Why is/is'nt Michael the best driver in F1? (merged) - Page 2

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:00 (Ref:422226)

Whoa... Mr V... hold on a second. Let it be said that THAT race was a pure illustration why F1 is called The Big Circus. McLaren blew the pit-strategy big time too, not only Ferrari. Anyway, from those 80 points to Mika's 75, 8 were gifted by the 2 MS's. Granted Eddie lost 1 (one) point to Michael in France, but that wouldn't help in normal circumstances. Should be mentioned as well that if you want to win the World Drivers Championship, you don't (I mean you DO NOT) finish the last race 1 minute (that is 60 seconds. Put it this way: he avoided to be lapped by the other 2 guys) behind the leader.

Anyway, 1999 was NOT a normal season. Both McLaren and Ferrari tried hard not to win it.

KC · 5 Nov 2002, 16:01 (Ref:422227)

I stand corrected. However, Irvine was much more competitive when Schumacher was not present. Certainly Schumacher was fast when he returned. But I also think he resumed his position of dominance within the team as he had before to the cost of Irvine's championship. No teammate of Schumacher has ever held an even footing with him, by contract. Unfortunately many believe this is by his driving skill alone. His teammates are always at a disadvantage because the team sees to it.

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:05 (Ref:422229)

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
No teammate of Schumacher has ever held an even footing with him, by contract. Unfortunately many believe this is by his driving skill alone. His teammates are always at a disadvantage because the team sees to it.

I am one of those. Give me one other logical reason why the team would want to do that and I will change my mind.

JohnSSC · 5 Nov 2002, 16:05 (Ref:422230)

Good point on the quote Red.

KC, we can debate but will never know the relative merits of drivers from different eras. However it is worth noting that neither Irvine nor Herbert were very successful anywhere. Michael is indeed looking out for Michael, but in any sport or any occupation, those at the top don't get there without a very strong pre-disposition for looking out for themselves.

Keeping the focus on the here and now, you know darn well that Sir Frank would give his eye teeth to have Michael driving for him, rather than Schumi Lite. And though suspicions abound about Irvine benefitting from Schumi's absence, the real benefit to Irvine was (imho) EI was the Center of the Universe and he only thrives when he is. Look at hi performance with Jag. EI has "known" what is wrong with the car but in 3 years it has improved how much? That is the difference. Michael would have dragged that team forward. EI simply goes clubbing.

Mr V · 5 Nov 2002, 16:07 (Ref:422232)

Quote:

Originally posted by Red
Anyway, from those 80 points to Mika's 75, 8 were gifted by the 2 MS's.

Hold up a minute.... how can you be saying about MS gifting Eddie points? Yes he did, but how many points did Eddie have to gift MS before that? and Rubens after that?

Yes, McLaren did blunder in that race, but Ferrari blundered worse.

alchemy · 5 Nov 2002, 16:10 (Ref:422234)

Michael Schumacher is the best Formula one racing driver the world has ever seen (so far).

So what?

Mr V · 5 Nov 2002, 16:10 (Ref:422235)

Quote:

Originally posted by Red

Anyway, 1999 was NOT a normal season. Both McLaren and Ferrari tried hard not to win it.

I wonder why Ferrari tried hard not to win it?

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:18 (Ref:422238)

Actually they didn't. I've "seen" both Ron and Jean inviting each other: "After you sir". In the end it was a tie: Ron got the WDC and Jean the WCC. Hmmm...

By the way, Frenzy sniffing the trophy was the cherry on the pie. Bernie&Max are grieving on that "entertainment".

Sheese, I can't believe how can anyone can say that 1999 was one of the best seasons in the last decade... Proofs of amateurism and goofs like those you can't count in the entire history of motorsport....

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:23 (Ref:422242)

Quote:

Originally posted by mr v
but how many points did Eddie have to gift MS before that?

In 1999? 1. What does Rubens have to do with it? Rubens gave him... lemme count, 2 plus 4... 6! How many points did Michael give Rubens in return? Hmmm? Would you say that actually Rubens got them back, with an interest too?

How many points did Irvine give to Michael? Hmmm... hard to count, I can only recall the "Austrian-brake problems" that would mean another one. :confused:

But you avoid the real question: why did both Irvine and Rubens give him points?

Mr V · 5 Nov 2002, 16:23 (Ref:422243)

Quote:

Originally posted by Red

Sheese, I can't believe how can anyone can say that 1999 was one of the best seasons in the last decade... Proofs of amateurism and goofs like those you can't count in the entire history of motorsport....

Agreed on the goofs etc, however, imo, this is what added towards it being on of the best seasons, after Monza, there was statistically 4 drivers, Mika, Eddie, DC and HH-F who could have won the WDC, when was the last time that happened? I can't remember, but it makes it more enjoyable and unpredictable as opposed to just 2 or even 1 (as we have seen for the last 2 years) with a realistic chance of winning, thats what made it more exciting.

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:28 (Ref:422247)

Yes Mr V. But those 4 drivers were not there because of their merits, or hard work or something like that. They were there because all of the opponents goofed. I like Laurel & Hardy movies too, and they're entertaining but that's not my idea of a work well done. I like better 4 drivers (3 teams) fighting for the titles because they did NOT mistake. Entertainment at all costs (including alteration of regulations - points system + quals lottery) is not my udea of motorsport. 1999 season sucked.

Mr V · 5 Nov 2002, 16:30 (Ref:422248)

Quote:

Originally posted by Red
What does Rubens have to do with it?

Nothing in regards to '99 granted, i was just pointing out that if your going to bring up MS gifting Eddie points then it's got to be mentioned that Eddie and subsequentley Rubens have gifted MS.

Quote:

Originally posted by Red
How many points did Irvine give to Michael? Hmmm... hard to count, I can only recall the "Austrian-brake problems" that would mean another one. :confused:

How about Japan '97? Or what about OZ '96 where Eddie out-qualified MS and waved him through, yes MS broke down, but the intent was there? Or France '99 where Eddie "held station" which effectively cost him and gained MS points?

Quote:

Originally posted by Red

But you avoid the real question: why did both Irvine and Rubens give him points?

Contracts

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:34 (Ref:422249)

Quote:

Originally posted by mr v
Contracts

Lemme rephrase: WHY?!? WHY DOES FERRARI OFFER HIM (OR ACCEPT) SUCH CONTRACTS!!!???? PLEASE, DO TELL!!!

Why Rubens and Eddie before him accept such "humilliating" contracts? Aren't they strong enough to fight for their "rights"? Hmmm?

PS: Good point. Japan 1997! My mistake. *sigh* What a race!!! One of the best!! How could I forget one of my favorite races? Hmmm...

PPS: I already mentioned France 1999. And Austria 1998.

KC · 5 Nov 2002, 16:41 (Ref:422254)

Why would a team allow Michael Schumacher to have a clause in his contract guaranteeing his teammate be subservient?

I have never doubted MS's skill and as I have stated he is the best of this era. I do not consider him the best of all time even though he has the most wins, etc. I do think he is definitely on that short list of the best of all time however.

I do not agree with him demanding his teammates be denied the same benefit he receives. I think he is better than that. I DO NOT believe that Johnny Herbert, Eddie Irvine, Jos Verstappen, or Rubens Barrichello are his equals. So why does HE think he needs the team to assure that he is always number one? Why does the TEAM think he is justified in making these contractual demands?

It would be like your co-worker being given more tools to do the same job, then you being derided for not performing at his level. That's how MS's teammates are seen by many fans and by the popular press.

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:44 (Ref:422256)

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
Herbert and Irvine have both stated that the sharing of technical data and telemetry all went one way, to Michael.

Oooops... somehow I missed that part. Where did you get the "Eddie has stated..." thing?

As for Herbert's data available to Michael and not viceversa that's not quite true. Actually, Benetton blew Herbert's chances to rise and shine. But not because they didn't like his blue eyes. Simply because the 2 of them had totally opposed driving styles and they only could build 1 car. Not 2. They chose Michael (let's not forget that he won the WDC in the previous season). Can you blame them? If "yes" - why? In 1995 they won both WDC and WCC.

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:46 (Ref:422260)

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
I do not agree with him demanding his teammates be denied the same benefit he receives.

Yes... Same. That *same* benefits didn't quite fit Johnny. But it was the same. Same benefits benefitted both Eddie and Rubens.

KC, you don't quite understand me. It's ok for Michael to "demand". What bugs me is why Ferrari accept!!! And his teammates.

ASCII Man · 5 Nov 2002, 16:47 (Ref:422263)

Oh, right...
So you need to build 2 cars for different driving styles?
What's the use of a carsetup then??

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 16:50 (Ref:422267)

Yeah rijntjuh. Preferrably you build 2 cars. Unfortunately it's seldom feasible to do that, so you actually build 1. You have 3 choices:

1. For driver 1.
2. For driver 2.
3. A Compromise for both.

What do you chose?

ASCII Man · 5 Nov 2002, 16:58 (Ref:422273)

I choose option N°3

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 17:01 (Ref:422275)

And you lose.

KC · 5 Nov 2002, 17:03 (Ref:422277)

It is OK that he demands this. I just wonder why he thinks he needs a leg up on his teanmmates. I also wonder why the team gives him that leg up.

I think that Senna and Schumacher are almost the same. Both were very good. But the only difference I see is that Senna knew he was the BEST. He walked it, talked it, and then proved in on the track. I think MS has a fear that he might be shown up by his teammate. Senna made sure onthe track his teammate rarely ever showed him up. Thats why the conflict with Prost was so big.

I just wonder why MS thinks he needs an advantage over a driver he should dominate on performance alone.

Glen · 5 Nov 2002, 17:15 (Ref:422286)

Compromise. You gotta be joking. You think you win world championships with compromises? The design and direction for the car follows a path that is far more sophisticated than mere "set-up". Michael has conclusively proved that his approach is better than the opposition. No doubt. Five WDCs don't lie.

Everyone in F1 knows that he is the best. He works harder, he is more consistent, he has consumate car control, his racecraft is probably the best of all time... he has virtually no flaws. Naturally, this gives rise to a lot of frustration among those that don't like him - but live with it. I don't like him - but I'm not so derranged in my hatred that I can ignore the patently obvious.

Eddie had his chance to grab the championship - he blew it. He failed to take up the role of captain. He failed to convince his team that he could do it. He picked up team-order wins off the plate (AND, no-one here (that I know of) has ever slagged him off for it, unlike Schumacher). All Eddie had to do was step up to his mark at Suzuka and drive like a champion - and he didn't have it in him. It's a long season - there are only a handful of drivers capable of being consistent for sixteen, seventeen races... And there is currently only one driver capable of being consistently excellent.

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 17:16 (Ref:422287)

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
But the only difference I see is that Senna knew he was the BEST. [...]I think MS has a fear that he might be shown up by his teammate.

Tsh... I don't think so. Anyway, that's not what I wonder. I wonder why Ferrari fear about that. Or don't they? :confused: Looking at Williams - Ralf/Pablito situation I believe that their aproach is kinda sensible. (or, since you mentioned, Senna/Prost situation. Senna was good, but not so good to be better than Prost by a large margin. Hence their equal status. And a valuable lesson for F1: don't hire 2 drivers of such value and ego's.)

Mr V · 5 Nov 2002, 17:21 (Ref:422292)

Quote:

Originally posted by Red
Lemme rephrase: WHY?!? WHY DOES FERRARI OFFER HIM (OR ACCEPT) SUCH CONTRACTS!!!???? PLEASE, DO TELL!!! Why Rubens and Eddie before him accept such "humilliating" contracts? Aren't they strong enough to fight for their "rights"? Hmmm?

Why is it then that of all his team mates, non have been allowed to actually race him? I'll grant you that Eddie, Rubens, Johnny, Jos are not as good as MS, so, why does he have to have it in his contract that they will all roll over for him, after all, he'd beat them anyway right?

Red · 5 Nov 2002, 17:23 (Ref:422294)

Mr V!!!! "Why is it then that of all his team mates etc" was MY question!!!!! Why? Moreover, why did/do they accept?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Michael Past It?/ If Schummi in Renault (merged)	Peter Mallett	Formula One	68	15 May 2005 22:35
Congratulations! Michael wins number 6 (merged)	Redblurr	Formula One	68	14 Oct 2003 09:17
MICHAEL SHUMACHER:The best F1 driver of his generation ??	Bononi	Formula One	182	5 Dec 2002 21:05
Is'nt that Asiatech fantastic??	steve nielsen	Formula One	18	19 Jul 2001 10:09