Greatest F1 driver ever

[Stone Cold]

Oo, I had forgotten about this. Found this particular item earlier. Making my stance on Schumacher stronger

1. A gentleman from Scotland said that Schumacher was put into capable Teams from the start of his career. Please tell me when did Benetton Win or come close to winning prior to Schumacher joining them ? Then he said that Schumacher never left a winning team. Well, after winning in 94 & 95 he left Benetton to join Ferrari - which in Senna's own words (end of 93) was NOT COMPETITIVE! And Ferrari only got worse in 94 & 95. When was the last time a Ferrari driver won a championship prior to Schumacher ? Well, it was in 1979. (They won the Constructor's in 1982 & 83).
Question for you, why didn't Senna join Ferrari in 1994 ?? Further, Senna was with Toleman only for one season before moving to Lotus. Lotus had won a Championship before (1978) though I agree that it wasn't comparable to McLaren & Williams. Then he jumped ship to McLaren, which WAS WINNING ANYWAY, and won his three Championships!!! Then when he couldn't win anymore he left McLaren for the Williams Renault, which was by far, the Best Car of the 90's. Now tell me who has only moved to a better car all the time & who has dared to leave a winning team for an inferior one & also turn it into a winning Team ???? Mate, the Answer to this question is the biggest reason why I say Schumacher is better. Hang the six Championships & 70 Wins.
As for the claim that Senna did better in 93 than Schumacher, what about 92 ?? When Schumacher did better than Senna in only his first full season, in a much lesser known Car & Team than Senna's ???

Well let's see, prior to Schumacher, Benetton had already had 5 race wins and finished 3rd in the constructors championship twice. This puts them into the reasonably successful constructor category. Unlike say, Toleman, who were complete minnows, and for whom Senna scored their only podium finishes and half the points they *ever* achieved.

Also, Ferrari ended the 1993 season with 28 points, their third consecutive season without a win. There's no surprise that Senna didn't want to race for such a team (as the best racing driver around he would have had his pick - something you can hardly criticise him for).

In 1994 and 1995 Ferrari finished with 70 and 73 points respectively and won races in both years, this is hardly "getting worse" as you put it. For 1996, Ferrari were much improved with a brand new V10 engine bringing them into line with the rest of the field engine wise (and leaving their accursed V12 behind).

Furthermore why are people painting a picture of Schumacher doing the noble thing and helping out a struggling team, he was jumping ship from Benetton as he realised that poor operational control at Benetton could damage his reputation, he had a year left on his contract and he wanted out.

2. Lots of people say that Statistics are not important & then pull out one themselves (like Senna's 65 poles & that Schumacher lost to Hakkinen by 16 points while his Team mate lost only by 2 in 98). Isn't that ridiculous - contradicting themselves ?? I don't know about any Sport where Statistics are not important. It is like telling the Brazilians that their five World Cups in Soccer is just another Statistic & it is not important, when we all know that they are the Best Soccer playing Nation.

Except that you can't use statistics to compare apples and oranges, which is what people try and do. Back in 1984 when Senna started, 400 points were handed out to the drivers. In 2006, Schumacher's last year, 630 points were handed out to the drivers (ignoring half points being awarded). That's why some statistics are meaningless when it comes to comparing formula one drivers.

3. Some say that Championships are not important. Can someone tell me what these guys risk their lives for- Senna being the perfect example ?

As an extension to the previous argument, you can't say drivers like Senna, Clark and Surtees weren't great because they didn't rack up as many championships, they had the unfortunate circumstance of dying.

As per above, try making an apples for apples comparison, Senna completed 10 seasons, 1984-1993 and won three championships. In Schumacher's first 10 seasons, 1991-2000 he also won three championships. Who's the better driver, you can't call it on championships on this occasion.

4. Isn't it ironical that one person claims that Schumacher didn't have good competition & say that Hakkinen, Hill & Villeneuve were jokes while another say that Hakkinen was good Competition even as a Rookie; both to justify that Senna is better?

Nearly as ironic as posting a counter-argument to an argument that hasn't appeared in this thread yet.

5. For the assumption that Senna would have beaten Schumacher had he lived. What's there to back this ? Between 1991 & 1994 (when both were in F1), Schumacher has done at least as well as Senna if not better. So, the same argument can be turned around to say that Schumacher would have beaten Senna.

Let's look at the total points scored in all races that both Schumacher and Senna started:

Ayrton Senna: 163
Michael Schumacher: 139

That is hardly what I could call "at least as well", in fact the nomenclature I'd use is "worse".

6. Finally, for those who want others to check their heads, Please check if you've got one in the first place!!!

You'd do well to check your own head, see if there's any decent pro-Schumacher arguments in there rather than trotting out someone else's half-arsed attempt. If you are going to use other people's arguments, then at least check to see that they've got their facts right!

 

[jokerman]

Neal just got TOLD!!!

 

[marc]

What I always find funny is that Senna fans do not try and convince people that Senna was the best, they dont pull up stats etc.

Yet MS fans have to try and justify that he was the best, if he was the best people would not need to do this.

Senna was in F1 for just over 10 years and drove turbo cars and won, drove active cars and won, drove none turbo engines and won. Also fully manual gear boxes and again won. Senna was only in the best car for 2 years MS was in the best car for all of his world champions.

But then again Senna did not care about stats and all the numbers, as long as he was fastest thats all that bothered him. He would have hated driving like Alonso did to win world championships. For Senna the best was Juan Manuel Fangio.

It took MS longer to beat the records Senna set than it took Senna to set them, and back in the 80's there were about 5 teams that could win and 10 drivers that could win not just 2 or 3.

Also at least Senna admitted to Japan 1990, that was a dark day. Revenge on the track is never a good thing but had the FIA not messed with him it would not have happened. Even to this day MS has not admitted 1994 or 1997.

You can only compare drivers who drive for the same team at the same time. Would Senna have beaten MS, who knows but would MS have beaten Senna again who knows. Senna though probably would have been faster in quali and this would have got to MS. In 1992 even Brundle gave MS a run for his money and their race pace was near enough the same, so what does this really say about MS or was Brundle that good

The one thing MS was good at was driving flat out for the whole race, a lot of others could not do this. Ross used this and togteher they could run a race different from the rest.

 

[Screaming Coasters]

Car racing is controlled by the Ku Klux Klan? Wow, any more National Enquiry headlines I should know about?

For some reason, I can only read that in your voice lol.

Oh, and why aint Damon Hil in there? Ok, I was a fanboi...