Button, Fizzy, JPM - 2nd rate drivers?? Discuss.

Kersh

These 3 drivers are getting the sh1te kicked out of them by their teammates....
I honestly think theyare not in motorsports highest echelon, that which encompasses Senna, Prost, Schuey etc.
They really have no excuses.
What do you guys think??

nikimere

I think JPM is as quick if not quicker than any of those guys on his day.
he was magic in CART....
but ur right about the rest of the tossers!!

Nuttzz

Fisi has had his day, he really needed that good car 4-5 years ago, moantoya has always been over rated imo, and button is suffering from the "england expects" hype, he might had a race win if williams had not of dropped him in 2000 (?) at this stage but i think that was a killer blow to his confidence

Kersh

Even if ya give Button the benefit of the doubt with regards to Rubens, lately hes going pure sh1te.
And fizzy, christ, hes crap.

muckwarrior

Am really dissapointed with Fisi. He showed so much promise over the years, always shadowing his team mate. Last year he had an awful lot of bad luck,but this year it's been shown without a shadow of a doubt that he's just not in the same league as Alonso. Whether this shows that Alonso really is an incredible talent or that Fisi is just past it I'm not quite sure.

As for the other two, JPM is just way too inconsistent to ever be a champ, and as I said in another thread, Button is the Tim Henman of F1.

OSiriS

You can;t really heap all the blame on Button tbh. The British press have a history of overhyping their sporting personalities. They see every competitor as a potential champion and nearly demand it of them. Button has been bombarded with expectations of being the next schumacher constantly since he started in F1. That kind of pressure can be impossible to live with, especially if you start to believe it.

Ay Cee

I've been so disappointed by Fisi. I was delighted to hear he was going to Renault. I thought "watch what he does now in the right car". He's badly under performed though. Last year was a lot of bad luck, failures etc. This year he hasn't been cutting the mustard though. Alonos has been knockin' him out of it.

His engineer pretty much telling him he's ****e over the radio can't be good for him though.

steviec

I think Fisi's problem is his head isn't in it at the moment. He was a very solid driver but the bad luck started to pile up and you get the impression he doesn't have the support of the team from the way they talk on the radio, and he's just lost all morale and drive to win races. A new team could reinvigorate him(in a 'faster than his team mate but still slower than the renaults' kind of way at least...)

As for Montoya, he's just so inconsistent. I think he's Kimi's equal when he's on form, and he's proven to be on a number of occasions, but he just doesn't do it often enough. I never liked him at Williams, he was reckless and dangerous, but he's matured a lot, maybe he's toned back too much though.

Button is not and will never be a top driver. He's perfectly adequate for a midfield team though, which is exactly what Honda are right now. Barrichello is a very good driver, the only team mate he's ever not beaten really is Schumacher, and you can't hold that against him. I fully expected him to become the number 1 once he settled in at Honda. He could be a championship contender next year if they get a solid package together. Which they probably won't.

Sure the three of them aren't up there with the top few guys in the sport, but there are many worse drivers out there too.

There are few drivers outside the top three who really look like they'll ever join the top ranks really. I think Webber could do the job given a decent car, he's shown more than a few flashes of brilliance in poor cars over the last few years, and his drive at Monaco was fantastic. Nick Heidfeld is another, they say his former world champion team mate Villeneuve is driving as well as he has in his whole career, but Nick's been every bit his equal in the same car. I always thought he should have gotten the McLaren job ahead of Raikkonen, he was definitely the better of the two when they were team mates at Sauber. Rosberg is another obvious choice as a future star, Webber's outpacing him but he's learning fast and has obvious talent. I really don't see anyone else breaking through, you have to look outside the current drivers to the likes of Kovalainen and Lewis Hamilton for future challengers really.

thegoth

Hi,

I fully agree with everything you said. Just continuing on from what you said, I think that the quality of driver in this years world championship is the best ever, with the only drivers not good enough for F1 being the two Aguri drivers.

I would not like to be just a "Good", driver, like, lets say Albers or Monteiro, at the moment as I think that F1 will be seeing four new drivers next year that are of a very very high standard, capable of winning world championships. They are

Heikki Kovalainen (Reault Test Driver)
Lewis Hamilton (GP2 Leader)
Gary Paffet (DTM Champion, McLaren Test Driver)
Robert Kubica (BMW Sauber Test Driver, regarded as faster than race drivers).

I think two of these drivers with take over the two midland seats. That still leaves 2 drivers too many. I also think that Villeneuve will be let go. The final seat will depend on whether Michael retires or not, but I fear that Trullis seat may be in trouble if Super Augri insist on another "Honda" driver to partner Sato like Davidson, or another Jap.

steviec

thegoth wrote:

I think two of these drivers with take over the two midland seats. That still leaves 2 drivers too many. I also think that Villeneuve will be let go. The final seat will depend on whether Michael retires or not, but I fear that Trullis seat may be in trouble if Super Augri insist on another "Honda" driver to partner Sato like Davidson, or another Jap.

Agreed with most of what you said, but not so sure about Trulli, himself and Ralf may not be very spectacular but their a pretty solid pairing for Toyota. Trulli won the Monaco GP in 2004 in the Renault, a car that his team-mate Alonso never steered to victory that year, and the Monaco GP in particular is one that they always say the best of drivers win.

There's other drivers more precarious than him - DC could possibly be in his final year, Massa may have nowhere to go if Ferrari bring in Kimi and Michael doesn't retire. Scott Speed doesn't seem to have many admirers in F1, though I'm sure American money does. Neither Liuzzi or Klien particularly set the world on fire either. There could be a lot of changes next season.

thegoth

Yes, I fully agree. I think that Trulli is more talented than alot of other drivers on the grid. The reason that I think his drive is in danger is of politics, not because of his speed. Horner has said that he rates DC very highly and has almost guaranteed him a seat for next year, which I can't understand as Trulli is alot faster than DC. I think that he will retain all other 3 Red Bull drivers, as Red Bull has supported them through their careers so far. Hell last year they even bought a team for Luzzi and Speed !!, so I don't think they will be let go. Also the fact the Speed is American is good for the Red Bull brand in America, and the fact DC is English surely helps the team get extra exposure on ITV and the British media. This to me MUST be the reason they are retaining DC, plus the fact he will do anything they say. ( The superman cape in Monaco? Does the man have any self respect ?! Goes to show what he is willing to do to stay in F1 for one more year). Once Red Bull get Adrian Newy designing fast cars in 2008, DC will be gone for a top class driver.

Your right, if Kimi goes to Ferrari, Massa could be on his way out of F1.

I think the way Trulli has been treated with Toyota has been very bad. They pay Ralf many times more than him. When Trulli had the car the way he liked it at the start of 2005, they decide to change it (last years B spec), so that it suited Ralf more. This design formed the basis of this years car. Seems to me they just want Ralf to “appear”, faster to justify the money they are paying him.

muckwarrior

steviec wrote:

I think Fisi's problem is his head isn't in it at the moment.

Yes, but that's exactly why he isn't world championship material. A champion must have the strength of mind to endure any circumstance and not let it affect their performance. The same can be said for other drivers, Trulli and Barichello in particular come to mind. When they're on form they're as good as anyone but when things aren't going their way they just seem to be lacking the strength of character to block it out and not let it affect their performance.

I think that the quality of driver in this years world championship is the best ever

Couldn't disagree more tbh. Obviously it's impossible to tell for sure but IMO the reason why schumacher has had it so easy over the years is because there were no other truly brilliant drivers in the sport. If he had arrived in f1 10 years earlier I reckon prost, senna etc would have had him for breakfast!

Jonny Arson

Button - average driver, will be lucky to ever win a GP. He believes his hype as seen with the Williams fiasco
Fisichella - was never a great driver, Alonso has put him in his place, does not deserve another season with the best team.
Montoya - Pre 2001 in CART/F3000 was incredible but the F1 style of ''racing'' has moulded him into an average driver

Actually apart from Alonso, Schumacher, Raikkonen, Trulli and Webber the rest of the grid is horribly average and lacking in any form of genuine talent.

pburns

Truilli & Webber are similar. Both VERY fast over one lap, slightly less convincing over ever lap of every race. Trulli's past his best imo, Webber still hungry though. He's also smart & a hard worker.

Button - I know it's a cliche but he really does believe his own press too much. I think he can drive a good car very well but he's not top-drawer. It'll be interesting to see how the hype around Hamilton affects him. I think he loves the whole celebrity thing too much. He'd be pretty big-headed if he was as successful as Alonso!

Fisi - I once thought he was a hugely untapped talent. Still do to a certain extent. I think Alonso's qualities have really sapped him. If he'd gotten a good car sooner, maybe...

Montoya - always thought he was totally overhyped. Charismatic tho'

Alonso/Kimi - impossible to tell who fastest. One way or another it's only by smallest of margins. Crucially, I think Alonso is sharper, more calculating, cooler head, makes fewer mistakes.

Schumi - Magic's still there - just about. He's suffering though. He wants to leave F1 on a high. In danger of staying too long & damaging his reputation.

dinjo

i think JPM is a great driver, but i also believe that McLaren are looking after Kimi more than JPM. i'd like to see him in a number 1 seat at a good team.

Im kinda going along the same line of thought with regards Fisi. I think he is a good driver but his is just being over shadowed by a far superior team mate.

As for Button, there is no excuse. The british media have been playing him up ever since his debut. They talk about him being the next british World Champion...... i mean Come on! the fella has never won a race! ! ! EVER ! and IMHO i dont think he will, not without DNF's from the likes of Schumi, Alonso and Kimi. He is just simply not good enough !

thegoth

"Obviously it's impossible to tell for sure but IMO the reason why schumacher has had it so easy over the years is because there were no other truly brilliant drivers in the sport. If he had arrived in f1 10 years earlier I reckon prost, senna etc would have had him for breakfast!"

I disagree. By definition, brilliant drivers can only come along once or twice a generation as if all drivers were brilliant, brilliant would become ordinary.

In 1994 Senna had a better car than Schumacher, and Schumacher beat him in every race that they were in together. I believe Senna was Excellent. Michael is exceptional. We can judge Alsono and Kimi after they has been an F1 driver for 15 years or so. Michael has had fast teammates over the years and made fools of them all. He produced miracles in a Benetton for years before he joined Ferrari. You can only judge a driver by his performance against his team mates. Michael has put them all away. Now don't go saying he has never had a fast teammate. He has. Irvine and Rubens were both very fast. The only way to judge him would be to have him and a top class driver like Kimi or Alonso in the same car. Michael was much faster than Mika H.

Beekay

thegoth wrote:

In 1994 Senna had a better car than Schumacher, and Schumacher beat him in every race that they were in together. I believe Senna was Excellent. Michael is exceptional. We can judge Alsono and Kimi after they has been an F1 driver for 15 years or so. Michael has had fast teammates over the years and made fools of them all. He produced miracles in a Benetton for years before he joined Ferrari. You can only judge a driver by his performance against his team mates. Michael has put them all away. Now don't go saying he has never had a fast teammate. He has. Irvine and Rubens were both very fast. The only way to judge him would be to have him and a top class driver like Kimi or Alonso in the same car. Michael was much faster than Mika H.

Did Schumacher not have something illegal on his car in 94,i wouldn't be too sure on that my bro would know more.

And i wouldn't say it would be very difficult to beat irvine or Rubens when they are told they are number two drivers and are only there to help him

Kersh

The Williams was not the fastest car in 1994, it was a pile of pooo, senna dragged it to 3 poles.
There was a nice discussion a while back between myself and endplate about Schumachers 'SPECIAL' benetton that year. Im not going into it again, suffice to say it had illegal launch and traction control.
The man is a cheat, we saw it at monaco again.
On that subject i dont regard him as a cheat with regard to The Hill/Villeneuve clashes, but with regard to car enhancements and track blocking.

thegoth

Even if Michaels car was illegal, that was his team. His teammate had the same car and Michael beat him easily. I don't think there was a better car than the Williams in 94. Hill, who is by will not go down in history as one of the greatest ever, was able to do good things with it.

Just stand back and look at the exceptional drives Michael put in over the years.

I asked people not to dismiss Irvine and Rubens as not being fast drivers. I ask people so to suggest teammates that would have challenged Michael over the years. I can think of only two. Kimi and Alsono. I think Mika was a very good driver, but he had an exceptional car, and was blessed with a teammate who is, at best, a number 2 driver in DC, who very rarely could take points from him.

Kersh

Only Mikeys car had the 'lost' programs, and the fw16 1994 Williams nly improved after a major reworking of it after Senna died.
Sure while we are on the subject, Senna won 5 races in 1993, beating prost and Mikey, and prost had probably the best f1 car ever that year. Sennas 1993 McLaren was no better ,relatively speaking, than the current position/pace of this years mclaren. I havent seen kimi win this year ... nor JPM.

thegoth

Yes, but Michael was less expierenced in 93. Anyway, no one will ever know for sure which one was fastest.

Kersh

Scuey put himself in the position he is in, unproven that is. He picks his teammates, all lesser drivers, he never picked a top line teammate. Senna chose to go to McLaren to deliberately go up against Prost, to prove he was better, and he was. If schuey wants to prove himself, he should go pick kimi, and stay on for 2 more years, so in the 2nd year we will see just how good he is. Ridiculous as it sounds , it was way back then in 88 that 2 top drivers shared the same team. But with Williams etc the lineup just becomes what it is, but in Schueys team he chooses the lineup, and he deliberately picks poor teammates. Why????

thegoth

Yes, but what team-mates do you think Michael could have chosen that would have given him serious problems ? Kimi was never an option as he was tied to McLaren and was not in F1 until anout 2001. Alonso was snapped up by McLaren behind everyones back and again was not in F1 until 2001. I don't that anyone thinks that Mika was faster than Michael as Mika was only a little faster than DC. I don’t think even Villeneuve would have given him trouble. Even Villeneuve's old Williams Engineers have said that he made hard work of winning the 1997 world championship in a car that was the class of the field. Apart from a few overtaking moves in a car that was in its own league, what has he ever done in F1. Fast driver. Nothing exceptional. I agree with what you said. Michael did pick his team mates, but I think he picked ones that would not make a big deal of backing him up. Weather you like it or not any driver until maybe 2001 would have been backing Michael up, the only difference is that some, i.e drivers like Villeneuve would have hated it and caused conflict in the team along with a few accidents with team-mates.

I'm not gasping at straws here. Its what I honestly believe.

If anyone thinks any driver THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MICHAELS TEAMMATE could have seriously challenged Michael, please post

steviec

Kersh wrote:

Scuey put himself in the position he is in, unproven that is. He picks his teammates, all lesser drivers, he never picked a top line teammate. Senna chose to go to McLaren to deliberately go up against Prost, to prove he was better, and he was. If schuey wants to prove himself, he should go pick kimi, and stay on for 2 more years, so in the 2nd year we will see just how good he is. Ridiculous as it sounds , it was way back then in 88 that 2 top drivers shared the same team. But with Williams etc the lineup just becomes what it is, but in Schueys team he chooses the lineup, and he deliberately picks poor teammates. Why????

I'd have thought Massa has more to do with Todt(and his son) than Schumi. In the case of Rubens and Irvine, poor team mates? I wouldn't say that. In 96 I don't think there were many drivers they could have got who were better than Irvine. Hill would have to be insane to leave Williams after all. Hakkinen was a solid midfield driver at the time. Who else was around? Alesi and Berger were great drivers, but they didn't do much in the successor to Schumacher's Benetton(and that was before the likes of Brawn and Byrne followed him to Ferrari). Again, in 2000, I'd have considered Barrichello to be the pick of the bunch behind the main guys. He always looked like he had great potential for both Jordan and Stewart.

I think Kimi is the first real opportunity of this type that's come up, and I strongly hope it comes true. If I was Kimi though, I'd be banging on Flavio's door not Jean Todt's.

You say Senna moved for a challenge, isn't that why Schumacher moved to Ferrari in 96? There was no Alain Prost for Schumacher to race against, but bringing Ferrari back to glory after so many years seems like a good second option.

muckwarrior

@theGoth

First you disagreed with me when I said schumacher never had any serious competition until recently and now you're saying that he never picked any decent team mates because there were none. Which is it???

steviec

muckwarrior wrote:

@theGoth

First you disagreed with me when I said schumacher never had any serious competition until recently and now you're saying that he never picked any decent team mates because there were none. Which is it???

Schumacher was in a league of his own in the 90s, we all agree on that yes?

The question of whether Schumacher was brilliant and everyone else was good, or Schumacher was ok and everyone else was rubbish, really has no baring on whether or not anyone would have challenged him as a team-mate.

"No-one would have beaten Schumacher in the same team" and "There were a lot of good drivers" are not mutually exclusive statements.

All we can say is that Schumacher was beating Senna in 94, and Alonso is beating Schumacher right now. Schumacher may have had a better car then Senna then, Alonso may have a better car than Schumacher now.

On the law of averages though, you can't ignore the statistics, and they put Schumacher as the most successful driver ever. And that doesn't happen by complete fluke.

Anyway, wasn't this the one Formula 1 thread on here at the moment that isn't about Schumacher....

muckwarrior

steviec wrote:

All we can say is that Schumacher was beating Senna in 94,

There's no doubt in my mind that senna would have beaten schu in 94. Scumacher barely managed beat Hill (in dubious circumstances to say the least) and hill was always going to be second to senna.

steviec

muckwarrior wrote:

There's no doubt in my mind that senna would have beaten schu in 94. Scumacher barely managed beat Hill (in dubious circumstances to say the least) and hill was always going to be second to senna.

"IF is F1 spelt backwards" as they say. Hill didn't often beat Schumacher that year, he'd come second or else win by default when Schu wasn't in the race, Senna could easily be faster than Hill without actually getting better results than that. And there's so many other variables anyway that there's not much point to speculate.

thegoth

To Clarify, I disagreed with your suggestion that Michael CHOOSE inferior team mates. What I am saying is that all F1 drivers were without doubt inferior to Michael in the 90's. Now there maybe some questions raised by Alonso and Kimi.

thegoth

Senna would have won the 1994 world championship, but his car was better. I dont think that anyone seriously thinks that Hill could get within 1 point of beating Michael to the world championship in an inferior or equal car. That Williams had to be at least .5 second quicker that the Benotton for most of the season.

Kersh

On the law of averages though, you can't ignore the statistics, and they put Schumacher as the most successful driver ever. And that doesn't happen by complete fluke.

No its not fluke, its duration.... 14 years now by my reckoning... even then he only beat Sennas poles this year, and senna only did 10 years.... its all about being winning driver , and staying for ages.
Mika only stayed for 7 full years, Hill for 10, etc etc.

You say Senna moved for a challenge, isn't that why Schumacher moved to Ferrari in 96? There was no Alain Prost for Schumacher to race against, but bringing Ferrari back to glory after so many years seems like a good second option.

Nope, Senna didnt move for a challenge, he moved to the best car, and decided to destroy Prost at the same time. No mean feat if you ask me, it would be a bit like kimi going to Ferrari and reducing schumi to a quivering wreck.
I agree with you that schumi didnt have many top class opponents to pick from, but doesnt that mean then he had a bit of a cakewalk all through the 90s, which explains his 80 or so wins!!

thegoth

I was not into F1 really until 94, but from the old footage I have seen, I dont think that Senna had any real rivals while he was in F1, much the same way as no one could rival Michael. Prost and the rest were never in the same league as Senna

Kersh

So Prost (4 times champion), Mansell , Piquet (3 times), Lauda (3 times), Schuey even, arent classed as top class opponents... you really did only start watching in 94..

SouperComputer

thegoth wrote:

I was not into F1 really until 94, but from the old footage I have seen, I dont think that Senna had any real rivals while he was in F1, much the same way as no one could rival Michael. Prost and the rest were never in the same league as Senna

thegoth

I was only 13 in 94 so hints the reason why. Just because a driver has won one or multiple world championships does not make him a great driver. I don't think anyone will ever consider Hill a great champion. Championships can, and often are decided by the team with the best car. The point that I am making is that for most of Sennas career, there were no drivers in F1 that could match his speed. Can you name any driver, with the exception of Michael that could have match Sennas speed and results giving both of them the same car ? All I have is a few DVD's of old races I bought, but from what I have seen, I can’t think of any. I don’t see how anyone could draw a logical conclusion of anything otherwise.

I am not saying that Prost, Mansell , Piquet, and Lauda were bad drivers. They were all very fast. But the evidence suggests they were not as fast as Senna. Schuey and Senna cannot be judged as they were not in F1 at the same time long enough, but I think Michael was faster. People will differ on this.

Kersh

Prost..... won the same amount of races as Senna in 1988, Beat him in 1989, all in same team, ran him hard in a ferrari in 1990... hellooo!!!
Then Mansell ran him hard in 1991, he got kicked around in 92, drove his best in 93 in a much much slower car than Prost and Mikey. Died in 94.
Lauda/Piquet /Mansell all bet him over 87/86/85 too, I know senna was in anunreliable Lotus, but they frequently got the better of him.
The mid to late 80s was one of the toughest in F1, esp qualifying, where the 1.5 turbo cars were wound up to 1500bhp odd, and super sticky tyres were driver HAD to deliver on 1 lap....

Beekay

Back then it was mostly about being faster and better than everybody else not about when your team tells you to pit,i was only seven back in 94 and didn't start watching f1 till about 7 years ago and even i can see that everything was so much more difficult.
And no matter how many championships and records Schumacher breaks i will never put up alongside the likes of Senna ,Prost etc.

SouperComputer

im prettymuch with Kersh on this one. I was also 13 in 1994

There was more talent on the grid then, undeniably so!

steviec

Beekay wrote:

Back then it was mostly about being faster and better than everybody else not about when your team tells you to pit,i was only seven back in 94 and didn't start watching f1 till about 7 years ago and even i can see that everything was so much more difficult.
And no matter how many championships and records Schumacher breaks i will never put up alongside the likes of Senna ,Prost etc.

So by the same token then Alonso and Kimi will never be as good as Schumacher or Hill because there's not as much overtaking now as there was then?

As I've already said, there's too many variables in F1 to compare drivers from different eras, you can only look at how they fared against their contemporaries. And nobody's fared better than Schumacher.

It's a pity we were robbed of seeing Senna v Schumacher in their peak in 94 & 95, but nobody can say for definite who would have won.

BTW longevity has nothing to do with it, Schumacher has a higher win percentage than Senna, never mind totals. Senna's pole record is certainly better, but racing is more important than qualifying isn't it?

Kersh

BTW longevity has nothing to do with it, Schumacher has a higher win percentage than Senna, never mind totals. Senna's pole record is certainly better, but racing is more important than qualifying isn't it?

Of course he does, he had the best car with a crap team mate for years. Walkin all over them.
Or to put it another way, do you think his win ratio would be the same if Senna was his team mate... as Prost was Sennas in 1988/89.

steviec

Kersh wrote:

Of course he does, he had the best car with a crap team mate for years. Walkin all over them.
Or to put it another way, do you think his win ratio would be the same if Senna was his team mate... as Prost was Sennas in 1988/89.

Of course it wouldn't. But it might still be better than Senna. Or it might not. The point is we don't know. Everyone seems to be assuming Senna would be better without any factual basis.

Senna had his fair share of Seasons in the best car too, and Schumacher has never in his career switched to the best team so he could win, unlike Senna, he's joined two teams who weren't contenders, and played his part in bringing those teams to the top, and despite all the speculation of him moving to the superior McLaren a few years ago, and Renault more recently, he's always stuck with Ferrari through tough times and helped get them where they are.

thegoth

Steviec, I could not agree more with everyone you said in your last two posts. Thats exaclty what I have been saying here for the last few days

Kersh

God , I guess you guys must be right, Like Senna ,Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Lauda, they must all be pure sh1te, no hopers, only won cos they were in top cars.....:rolleyes:
Lets ignore 45 poles in 5 years for Senna with Mclaren, and Lauda and Piquets 3 titles each + Prosts 4 titles, and 51 victories, sennas 41, Mansells 31, i guess Scumi must be the worlds best ever driver cos he bet so many top line team mates over the years, not to mention the sterling opposition pre 2001 like eh , em... uhhhh, Mika?? :rolleyes:
Do us all a favour, go get some dvd or tapes from pre 1994.... maybe you might pick up a thing or 2 about being up against good teammates - Prost V Lauda, Senna V Prost, Piquet V Mansell etc. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

muckwarrior

Kersh, I could not agree more with everyone you said in your last two posts. Thats exaclty what I have been saying here for the last few days

steviec

Kersh wrote:

God , I guess you guys must be right, Like Senna ,Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Lauda, they must all be pure sh1te, no hopers, only won cos they were in top cars.....:rolleyes:
Lets ignore 45 poles in 5 years for Senna with Mclaren, and Lauda and Piquets 3 titles each + Prosts 4 titles, and 51 victories, sennas 41, Mansells 31, i guess Scumi must be the worlds best ever driver cos he bet so many top line team mates over the years, not to mention the sterling opposition pre 2001 like eh , em... uhhhh, Mika?? :rolleyes:
Do us all a favour, go get some dvd or tapes from pre 1994.... maybe you might pick up a thing or 2 about being up against good teammates - Prost V Lauda, Senna V Prost, Piquet V Mansell etc. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

How many times have I said now that we don't know who is better - they never raced eachother in even circumstances!

Your argument seems to be that Senna is better than Schumacher because he wasn't as dominant as him... There is simply no logic to that! If Senna was a better driver, none of those people would have won anything, then by your logic that would make Senna worse because his opponents didn't win things.

Nobody know's who was better, in the same car it would have been a close battle, but to just make baseless claims that Senna is the best makes no sense.

Kersh

Dont get me wrong, Schumi belongs with the best of em - Fangio, Nuvolari, Clarke, Senna , Prost etc... he just isnt any better. He certainly isnt the best, by a long shot. Sure Clarke was better than both, and Nuvolari was better than Clarke.

Relatively speaking then,Senna is better, cos he beat more talented drivers - how is that for proof - -
He also kicked lumps out of Prost, who in case you didnt know was widely regarded 'Schumilike' at the time, as the best ever.... IN THE SAME TEAM AS HIM, Prost left after 2 years cos Senna wrecked his head.
Show me a team mate that mikey had that was of Prosts calibre - I await your answer.

steviec

Nelson Piquet?

He joined as his team-mate at Benetton in 91 and beat him in his debut, and went on to outqualify him in 4 out of 5 races(Piquet edged Schumacher for results thanks to car reliability)

It's not Michael's fault if noone's challenged him. Hopefully Kimi will be alongside him at Ferrari next year.

Kersh

It's not Michael's fault if noone's challenged him

What planet are you on - Schumacher has always CHOSEN the team mate, always. Its his choice. :rolleyes:
As for Piquet, he was about 40 at that stage. The fact is Scumi never went looking for a quick team mate, he always picked a lesser driver. WHY??

Dcully

LOL this stevie guy is obsessed .
Oh and Senna along with Jim Clarke are the greatest of all time

steviec

Kersh wrote:

What planet are you on - Schumacher has always CHOSEN the team mate, always. Its his choice. :rolleyes:
As for Piquet, he was about 40 at that stage. The fact is Scumi never went looking for a quick team mate, he always picked a lesser driver. WHY??

This is going around in circles.. Who would you have chosen? Who wasn't tied to a contract, was willing to move to Ferrari, and was better than Rubens or Eddie at the time? Nobody.

They certainly could have done a lot better than Massa this year but as I said that was probably more to do with politics and Jean Todt than anything else. Hopefully Kimi will be driving for them next year. And nobody will be giving Schumacher the excuse you're giving Nelson Piquet.

thegoth

That’s exactly what I have asked here on several occasions. Nobody is willing to answer as it blows their argument out of the water. Come on guys, back up your opinions with facts and stop making statements that have no merit or logical thinking behind them