dumb of anybody else to not realize that. Of course, the press in other countries NEVER criticize their heroes... because they are all forgiving and blindered. But the British press... an example for all of how to look at your heroes in a totally unbiased way, never make excuses or pump up a 'local'...

Of course you have yet to see "ANY evidence". And you most likely never will, no matter how much it might be right in front of your eyes. I am not going to get into a swimming pool contest with you over this as it would change nothing about how you see things, but trust me, there is bias in every media, no matter what country, and only the most naive of fans would think otherwise, ionix.
;)

Cough enough said really.

sandyf1
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:10 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by sandyf1 »

An interesting example of the "unbiased" british press http://www.google.com/gwt/x?hl=en&u=htt ... eb&q=Byron young michael schumacher&sa=X&ei=hfuHUKmeFInS2QXPyoHoBg&ved=0CBoQFjAA
Wonder how many german f1 journo's would have put jim clark out of their top10 list.

ob1kenobi.23
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 11:47 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by ob1kenobi.23 »

Dexter Morgan wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Dexter Morgan wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:Personally, I rate Prost well ahead if Schumacher.

Prost beat team mates Lauda & Senna head to head. Same team, no team orders, no dodgy car innuendo. Schumacher never achieved this.

e]

He never really raced Prost as in 1993 Prost was all but guaranteed that title with the car he had. In 1993 Senna's McLaren was a complete dog and we were robbed of Senna vs Schumacher for the title in 1994 by Ayrtons death. Had Senna lived on and Williams had sorted their reliability issues I think he would've taken the 1994 championship.


The first time the Benetton got traction control was for Monaco 1993 & Michael raced Alain till Alain was penalised for jumping the start.He then pulled a second a lap away from Ayrton till the car went on fire.
Mclaren claimed their active suspension & traction control was superior to the Williams while these systems were in their infancy on the Benetton as was the paddle shift gear change.
The works Ford engine had more horse power at top RPM but Ford said the customer unit had better drivability which was preferred around Monaco.
I was a huge admirer of all 3 drivers so have no axe to grind as I have followed the Sport since 1950 & was only ever a Fan of Fangio when I was quite young.
Whereas Ayrton & Alain Are rightfully regarded as legends I find the vitriol handed out to Michael to be a bit over the top.
Champions are made from something they have deep inside of them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have the skill & the will but the will must be stronger than the skill. Muhammad Ali

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Greg92 »

Trying to avoid long and boring posts I will break my reply in several posts, if you don’t mind.

benmc wrote:
Greg92 wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion of the drivers but I can't help feeling that you're intentionally representing them negatively or positively to suit your argument.

I have better things to do with my time than to twist things in a negative way on an internet forum. I say it because it's what I believe I have seen. I see major weaknesses in some of Schumacher's opponents that I don't see in the top drivers of today, or the 1980s.

I didn't say you're twisting things Ben but you've got to realize that a lot depends on the ending note and it’s exactly what you’re doing, probably unconsciously. See, there’s a difference between "Even though Hamilton was brilliant in many races he was error prone in many others" and "Even though Hamilton was error prone in many races he was brilliant in many others". They seem identical but they convey different messages, at least this is how I read them.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not accusing you of intentionally twisting facts. Just pointing out my observation. I’m pretty sure I do the same thing in my posts too.

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Greg92 »

benmc wrote:
Greg92 wrote:(Regarding Hill) Well, doesn't that sound a bit familiar with Hamilton as well? Exceptional driver, very talented but also too error prone.

(Regarding JV) Not much different from Button, is it? Wasn't Button slated this year for his run of poor results? Wasn't he also ridiculed for his poor results in the second half of 2009 when Brawn started falling behind and Barrichello did better than him?

(Regarding Hakkinen) Not much different from Kimi either. If you think about it, they had pretty similar styles, very fast when on the lead, not brilliant in the wet and not exceptional strategy-wise.

1. Those are definitely traits that Damon and Lewis have in common. What I will say is that Hill appeared to have a car capable of fighting for the WDC every year he was at Williams, which is not really something I would say for Hamilton's cars from 2009-2011. And then this year when he did have the car, he was bitten by misfortune at every other race. Also, Hamilton has been partnered by two WDC team-mates for four of his six years.

Damon earned his position at the top by comparing well to Prost in '93. But if I'm comparing Damon to Jenson and Alonso then I have to say that while Damon was very fast, Jenson is much more consistent and for that reason alone I'd rate Jenson better. And then I'd rate Alonso higher than Jenson. The fact that Hamilton not only took on such strong opposition, but actually beat them, is IMO an indicator of his ability compared to Hill.

2. Ummm... Yes. A lot different from Button. When Button had the clear best car in 2009, he dominated Grands Prix on a consistent basis. JV didn't do that. He had quite a few Grands Prix where he just vanished and really underperformed, even with a great car. As you admit, Button's performances fell away when the car fell away. Alongside Hamilton, he has proven that he can put in good performances on a consistent basis and win races almost as often as Hamilton in equal equipment. The run of poor results he had this year are really the exception rather than the norm.

3. Agreed. I think Hakkinen was a bit better than Kimi, although I feel Kimi had exceptional all-round racecraft. I just don't think Hakkinen was quite as complete as Alonso and Vettel now. Very close though.


Well, this is what I don't get about your logic. You say Hill and Hamilton had similar traits, both fast and both inconsistent. However, you go on saying that even though Hill was very fast, Button is more consistent and for this reason alone you rate Jenson better. Shouldn't you for this reason alone also rate Button better than Hamilton? Logically you should but apparently you don't because you conclude that Hamilton is better than Hill because he is better than Button who you rate better than Hill. So where's the flaw?

As for title cars, You're still doing what I said at the start, you're presenting the information in a different way for both drivers. You're focusing on the positive aspect for Hill (a title car in Williams) and a negative aspect for Hamilton (not a title car between 2009-2011). Why didn't you say that Hamilton had a title car for three years at least at McLaren but you can't say the same for Hill from 1997-1999? Or I don't know we could be fair(ish) and say that Hill had a title car between '93 - '96 but he had no chance against Prost in '93 and Benetton was much better in '95. He he only had a realistic chance in '94 and '96 and he won one of them and could have won the other too if not for an infamous corner incident. OTOH, Hamilton had a great car in '07 and '08 and he had a good chance (not too good though) in 2010 and this year. I don't see how Hill had more chances than Hamilton to win the title.

As for teammates, Hill has been partnered with some really esteemed names at Williams such as Prost, Senna and Mansell and later with Villeneuve Jr. I don't see why Hamilton being partnered with Alonso and Button is more significant.

And as for Villeneuve v. Button, Villeneuve seemed promising at the start of his career where he had the best car on the field but became a joke later in his career with poor decisions, poor performances and poor tantrums. I don’t rate Villeneuve much seeing how his career unfolded but sometimes I do wonder if he could achieve more in the right car and environment and especially if he focused more and that’s where I see the similarities between Villeneuve and Button even though their careers are quite opposite, Villeneuve started high and lingered later, Button lingered at the start and is finishing high. Both drivers seemed capable of better things at different points of their careers, both drivers seemed to make poor decisions career-wise and both drivers appeared to lack focus and ambition. The question is, could they achieve more in better cars? Button is proving that he can, Villeneuve didn’t create or get a chance to do the same.

As for Hakkinen, I’m not comparing him to Alonso or Vettel but Kimi who has a similar style. Again, both drivers showcased a similar mentality, they could be both very fast when they wanted to, the trouble is they didn’t seem to want to very often and as a consequence they even lost to lower-rated teammates.
Last edited by Greg92 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

schumilegend
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by schumilegend »

Guys what are we arguing on..This is a BBC list.. Wouldn't have expected anything different...Sorry if MS isn't in the top 2 of any greatest F1 drivers list then the list isn't credible...The difference between what he has achieved and the person closest to him is huge..You can spin it anyway you want but that requires serious talent..We can talk about others having an higher average than him namely Fangio and Clark but to sustain the averages he has over 2 decades is simply outstanding in any sport..
Sorry to say this but BBC commentators aren't the biggest fans of Schumacher because this list lacks objectivity and is clearly biased.

Retro-Virus
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:14 pm
Contact:

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Retro-Virus »

"For this writer, it was all that and more. Above all, it was a qualifying session in Argentina in 1996, when he hauled the recalcitrant Ferrari F310 onto the front row with a display of driving acrobatics that had to be seen to be believed."

Yup, that's about it.
Clark, Senna, Hamilton

User avatar
flavio81
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:56 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by flavio81 »

Zekenwolf wrote:
Anupam wrote: The British media is seemingly absolutely incapable of being objective - worse still, they do this under a pretence of being totally unbiased.Which is a shame, because the general British F1 viewers I've met are almost always a lot more open, knowledgeable, and unbiased.


I have to agree with this 100%.


Agree 100%. I'm really unimpressed. You read, for example, italian F1 journalists such as the ones from La Gazzetta dello Sport, and they are much more balanced, without pretending to be so.

User avatar
Kolby
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:27 am

Re: BBC's F1's greatest drivers: Michael Schumacher #4

Post by Kolby »

callMEcrazy wrote:
The comparison between Hill and Hamilton is probably fair. They made a few mistakes. But Schumacher never faced many good drivers at a time. These days you got Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Button and Kimi. All of them are high class. Schumacher never had to face for than 2 good drivers at a time. You can say Alonso failed his acid test against Hamilton but Schumacher never even took that test and retired when Ferrari tried to force him to.

#4 seems right for Schumacher to me. He deserves all the success he got but the fact is his stats were born of some exceptional circumstances and you can't (or shouldn't) put him at #1 just because of them.

Didn't he race like Juan and Kimi in 01 and 03? Oh btw the same can be said for Alonso then when he won 05 and 06 title with Kimi and Shumy respective being his only competitor?
Even the best of drivers crash, stay safe and be responsible!

Post Reply