Inviere wrote: » All multiple world champions have had that claim though, Red Bull were very strong (arguably dominant for two of their four winning seasons), Ferrari, McLaren, Williams...if you're going to detract from Lewis because of what team he's in, it'd only be fair to do the same to some of the other greats. How many different teams has Alonso and Vettel won for? It's been seen as a 'next-level' thing to do, win a WDC with more than one team, and Lewis has achieved that. Lewis came into F1 in his rookie year, stuck it to his teammate (considered the best of his generation), got the measure of him, and lost out on winning the title by a single point. Yes he came into F1 to a front running team, but not many rookies come through the ranks and get the measure of much more seasoned team mates in their first year. I personally think 2007's results do a lot to show just how talented Lewis is, possibly more so than his WDC's. There is no 'greatest ever', too many things change - cars, rules, tracks, styles, technology, etc. There are only 'the greats'. To compare them is meaningless. One thing is very certain though, Lewis Hamilton is in the discussion with Schumacher, Senna, and Alonso, as prodigious, generational talents that don't come around too often. To deny that, I feel says more about a persons bias than anything else.
PukkaStukka wrote: » Oh dear. It looks like Ferrari's problem is down to a fundamental design issuehttps://www.essentiallysports.com/scuderia-ferrari-admit-that-they-made-a-mistake-in-their-concept/
eviltimeban wrote: » Most successful doesn't necessarily mean "greatest". On paper, yes. But he's no Senna, or Schumacher, or even Alonso - those drivers took F1 to a new level.
quokula wrote: » Yep he’s nowhere near their level. You could make a very strong case he’s far from the best driver on the current grid - how many other top drivers would be so closely matched with Bottas, or would have been beaten by Nico Rosberg like he was? The Mercedes hybrid is a stunning statistical outlier that has laid waste to everything. Hamilton has been lucky enough to be sat in it, alongside mediocre team mates who he’s barely outmatched.
Burkie1203 wrote: » It's impossible to call Hamilton one of the greats based on stats. The last 10 years, and Vettel in particular have shown it all comes down to the car and being coached by your engineer. It all comes down to the car and the team. This isn't racing anymore. It's just a technology race.
Anjobe wrote: » Ho hum, Hamilton is no where near Alsonso's level - a driver he actually beat in the same car in his rookie year? How many drivers would have been beaten by Nico Rosberg, well Schumacher was in 3 consecutive seasons. Ask yourself how many drivers on the current grid could have produced the pole lap that Hamilton did at Singapore last year? Mercedes' car has been phenomenal, but wasn't completely dominant last year or the year before, the Ferrari was nearly as good, better at some circuits. That Hamilton won those championships pretty easily would seem to indicate that he is the clearly the best driver of the 4 who were at those 2 teams at least. F1 has always been about the car. If you're going to dismiss Hamilton (and Vettel) as being among the greatest because they racked up championships in a dominant car then the same argument can be applied to Schumacher, Prost, Senna, Lauda, Jackie Stewart, Jim Clark etc, etc, so who exactly are the "greatest"? Its fairly unusual for the winning driver not to come from the winning constructor - know who the last one was? Nelson Picquet won both his championships in a different team to the winning constructor, does this make him the greatest?
quokula wrote: » You've clearly just read something and didn't see what happened in 2007 if you think he "beat" Alonso - they finished level on points despite the team boss (who hated Alonso for exposing the endemic culture of corruption at McLaren at the time) being on record that his goal was to beat Alonso with Hamilton. It was by far the worst year of Fernando's career for that reason. Look at the following seasons when Alonso regularly beat Hamilton in an inferior car for more realistic evidence. Also if you think the performance of a post-retirement 40 year old Schumacher is representative of his real potential you're either deluded or being deliberately dishonest. You're correct to say that it's unusual for the winning driver not being from the winning constructor, since the winning driver's points go to the winning constructor. The key is how often the winning driver's team-mate is second. For example, Vettel's team-mate never finished as high as second when he won the title (in fact Hamilton's team mate did in one of those years, while Lewis himself struggled in the same car) indicating that without Vettel Red Bull likely would never have won anything (and indeed they've never won anything since he left). The same goes for most but not all of Schumacher's titles, both Alonso's titles etc. On the other hand, without Lewis in the car, Mercedes would still have comfortably won everything in the hybrid era (and indeed, Hamilton was beaten by his own team mate to the title one of those years, an unprecedented blemish for a driver laughably proclaimed to be an all time great). The only exception has been the last couple of years when Vettel drove the wheels off the Ferrari to keep up and Bottas proved himself wholly unworthy of a seat at a top team.
Nic_Col wrote: » I sat down last night to do up a top 10 of my time following the sport stupidly thinking it would be a 5 minute thing... 1) Schumacher, M 2) Hakkinen 3) Hamilton 4) Alonso 5) Vettel 6) Button 7) Rosberg 8) Raikkonen 9) Coulthard 10) Riccardo 11) Verstappen, M 12) Villeneuve 13) Montoya 14) Alesi 15) Kubica 16) Hill 17) Hulkenberg 18) Irvine 19) Massa 20) Barrichello The top 5 would be worthy of being hailed "One of the greatest" in my opinion. The first race I watched was the 1993 Portuguese GP which was the third last race of that year and I didn't really become a fully fledged fan until Monaco 94 as for all the wrong reasons formula one was very topical at that time (in my defence I was only 9!). So technically I have seen Senna, Prost and Mansell race; three drivers who would unquestionably make my top 10, I just don't really have any strong enough memories of watching them race. I don't know whether I'd have Senna as #1 or #2, Schumacher was my idol for about ten years, often he was the only man capable of taking the fight to Newey designed cars and kept seasons from becoming a battle only between Newey team mates. And he had a handful of phenomenal drives which still make me giddy. I'd have Prost behind Alonso and ahead of Vettel. Mansell probably behind Vettel. Even if my primary memories of Mansell of him really struggling in a McLaren that he was unable to fit in! Hakkinen at #2 is perhaps a bit of nostalgia bias. But one factor in terms of how a driver must be rated is the drivers ability to tow the company line and how they fit in as a team member and that they have a team driven ethos rather than a more selfish ethos. This is one area where Alonso undoubtedly falls down. His tempestuous nature may be entertaining and endear him to many but it literally cost McLaren $100,000,000 back in 2007 and while his public criticisms and radio messages regarding the Honda engine were amusing, it only burned more bridges for him. Schumacher was the ultimate team man, though Todt was the driver of the Ferrari team ethos Schumacher 100% bought into it. He never really criticised the team, not publicly anyway. Hamilton has taken that on, he constantly refers to the guys "back at the factory", and even though it's annoyingly repetitive he's correct to do it. He does frequently query strategy calls over the radio though and often airs concerns over how long he thinks the tyres will last, by and large he does say and do the right things but he's not in Schumacher's league when it comes to the team thing. Feel free to call me nuts for ranking this driver over that one and so on but I've no problem admitting my own personal nostalgia is a factor in this list!
youreadthat wrote: » Boring addition tbh especially with Spa around the corner.
Adamocovic wrote: » Very good post. Loving seeing Button up there. Think he was one of the smoothest/cleanest drivers I've seen around a track. Remember his title winning season, was brilliant for me to watch, despite the second half just him trying to hold them off. Was delighted when he won it.
Peyton Lively Tiller wrote: » Verstappen is the reason for it no doubt, Belgian born Dutchman so it's a win win for both countries with regards to revenue, at 21 there is easily another 15 years in him.
Anjobe wrote: » Bit harsh on Damon Hill though.
Anjobe wrote: » Its fairly unusual for the winning driver not to come from the winning constructor - know who the last one was? Nelson Picquet won both his championships in a different team to the winning constructor, does this make him the greatest?
donspeekinglesh wrote: » It's happened a few times since then - Prost (86), Schumacher (94), Hakkinen (99) and Hamilton (08)
LollipopJimmy wrote: » I never fancied Damon as a driver tbh, I know he's in the championship club but that Williams was a beast
Anjobe wrote: » Yes, that's what I meant. Hamilton was the last WDC winner who didn't drive for the champion constructors, in answer to a post dissing Hamilton 'cos he can apparently only win in a dominant car.
Peyton Lively Tiller wrote: » He did win in the dominant car, his teammate at the time just wasn’t good enough to help secure the constructors championship
Anjobe wrote: » AFAIR, most commentators at the time reckoned the Ferrari was the better car that year.
astrofluff wrote: » Re 2008, what's a point among friends these days? Well, it would have been Massa's only for Timo.
F1 must be a drivers' championship, not an engineers' tech fest. The cars must be the angriest, flightiest most challenging machines on the planet. I don't want to see teenagers jumping in them and having it all mastered by lunchtime, and fully on the pace.
