42 wins! Is he then better than Senna?

[neutral]

I would just like to mention the fact that Michael Schumacher is fast approaching Senna's 41 wins. Considering if he gets it soon he will be younger than Senna when he got his 40, does this make him better than
Senna. I personally think that Senna was quicker but Michael is a better racer. One also has to remember that Michael has never had the best car in the field( McLaren or Williams were considered quicker than the Ferarri and Benneton respectively) unlike Senna's years in the dominant Mclaren. Whether you agree or not it is quite possible that Michael may take over Prost's record, and then it will be hard to dismiss his number 1 ranking of all time.

[KC]

Its hard to say that one is bettr than the other. If both had driven for Williams at the same time then it would be much easier to make a statement as such. Senna drove from the heart with passion. Schumacher drives from the mind with calculating precision. Either method works extremely well, but last year at Stowe MS showed what can happened when emotion clouds one's judgement.

[Ace]

There we go again. If is just about numbers, Button is better than MS because he got 3 points in his first 4 races.

[TimD]

Would someone care to ask Chris Amon if driving talent is measured in sheer numbers of GP wins?

[R]

Senna outqualified Prost 28-4 in their two years together at McLaren, and beat him 14-6 in races where they both got classified. This means Senna was a better driver than Prost. But Prost has 51 wins to Senna's 41, therefore counting wins is no way to compare drivers. If Senna's career had not been cut short - and I believe he would have raced for several more years - he would have beaten Prost's record thoroughly. Therefore comparing Schumacher's number of wins to Senna's is not a fair comparison. Nor is it fair to compare them in terms of how old they were when they had this or that number of wins. Senna was 24 when he started his F1 career, Schumacher was 22. And one last factor is that Senna had to compete with the mighty challenge of beating Prost, while Schumacher has no other driver in that category to compete with. As good as Hakkinen is, he is not in the league of Senna and Prost.

[wodonnell]

On a points per finish basis, Schumacher is way ahead of Senna, having just ousted Ascari from the top spot. MS has averaged 6.35 points every time he has completed a race.

Senna lies 8th with 5.69 points.

The top ten, if anyone is interested in this kind of thing, currently reads:

M Schumacher 6.35
A Ascari 6.34
J M Fangio 6.25
G Amick 6
B Vukovich 6
J Clark 5.83
J Stewart 5.71
A Senna 5.69
A Prost 5.55
S Moss 4.91
N Mansell 4.87

[Super Tourer]

Good debate this one - with the real answer, I guess we will sadly never know.

I certainly think that MS was the first driver to rattle Senna in F1 as Senna could see a lot of himself in Schumacher, whereas Prost was a completely different 'type' of driver to Senna.

There has been much debate and conjecture over Senna's Imola crash but he was seen as desperate to stay ahead of Schumacher who was behind him at the time.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Senna generally faster in Practice than MS during the previous races but suffered various problems that put him behind MS in the points.

I think that overall they are were very similar as drivers -both ruthless, single minded, made few mistakes and prone to the odd controversial move.

Also it is worth bearing in mind that Senna started in F1 with a mid grid team, whereas MS did one race for Jordan before jumping into the Benetton and it wasn't until he got to Mclaren before Senna drove a fully race-winning car despite flashes of Brilliance with the Lotus team.

All in all MS has been in a top team for virtually all his career which accounts for any difference in ratio.

[Ace]

There is one thing that will forever make the difference between both. Senna proved himself against the best of his time Alain Prost in the same team and without team orders. He beat Prost fair and square, He won 14 against 6 when both finished. In the other hand, MS never raced against a quality teammate. Even worse if we consider that all his teammates, by implicit or written contract, have to race for him. How much of this makes up for the great statistics MS has? A lot. For MS fans there will be always the excuse that the other guys car was much better, therefore we will never know what MS is really capable of.

[Green_man4421]

It is immpossible because the quality of the fields that the drivers were compeating against has changed so I would say that MS had a much easier field to battle than Senna and Prost so the stats work in favour of him.

As for those average point things If I only race one race and win it does that make me the best driver ever?

[Liz]

I don't think you can compare TGF and Senna, different kinds of pilotes. But TGF and Prost, now that is a race I'd like to have seen - if they were both the same age, at the same point in their careers, in equal equipment - and no team orders - which do you think would win?

[neutral]

That suggestion that Michael and prost would have been a good race is a joke. Michael would slaughter him in equal equipment.Prost was good but he wouldnt have the balls to compete with Michael. On the other hand, Ms and Senna would be a show. He is one man that wouldnt be intimidated by Schu and vice versa. However if they were to have a race in equal equipment, I doubt whether both of them would finish on the track.