What gives Moss the right to criticise Michael?

[John Turner]

Back to the start of the thread - Sir Stirling Moss gives his opinion because he is asked to; that's apart from the fact that, as a number of you have said, he is as entitled
as the rest of us to do so. I cannot comment about his character but those, like Bastinskully who thing John Surtees (yes, a very great driver)achieved far more should perhaps look passed Championships and more at the record. Interestingly, both Moss and Surtees (amongst others) fell out with Ferrari, which says more about Ferrari than it does about the drivers.

Well, my achievements in motor sport are minimal but I'm going express my opinion now!! For my money, and very definitely putting driver ethics aside, having followed motor racing for over 40 years, Michael Schumacher is both the greatest driver of his era and the second greatest of all time, ahead of Senna, Stewart, Clark , Fangio and behind, ... yes you've guessed, Moss, himself. I'll go now!

[Hungary 89]

I am not a Schmacher-Hater I just have a lack of respect for his tactics,

There is plenty of evidence that he refuses equal terms but its all circumstancial.

Jerez 1997 made me look at Adelaide 1994 with a lot more suspicion

I don't care how within the letter of the rules it is When your doing 210mph and you give someone a choice between slamming into you or leaving the track that just aint right

I openly admit we are seeing the greatest driver of his era making history by being utterly superior in almost every way but with his level of talent he could do that without all of the above.

I bet without using these unsportsman like tactics his wins tally wouldn't be greatly different to what it is now but he would have a lot more respect from me at least

[NiceGuyEddie]

I don't now. Schumacher-critics just bend over backwards to interpret every little fact as evidence of Schumacher's foul tactics. The one foul I can mention, is him causing HHF to crash in Canada '98. And that wasn't even on purpose.

It all comes across as random critizism. Just critizing in general because the guy hasn't got a friendly look on his face and he talks funny.

What gives Moss the right to criticise M Schumacher? Freedom of speech, you know, the freedom to express an opinion regardless of whether it is same or different to that held by others. I could make some comparisons but this is an F1 forum not a political one. . . .

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by Hungary 89
At the end of the day people are always over critical of people who they don't like. I don't know Stirling Moss I have never met him but it would not surprise me in the least if he does not like Micheal Schumacher because of what he has done to the sport.

His refusal to drive on equal terms with team mates, his use of team orders (Remember Moss could have been champion if it wasn't for team orders), his willingness to drive into someone rather that allow them to take the championship, His use of the one move rule when someone trys to overtake.

All these things will not sit pretty with someone of Moss' Era when sportsmanship was so important.

If I am honest I don't see why people say Micheal makes lots of mistakes I can't remember that many. But I do understand why people critisise him

I have huge respect for his raw talent but I don't like his approach to racing and I suspect I never will

I agree precisely with this. Remember that in 1958, Mike Hawthorn took the title from Moss, by one point, before being threatened with disqualification because he'd had the engine restarted after a spin. It was Moss who spoke out that he had been restarted because the car wasin the way of traffic, whcih was perfectly legitimiate in those days. In other words' Moss' ethics cost him the title.

Schumacher makes very few mistakes in races. Adelaide 94 should've been the most costly, but, as we've seen, his 'ethics' saw him take the title.

As for foul tactics, i could (and have) listed 10 highly dubious situations - Canada 1998, Austria last year, Austria 2001, Austria 2000, Austria 1997, Jerez 1997, and any number involving his teams (no other team is ever found to have broken the rules, how strange....): 1994's launch control and tampered fuel rig illegalities, France 1996, the Malaysian barge boards, and no doubt many more.

Your username is appropriate Eddie - Nice Guys always seem to like Michael, because they blind themselves to the truth. Murray Walker was the same.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
The one foul I can mention, is him causing HHF to crash in Canada '98. And that wasn't even on purpose.

I don't think anyone has suggested that this was done on purpose or was bad tactics. Most people have a problem with the tirade Michael launched against Hill for driving dangerously in the press conference (it was felt by most there that it was all a bit hypocritical).

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide

As for foul tactics, i could (and have) listed 10 highly dubious situations - Canada 1998, Austria last year, Austria 2001, Austria 2000, Austria 1997, Jerez 1997, and any number involving his teams (no other team is ever found to have broken the rules, how strange....): 1994's launch control and tampered fuel rig illegalities, France 1996, the Malaysian barge boards, and no doubt many more.

Your username is appropriate Eddie - Nice Guys always seem to like Michael, because they blind themselves to the truth.

Didn't McLaren had their points taken away in Austria 1998 or 1999 because a seal of the engine was missing?

It's easy to emphasize on the suspicous moments, but when the stakes are high, which they are in F1, if you keep digging long enough, you'll find stuff. If you the emphasize on them, it's easy to tell a different story. But a justified one? I think not. What does 10 'dubious' situations say about his performances from Spa 1991 till today on? Hardly anything. What you call dubious, is a driver hanging in there for his own interests and those of his team.

During Barcelona 1991, Senna spun off while being pressured by Mansell. It happened while entering the pitlane-straight. Senna lost the back and would've ended up near the pitwall, well away from the racingline. In stead of regrouping from there, Senna voilently drove it reverse, narrowingly missing Mansell in the proces. Senna had an interest in both he and Mansell not finishing. He did miss Mansell, allthough it wasn't by much. Would you read that as a brilliant move in order to leave the track so no other cars would get in trouble, or a move in order to run into Mansell, causing both a DNF? Answer that same question, but replace Senna with Schumacher.

Season 1994 has damaged Schumacher quite alot. Benetton acted susiciously and the FIA acted accordingly. Never was their any evidence, but the FIA managed to get Schumacher out for a total of 4 races. The tone was set. Allthough Schumacher went on to win the title and repeated that the next year, his salary at Ferrari was apparently grounds for more of the same accusative behaviour. Anything Ferrari has done since, was in order to protect their investment. That those actions coincide with Schumacher's own personal interests, does not mean it is Schumacher who is running the show in Maranello. If it was, he wouldn't have returned in 1999.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
I don't think anyone has suggested that this was done on purpose or was bad tactics. Most people have a problem with the tirade Michael launched against Hill for driving dangerously in the press conference (it was felt by most there that it was all a bit hypocritical).

Hill was swerving all the way to the chicane. Me thinks that constitutes as dangerous driving. Its 320+ there. Sure, MS pushed off HHF, but that doesn't take anything away from what Hill did. And for a gentlemandriver, Hill got it awfully wrong on numerous times. Back in 1995 even taking out MS in the process. Twice!

[Mr V]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Hill was swerving all the way to the chicane. Me thinks that constitutes as dangerous driving. Its 320+ there. Sure, MS pushed off HHF, but that doesn't take anything away from what Hill did. And for a gentlemandriver, Hill got it awfully wrong on numerous times. Back in 1995 even taking out MS in the process. Twice!

It doesn't take away what Hill did at Canada, but by launching such an attack on Damon, it meant that he was trying to hide what he did to HH-F, which was much worse.

With regards to Damon's 1995 misdemeanors, Silverstone was his fault, Monza wasn't.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Monza was definatly his fault. At this level, some backmarker shouldn't make it unable for you to judge a corner which you've taken numerous times before. Hill just drove into Schumacher. At Silverstone he tried a hopeless overtakingmanoeuvre, at Monza he simply ****ed up.

And as I said, Hill was driving dangerously in order to keep someone behind at all costs imaginable. Schumacher made a (big) mistake but was serving no purpose by doing so.

You can imagine that I have never understood how people can call Schumacher the badguy and Hill the gentlemandriver without even the blink of an eye.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by mr v
It doesn't take away what Hill did at Canada, but by launching such an attack on Damon, it meant that he was trying to hide what he did to HH-F, which was much worse.

Which is my point, thank you mr v. It did not go down well in the press conference with the assembled hacks.

[Adam43]

IMHO opinion Damon Hill is a gentleman in all aspects. Generally and in his driving.

I wonder if Stirling Moss has ever expressed an opinion on this? And if so did he have the right to. (- Attempt to bring it bake to topic!).

[TimD]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Monza was definatly his fault. At this level, some backmarker shouldn't make it unable for you to judge a corner which you've taken numerous times before. Hill just drove into Schumacher. At Silverstone he tried a hopeless overtakingmanoeuvre, at Monza he simply ****ed up.

Replace the name Hill with the name Senna, and think about one Jean-Louis Schlesser, and see if that one still stands up quite so well!

Drivers do make mistakes. Even the best ones. The key thing is that there is a question of still having the presence of mind to keep within 99.9% during the heat of the battle. People of Stirling Moss' generation had to develop that skill, because peoples' lives depended on it. Literally.

To put it in relatively modern terms, it's Senna and Mansell running 1 inch apart the length of a straight. There is no room for error whatsoever, but neither of them either gives way or forces the other into an accident.

I'm a huge admirer of Michael Schumacher, but I do see Sir Stirling's point. I would also add to those who have seen fit to cast aspersions on his character because of what he has said - in response to some interviewer's question, I might add - that on the occasions I have met Stirling Moss, I have found him charming, erudite, polite and the perfect gentleman. He is not arrogant, but has the self-assurance of someone who has been on the front line, and has lived to tell the tale. And he can most certainly be relied upon to tell that tale well.

For that, I am eternally grateful to him.

[Peter Mallett]

*yawn*

Sir Stirling has a point. Good luck to him.

[Hungary 89]

With Regard to Spain 1991 I am in no doubt what Senna's intensions were and rest assured I was as unimpressed with that little manouver as I have been with some of Schumachers

I would say in Hills Defence that he assumed after Belgium 1995 that swerving all over the track to keep someone behind you was perfectly legal. Although on a personal note I concede I was a little disappointed in him that day he should have know better.

Monza 1995 no question Hill "****ed Up" but it was a mistake there was no advantage to them both going off he needed to reduce the points gap.

[Stephenw]

So you don't think the timing of this is a little odd? Michael wins his fourth race and takes the championship lead and the headlines have Moss slagging him off?

I smell sour grapes.

[TimD]

Not really - it's not exactly as though Sir Stirling Moss watches a GP, and then phones a press agency, and offers his opinions on Michael Schumacher. That just doesn't happen.

What happens is that some journalist somewhere has an interview booked with Sir Stirling Moss, and during the course of the interview, asks the question which he knows will get him a headline he can use. And he can rely on that headline because Stirling has a reputation for honestly speaking his mind on what he believes. Hey presto! Instant soundbite, and the journalist can rest assured that he'll have people like us bickering about it for days.

[Peter Mallett]

Bickering? You call this bickering? My God sirrah! If you want bickering you should have caught the five-thrty from St Pancras! This is Crewe!

Its really coming to something when we can decry the merits of a great because he says something we may not like. He thinks the Smart Car is a great machine. For me it stinks, but I don't think less of him for it. It is his opinion after all.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by TimD
Replace the name Hill with the name Senna, and think about one Jean-Louis Schlesser, and see if that one still stands up quite so well!

I have never seen that incident, only read and heard about it, and I am very much ready to accept that Senna made a mistake. Senna also made a mistake in Monza 1993, taking out Martin Brundle.

Anyway, this is about Schumacher making mistakes. I can name a few. The before mentioned Canada 1998-incident. In Monaco the same year he drove awfull in the final stages, desparatly trying to gain a point. Indy 2000, which didn't cost him much, but was the textbook example of a driver f***ing up. And there's probably more, but still I wouldn't say those mistakes overshadow Schumachers performance for one bit. So I can not understand why anyone would want to play down Schumachers performances by pointing out his mistakes. Certainly not when they claim Kimi is better in that respect.

But yes, sir Moss has a right to express his opinion, and I am not arrogant enough to claim he's got it wrong. So i'll disagree silently.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Monza was definatly his fault. At this level, some backmarker shouldn't make it unable for you to judge a corner which you've taken numerous times before. Hill just drove into Schumacher.

In your opinion, was Spa 1998 any different, role reversal, but this time MS ramming DC!

[NiceGuyEddie]

Yes, that was indeed different.

Unlike MS vs Hill at Monza 1995:

-MS was coming up to lap DC, so DC was obliged to make way.
-Instead to make way, DC held MS up for over a lap (which is a long time at Spa).
-When he finally gave in, he reduced his speed on the racing line, without any warning whatsoever.
-To make matters (and sight) worse, he did this while the rain was pooring down.

MS did nothing wrong at Monza 1995.

[Adam43]

I don't agree with your four remarks about MS's crash at Spa.

I think DC did all he could to help. MS just called it wrong. He'd had other moments where he'd taken risks (that didn't need taking because he was detroying eveyone else). These risks were pushing to the limit with a big lead and tkaing chances with other back markers. And I'm not sure it was over a lap (or near a lap) - I must check.

The conditions were bad and Michael made an error of judgement. Apart from anything else with all the spray how was DC to have any idea where MS was? Sure he'd know he was behind him, because the team told him to let MS through, but the mirrors wouldn't have worked. It was ultimately MS's responsibility to get past and he made a small mistake with big consequences.

[climb]

People who win much are bound to be envied, particularly by those who claim as good, but didn't win anything.
Envy is a bad sickness, indeed.
Once said that, I agree that everybody ha sthe right to express their opinions, whether we like them or not

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
I don't agree with your four remarks about MS's crash at Spa.

I think DC did all he could to help. MS just called it wrong. He'd had other moments where he'd taken risks (that didn't need taking because he was detroying eveyone else). These risks were pushing to the limit with a big lead and tkaing chances with other back markers. And I'm not sure it was over a lap (or near a lap) - I must check.

The conditions were bad and Michael made an error of judgement. Apart from anything else with all the spray how was DC to have any idea where MS was? Sure he'd know he was behind him, because the team told him to let MS through, but the mirrors wouldn't have worked. It was ultimately MS's responsibility to get past and he made a small mistake with big consequences.

There are many many places to let a faster competitor go by without any problem. Yet DC choose to do it at one of the fastest sectors of the track, between the Virage and Pouhon. Not only the place was a testament of bad judgement on DC´s part, the way in which he did is as well. He reduced his speed while being ON (I cannot stretch this enough) the raceline.

DC was shown the blue flags for quite a while and had passed many approriate places without letting MS by. How on earth could MS have expected that he would do it then at there in the manor in which he ded?

The impact shows that the speeddifference was quite big. Taking into account that MS wasn´t driving much faster than in earlier laps, it must have been DC that reduced is speed alot. Again whilst being ON the raceline. Schumacher had no way of anticipating this kind of stupidity. How on earth can Schumacher judge DC´s speed when his grey McLaren is covered in spray?

Why didn´t DC go wide at La Source? Why didn´t DC pull over from the raceline on the Kemmel? Why didn´t he go wide in the Virage? Why didn´t he slow down well off the raceline, so Schumacher didn´t have to guess for what DC was planning? Why did he choose the worst place and the worst manor possible in those dreadful circumstances??

I still feel he shouldve been banned for at least the remainder of the season. I have never saw a driver act more dangerously and unnecessary dangerously than DC did at that time, and i can´t believe people could argue that it was all a matter of bad judgement on Schumachers part. Schumacher had no way of anticipating that amount of stupidity from any competitor.

[ferrari_mark]

Great post Eddie. He lifted on the racing line and expected MS, the race leader, to drive around him. MS had every right to be angry.