Hello! Well, there were a lot of points to answer, so I
hope you guys like reading! :-D
This is really for everyone, but especially for Ryan T, if he's still
around!
“…The wrong/ manufactured claim was mainly from Paul D of Scotland…”
Sorry, Ryan, but I have read over my last mail and I cannot spot ANYTHING
in it that is “wrong” or “manufactured”. By the way, I have not
accused YOU of fabrications or distortions despite disagreeing with many
of the things that YOU say – if you ever read this and reply then please
return the compliment. Anyway. I said that Benetton would have won without
Schuie because it’s TRUE – e.g. Johnnie Herbert winning at Silverstone
AND Monza in 1995 (in both instances Schumacher was out – for the
significance of this, see below). I said that Benetton won AFTER Schuie
left because it’s TRUE – e.g. Gerhard Berger at Hockenheim. I said
that Lotus did NOT win after Senna left because it’s TRUE – he scored
their LAST EVER victory. The number of points Benetton reaped after 1995
DID decline dramatically – but they would have anyway, with the
overpowering strength of the 1996 and 1997 Williams…I bet even Ayrton
Senna himself couldn’t have used a Benetton to beat the Williams to the
title in those years! :-D
“…Didn't they have the money at that time? Weren't they capable?? “
You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making about mega-rich
teams. ESPECIALLY where you wrote “…McLaren would have had a bigger
budget than Benetton (correct me if I am wrong, that’s my one
assumption). So, using your own argument about budgets as well, Senna had
a better car than Schumacher…” No, I am NOT saying that the quality of
a car increases directly with the amount of dollars available. That would
be facile. My point was that the mega-rich teams that Schumacher has
ALWAYS driven for never had to make do with a sub-standard package of
engines, tyres, personnel etc. to the extent that Senna did when he drove
for Lotus. This means that Senna’s achievements at Lotus, in a
relatively poor car (because the team did not have the assets to make a
better one relative to the competition at the time) were NEVER mirrored by
Schumacher, who has ALWAYS driven for a team with much better resources.
THIS means that I am more impressed with what Senna achieved before he won
championships than I am with what Schuie achieved before he won his
own.
No, Ryan, I am NOT saying that McLaren was poor. Ferrari and McLaren were
both stable, rich teams. But Schumacher could only join one or the other,
couldn’t he? He chose Ferrari, but HAD he joined McLaren, it would NOT
have disproved my point, and it would NOT have implied that I thought that
Ferrari had no resources.
You asked “…how come Ferrari didn’t win a Driver’s Championship
since 1979 until Schumacher did it…” (Well, they’d have won it
sooner than they did, as early as 1999, had Irvine NOT been required to
submit track position to Schumacher earlier that year, to the detriment of
his own point’s total). Anyway, that is an ENORMOUS question, and any
answer would require amongst other things a complete regurgitation of the
key events, deals and developments of all the championships from 1979 to
2000. Shorthand is - SOMEBODY was going to win the title back for Ferrari
eventually, given the team’s resources. Had he been equal priority,
EDDIE IRVINE could have taken it (see above). Also, it was NOT ONLY the
arrival of Schumacher that changed the team’s fortunes; the revival of
Ferrari was an ENORMOUS project, initiated and ‘sold’ to the sponsors,
management and so on LONG BEFORE Schumacher signed for them, and which
would have occurred anyway without him. The arrival of Todt, Brawn,
Stepney and Byrne (and many others), revised sponsorship and investment
levels, revised team-orders and even a new attitude (“There’s no point
being fast if you don’t finish”) also helped turn things around.
However, all this really doesn’t stick to the point of our debate, which
is “Who’s Better – Senna or Schuie?”
“…Also, if Byrne & Brawn’s Technical interpretations are not
correct, the authorities would have dealt with it...” Well, that is as
great a display of blind faith in the sport’s decision-makers as I have
ever seen. You only have to have seen the unpunished scandals of illegal
barge-boards, de facto traction control, photographs strongly suggestive
of banned differential braking systems, the controversy over flexible
floors and rear wings, Michael Schumacher’s lead-weighted crash helmet
that he took to an official weigh-in (depressing but true), and Benetton’s
use of an unapproved fuel filter (that THEY said would actually SLOW refuelling
down, but which reliable sources have stated would SPEED UP pit-stops by
about a second). This second may not sound like much until you remember
the pit-stop in Brazil, ’94, when Senna entered the pits AHEAD of Schuie
– and left the pits BEHIND him…somehow!...There are many others, but
most of these scandals and infringements have NOT been punished, despite
having been either corrected or even being allowed to creep into the
sport, to the EXTREMELY vigorous protests of fans, commentators and
drivers alike. (Incidentally, as further demonstration of the advantage of
having Ferrari putting most of their resources into one driver, look at
the end of the 1999 season. After Schumacher crashed at Silverstone, Eddie
Irvine became Ferrari’s championship hope, and, boy, Irvine’s
points-per-race average fairly SOARED!...He was winning THIS, he was
winning THAT…even taking into consideration Mika Salo’s
self-sacrificing help, the man was somehow…mystically…REBORN! All of a
sudden, the form of the Ferrari No.2 and underdog literally SKY-ROCKETED,
to the point that he clawed back so much ground and reaped so many points
that he was challenging Mika Hakkinen for the title by the last race of
the season that year!)
In response to “…Why can’t you speak about ’92 ??.. I agree with
you that Senna & Schumacher were not in comparable cars. Senna was in
the car that won the Drivers Championship for the four years prior to
that..” my reply is: because at the time of writing I was not
immediately and intimately familiar with the results of that season, and
the reasons for them. I was unprepared for someone to attach such huge
significance to that one year, to the only complete racing year in
Schumacher’s and Senna’s overlapped lives where Schumacher, for SOME
REASON, scored more points. However, because this seems to be such a
pivotal issue with you, I have decided to look into the 1992 season –
here are my findings: The first thing I learned - and it was a
strongly-recurring theme – was that at the start of 1992 the McLaren car
was NOT by ANY MEANS up to the relative standards of previous years. In
fact, by around half-way through the *1991* season McLaren were losing
serious ground, and Senna took the title that year thanks to the amount of
points he’d gained at the START of the season, when Williams were still
trying to improve their package. This, Ryan, I hope will finally put the
last nail into the coffin of your frankly EXASPERATING habit of insisting
that a team that won championships in previous years must always logically
still be front-runners the year after (or even SEVERAL years after!).
Anyway. For various reasons, in 1992, Schumacher retired *4* times. My
sources inform me that he scored 53 points that season. So far so good.
Now, Ayrton Senna retired for various reasons *7* times, and scored 50
points. How badly did the different rate of fail-to-finishes affect the
result? Well…looking only at races that they finished, Schumacher earned
an average *4.8* points per race. Which is pretty decent. Ayrton Senna
scored an average *6.25* points per race. This means that Ayrton Senna,
rather more often than not, finished in a higher position when he finished
a race than Schumacher did when HE finished a race. The inevitable
conclusion, then, is that it was MACHINERY (*NOT skill*) that let Senna
down. This means that in 1992, he retired on THREE more occasions than
Schumacher. and yet finished only *3 points* behind him, in a season
where, when he DID finish, he scored on average *6 points* per race. That
really says it all. Given equally reliable machinery, Senna would have
WHIPPED Schumacher. Further proof that when Senna finished he tended to
BEAT Schumacher pretty convincingly can be seen in their tally of wins
that year – Senna, *3*; Schumacher, *1*. I’m not taking anything away
from Schumacher’s performance in 1992. He proved himself to be a bright
new talent. Really impressive, beautiful. All I’m saying is that,
adjusting for retirements, he just didn’t do as well as Senna, that’s
all.
Incidentally, here you say “…Couple that with the fact that he had 8
years’ experience against Schumacher’s six races, Senna should have
beaten Schumacher hands down...” Whereas HERE, you say: “…There are
other factors such as the Chassis that could make a big difference…”
And, even more damning: “…Statistics don’t say the whole truth, but
longer the period (or larger the sample) the greater the accuracy. 10 –
13 years (160-200 starts) should give a fare result…” Oh? So you AGREE
that the results over one year (16 starts) don’t give a representative
result? So you AGREE that, say, 1992 on its own isn’t enough? OK, then
how about we compare the race performances of EVERY race that the two men
appeared in together? It’s easily done, and it would only be fair!
Representing the results of 41 races, it is the biggest sample of
comparative data possible for this discussion. Here are the results,
pinched from PlanetF1’s superb archive…
Head to Head Race Results:
(Schumacher is on the left, Senna is on the right).
Won 5 10
Finished Higher 17 20
when both finished 7 10
Retirements 14 14
(Incidentally, this table DOESN’T display the fact that Michael
Schumacher never achieved a single pole position while Ayrton Senna was
alive).
Ryan, what I hear from you is “..Schuie got higher numbers in 1992,
Schuie got higher numbers in 1992…” over and over. Don’t be fooled
by the bigger numbers from that one year, Ryan. If it’s JUST THE POINTS
IN THAT ONE YEAR that matter - Patrese scored *56* points that season,
which is more than either of them. So Ricardo Patrese was a better driver
than Senna AND Schuie, right?...(Nope!)
”Tell me, what’s so good about “THE Alain Prost” compared to
Hakkinen , Montoya or Raikkonen ??” I swear, Ryan, this is your finest
yet! MUSEUM quality! Here are a few important pointers… Senna: Got NO
sacrificial help from team-mate in all his Championship years.
Schumacher: Got CONSTANT sacrificial help from team-mate in all his
Championship years. Senna: Beat Prost, who’d achieved many victories,
and multiple championships.
Schumacher: Beat Montoya and Raikkonen at first when they were novices in
different teams from him in years when he had a strong car and, later,
beat them when they were more clued-up about Formula One when he had the
DOMINANT car.
Senna: Beat Prost, a tremendously strong-running veteran of the sport, in
an EQUAL car. Schumacher: Has NEVER beaten champion material in their
prime in an equal car. POSITIVELY DEMANDS relatively mediocre team-mates,
who must always take a subservient role. Schuie, recently, has beaten
**Eddie Irvine** and **Rubens Barrichello** in equal cars (with UNequal
team orders). Looking further back to his Benetton championship years, in
an equal car he beat Johnnie Herbert (who was really never the same after
the accident early in his promising career that smashed his feet to bits),
Martin Brundle (a good man and solid driver but, sadly, never a
race-winner), Ricardo Patrese (a former race winner but WELL past his
prime when he - ahem! - ‘raced’ with Schumacher) and Jos Verstappen.
Oooh! ‘Jos the boss!’ I’ll let others pick apart the rest of your
argument, Ryan. I could type about the differences between Senna beating
Prost and Schuie beating those other chaps all day.
Also, you said: “…You say that in ’94 Senna’s car was “Difficult”
quoting Frank Williams. Paul you are the one saying that Senna was good
& won in these sort of cars…” Yes, given time, mate! Fair play,
even in that tricky car he got 3 pole positions out of 3. He was CRASHED
INTO once, spun on another occasion whilst trying to catch what I and
many, MANY others have always thought was a VERY SUSPICIOUSLY nimble
Benetton, and lastly suffered a fatal accident whilst leading a race.
Senna would have won eventually that year – even Alain Prost said that
Senna could maybe have even beaten Prost’s record of 51 race wins in
1994, had he lived (Senna had 41 at the start of that year). No-one could
possibly pretend that the outcome of those 3 races were anywhere NEAR
representative of Senna’s actual talents (or Schuie’s, for that
matter). Then you said: “…How come Hill managed to push Schumacher to
the limit in the same car ??...” Where you yet again return to your
INFURIATING tendency to imply that cars cannot be developed or improved
throughout the course of a year. Well, the ’94 Williams WAS developed
and improved throughout the year. So too, I presume, was the Benetton, but
Williams seem to have clawed back more ground. Get this into your head –
**THE WILLIAMS CAR AT THE END OF THE SEASON WAS OF GREATER QUALITY THAN
THE CAR THAT STARTED IT**!! As a matter of fact, it was so good that in
order to win that year, Schuie only managed it by intentionally ramming
Hill, just because he'd knackered his own suspension and knew he was going
to lose the championship by his own mistake. I say again, Schumacher had
to punt Hill off, after Schuie had damaged his own car by hitting a wall
seconds before, as the result of his own error! How can ANYONE who wants
to talk about Schuie’s skill refer to the ’94 Championship, the
world-renowned PINNACLE of underhand, spiteful skullduggery and foul play,
without cringing with embarrassment for the man?
Incidentally, I presume that the apparently tasteless comment ”…As for
Williams cleaning the floor with Benetton : with due respect, Senna should
have kept his car on the track in the first place. THREE IN A ROW in the
best car is not good at all...” was unintended. Having been raised to
have regard for folk and to give them the benefit of the doubt I will
assume that you were NOT talking about Senna’s retirements when you
stridently declare “…THREE IN A ROW in the best car is not good at all…”
The reason being that not only was one of those retirements caused by
someone else shunting him off, but also that another one actually resulted
in a horrifying fatal accident that Senna, whilst negotiating an easy
turn, for some reason could not avoid. So I presume in your defence that
you are NOT implying, in ghastly terms, that Senna was so prone to lapses
of judgement and skill as to be routinely incapable of keeping a car on a
track. So you must have been talking about pole positions. That MUST be
it, because the alternative “THREE IN A ROW” would be ghoulish. You
must have meant “Three pole positions in a row in the fastest car is not
an impressive performance,” but even so I remind you that Frank Williams
himself said that the car at the start of the year was a difficult one, so
either way you look at it, with that statement of yours, you are missing
the point.
Also you said “…George from Greece: Firstly, please read my comments
on Lotus again & try to comprehend – or ask someone else to explain
it to you… “ You don’t need to patronize George as he made the same
perfectly reasonable interpretation of your statement (about a team
apparently having to be good in one decade after having won a championship
in a previous decade) as I did.
“…On the subject of Contracts & Team mates, although I don’t
think it is sporty, you can’t blame Schumacher for it…” Well,
actually, Ryan T. from Sri Lanka, yes, we can! Schumacher’s “ME!-ME!-ME!”
attitude has cheapened the sport for millions of fans and obscured his
true level of skill. I actually really rooted for Schumacher when he was
trying to beat Hakkinen, whom I saw as the dullest man in the world. But
it was obvious even then that there were some serious questions to ask
about Michael Schumacher. Eventually, I lost all respect for him in
Austria 2002 when he took the win from Rubens, the guy who’d been on
pole, and who’d led the entire race until the last few meters.
Schumacher, with 10 points won as a direct result of his own demands,
lacked the moral courage to even stand on the top of the podium while his
country’s National Anthem played. He was getting jeered and booed by
about 100,000 people anyway, why didn’t he just take his lumps? If he
was doing something he could justify, and doing the right thing, why was
he so humiliated?
“…Wonder what would have happened if Senna was the man at McLaren
& Prost wanted to join ?...” Frankly, I think that after 1988 Senna
wouldn’t have minded. Senna could beat Prost. That’s why Prost FORBADE
Senna to join him at Williams when Prost joined them in 1993. (Just like
Piquet vetoed Senna a few years earlier). Senna wanted to join Williams
for 1993 as well, but was vetoed. He would have loved to drive against
Prost, because Senna knew Senna was better.
Finally, in response to “…Team mates helping the No.1 driver has
always been there. I don’t like it but that’s there to stay. The
mistake Ferrari made was that they were open about it. However, you can
hand pick the number of times Schumacher got help from his Team Mate. Most
of the time his mate was behind his competitors…” Yes, team orders
have always been a feature of F1, BUT NOT TO THE SPORT-DESTROYING,
CONTEMPT-INDUCING EXTENT THAT SCHUMACHER DEMANDS. It is THIS more than
anything else that cheapens Schumacher’s currency. And have you
considered how much the-team-mate-usually-being-behind-him is INEVITABLE,
given the difference in the way they are treated as the result of his own
demands? How much of it is down to preferential budget allocation, testing
time (remember when Schuie was given his 2002 (or was it 2003?) Ferrari
before Rubens got his?) imbalanced resources and technical personnel (…ever
noticed how many car failures Rubens suffers compared to Schumacher?...).
Ever noticed how in the 12-lap qualifying, Irvine or Rubens would
routinely be sent out first, to assess the properties of the track and let
Schuie view the telemetry TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THEIR OWN QUALIFYING
POSITION. And remember how in the race Irvine would bunch the pack up and
make overtaking difficult while Schumacher romped away?...The list goes on…
**Here is an open plea to team Ferrari – you are rich enough and strong
enough to be able to run two Championship contenders, which has ALWAYS
been the desire of the millions of fans who are the financial bedrock of
Formula One. Millions of folk say that Senna vs. Prost at McLaren were
among the greatest years of the sport. By now you must surely understand
why NO-ONE likes to hear the words “…and Barrichello is in the lead,
so that’s another 10 points for Michael Schumacher…!...” Ferrari,
drop this attitude of putting all your eggs in one basket, give your
team-members equal priority, with one of them eventually beating the other
SOLELY ON MERIT like all of the other big teams and let’s go ‘RACING’
again!**
The logic is circular, and very, very tired. “Schumacher gets
preferential treatment because he’s the Championship hope. And he’s
the Championship hope because he gets preferential treatment.” Where
does one cross the line, when does one change into the other? Regards all,
Paul D - Scotland
Schumaker has no good competitors. For this reason he got
a lot of championships. By the other hand Senna compete against Prost,
Mansell, Piquet, Lauda (all of them World Champions) and other good F1
drivers - Ury K - Brazil
This is the Last Time I will annoy you guys ...
Ioana : I haven’t read Jean Todt’s statement but will take your word
for it. But wasn’t it Senna himself who told Ferrari that the Car wasn’t
Competitive? (Perhaps he meant he wanted one in ’95). Even if he was to
join Ferrari in ’95 what difference does that make ?? Senna was
Ferrari's first choice, obviously, but Schumacher is the one who delivered
...
Graham R : I didn’t mean anything complementary when I said Ferrari was
open about it. Perhaps I should have re-phrased it. And Austria 2002 was a
disgrace. I’ve said it before.
I think you have answered your own question about Williams & McLaren.
I don’t know why one wants to see two top drivers in the same team. I
would rather just see more good drivers & teams in F1. Just imagine,
two top drivers in a good team winning all the time! Won’t it be like
1988 & 2002? We know the result before the race has started? Graham, A
Team Mate (driver) is only one person. There are something like twenty
others in ten different cars. Now that’s where I want to see the
competition coming from. After all, one could argue that a Team should
work together – Not against each other. That’s why Ferrari is such a
successful team at present. Currently, there are three main Teams &
there’s nothing much between them, as seen in the last season. The good
drivers in the current lot are already in those teams. So, if a top rated
driver wants to get alongside Schumacher, he could easily do it in a
Williams or McLaren. It’s not as if there’s a good driver languishing
in Minardi, Ferrari wants him & Schumacher is blocking it. Is it?
About Schumacher’s insistence on team orders & other stuff; it is
not ideal but you would find fault with him only if you are looking for a
reason to. Anyway, that’s my opinion. You need not necessarily agree
with it. I will respect yours.
George : I hope you’ve got the HELP you were seeking & you don’t
SEE THINGS anymore! (especially, things like books that do not exist).
Hope that the NUTS are sorted-out too. Finally, thanks to everyone who had
a bit of a chat with me. GEM D of USA, ADAM of England, PAUL D of
Scotland, GEORGE of Greece, GRAHAM of Australia & IOANA of France –
It was fun. Also, thanks to the guys who provided this opportunity for F1
fans to interact with each other. Take care - Ryan T - Sri Lanka
Graham and George, I totally agree with you. Ryan, you
said that only a MS would have dared to go to Ferrari in the '90s and
contribute to its development, and for you this is one of the points that
make him so much greater than Ayrton Senna..... Sorry to disappoint you,
but you must have seen by now Jean Todt's recent (16 January 2004)
statement, saying that in 1993 AS and him agreed that AS would join
Ferrari from '95 ... if you haven't, check it out. So Senna was Ferrari's
first choice, and Senna, far from being afraid to, was actually willing to
go to Ferrari! Unfortunately, because of some concrete wall called
Tamburello he couldn't make it ... Senna never drew back in front of a
challenge, quite the opposite. All he asked for was being able to compete
on FAIR terms, and win on FAIR terms. That's what he always did, and
that's how he won his titles, exactly the opposite of your dear friend MS.
That's why MS will never be a great champion, but just a guy who happened
to win a lot of titles.
Mathew : I may be biased, but you are definitely blinded by your endless
admiration for MS and you are not doing him justice praising him for the
dirty side of his driving, team orders, unfair terms in his team mates'
contracts and accidents he caused on purpose, in order to win... unless
your values in life are exactly these ones, in which case I am more than
happy to disagree with you. And yes, this discussion is pointless.
Pointless to restate facts and statistics, compare races, team mates, cars
and so on... almost everything was said here, it's enough to have a look
backwards. now it's up to each one of you to see where stays the truth. To
me, MS is a great pilot without a doubt, but Ayrton Senna raised himself
at a higher level through his tremendous skill, delicacy of touch, right
values of sport and human values, sense of the competition and sense of
racing, making body and especially SOUL with his car. His breathtaking
overtakes, his brilliancy on the wet, his pure speed always, be it in
qualifying or race, made his driving PURE ART... and that's why Ayrton
Senna cannot be compared with any other pilot (at least those I had the
opportunity of seeing racing in the 20 past years), he is so much their
superior.
To use somebody else's words here: thank you Ayrton, it was nice watching
you! - Ioana - (Romanian living in France)
Ayrton used to win many races driving a car with less
technology than others, and he won his 3 championships racing against
other great pilots. Schumacher is a great pilot too, however I think he
has the advantage of Ferrari's technology. I can imagine what could had
done Ayrton with this car - Oswaldo E - Peru
George, You have written A LOT. And I agree with your LAST
STATEMENT ! - Ryan T - Sri Lanka
Ryan, you agree that Team orders aren't sporty yet you
can't blame Michael for it ? I've enjoyed reading your point of view on
this debate but this ?? How can't you blame Michael when he dictates who
his team-mate is ? And dictates that his team-mate has to yield when asked
by the team ? What state does that put the team-mate in ? What
motivation ? Of course they haven't helped Michael that much but that is
because they can't. They are either incompetent, lack motivation or
both!.
I agree that Team orders are part of the sport but the top teams (other
than Ferrari) have been reasonable when applying it. Both Williams and
McLaren haven't applied team orders until it was clear that one driver
cannot beat the other. I know McLaren did a stuff up at the opening round
of '98 in Oz when they swapped Mika and David but that was a team-mate
agreement and it was wrong to do. McLaren didn't interfere in '99 at Spa
when David won ahead of Mika despite that being the 12th race of the
season and Hakkinen was clearly the main contender for the title. In '02
Ferrari applied team orders in the 5th race of the season in Austria and
Michael took the win. He could have slowed down but he didn't. Only when
he heard the boos from the crowd that he asked Rubens to stand on the top
step. What a JOKE. When did Williams or McLaren apply team orders and what
is it that Ferrari was open about but the others were doing in
secrecy.
Ultimately we want to see two top drivers in the same team. Fans love to
see that. Michael Schumacher AND Ferrari robbed us of ever seeing a top
rated driver get alongside Michael. And you don't blame Michael ? That is
why Michael is disliked by many despite his impressive record. He is NOT a
good sportsman otherwise he wouldn't have driven others off on several
occasions and he is NOT brave for dictating who drives alongside him in
the team.
Myself and millions of other fans can't wait until Kimi and Juan Pablo go
head to head in 2005. That is what we want to see NOT a one man team. Good
'N' Ya McLaren - Graham R -
Australia
Dear Ryan when I say get the facts right I mean exactly
that. I’ve said it before and I ‘ll say it again: If you want to say
anything about Senna you must have been watching F1 since 84. You can
hardly form an opinion based on the results you recently read in a book
and you’ve obviously done exactly that. AS retired 6 times in 92 due to
mechanical (or electrical) failures and MS 2. However you say 'the car
that won the 88-91 titles' And I ask. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE
92 PERFORMANCE. DID YOU ACTUALLY WATCH THE 92 CHAMPIONSHIP? HOW CAN YOU
RELATE THE 92 MCLAREN WITH ANY OTHER MCLAREN BEFORE THAT? The 92 McLaren
was dreadful as was the 96 Ferrari. It’s not the first time a team
produces a very poor (in terms of competitiveness) car after having
monopolized for several years, remember the 98 Williams?
At least the 92 Benetton was reliable and in some races matched or even
bettered McLaren’s speed. As for 93 the 2 cars were similar in terms of
reliability however they did not have exactly the same engine. For the
first half of the season Benetton had a higher spec Ford engine than
McLaren. As for the chassis, Patrick Head said towards the end of 93 that
Benetton had the best one. Only at the end of 93 did McLaren manage
(through TAG) to produce improved software for the active suspension that
allowed them to better Benetton and equal Williams.
Experience and money don’t always get you to the top and Ferrari’s
performance during those years is the best proof. The difference in AS ‘s
move to Prost in 90 is that he didn’t cause the shunt. Let me explain
myself. AS was behind Prost in Suzuka 89 because he was starting in the
dirty side of the track (from pole). So in 90 and before the qualifying
session he went to the stewards and asked if they could set the pole in
the outside, being the clean line of the track. They said OK. After the
qualifying session (AS took pole) J.M.Ballestre gave the order: do not
change the pole position. So here we go again, sure you can start, Prost
will probably get ahead and you can try to overtake him but wait didn’t
that happen last year? The race starts Prost gets ahead and AS dives from
the inside, probably no brakes at all, Prost closes the door, and they
crash. Could have let him through though, at that speed AS could hardly
turn, he would probably end up in the gravel. Some time after that AS
actually said he did that on purpose (at least he was honest about it),
said that he took part in the shunt but did not cause it. I too don’t
think it was right but it was justified. It’s not about getting even,
getting revenge, it’s about not allowing politics interfere with racing.
But I couldn’t possibly expect you to know that could I? And of course
again we forget Australia 94 don’t we?
‘He gave up his Championship winning team & put his career on the
line by joining Ferrari’ you say. Dear God give us a break. Put his
career on the line? What were they going to do, destroy him? The fact is
that Briatore himself let MS go because he could hardly afford him, he
actually asked people inside Benetton what they preferred, keep MS and cut
down on research and development or let him go? The guy just wanted too
much money for a team like Benetton to give and nobody blames him for that
but that was the next step he had to make, leave them for a bigger team.
That team could have been Williams or McLaren but as we all know no team
can stay on top for more than 4-5 years in a row. So he decided to go to
the team that offered the most and I’m not talking just about money.
They had the resources (unlimited budget) and the need (no title for many
years) to give him everything he wanted and that meant letting him built
the team around him (Brawn and Byrne). He could not have done that in
Williams or McLaren. FOR GOD’S SAKE PEOPLE, HE DIDN’T MAKE A SACRIFICE
BY GOING TO FERRARI HE MADE THE SMARTEST CHOICE (ACTUALLY WILLIE WEBER
DID). He went there at the right time, he didn’t have to face people
like Barnard and Fiorio, like Prost did back in 90. And on top of that he
was young enough to try something else if it didn’t work out.
AS prevented Warwick from joining him in Lotus because it was a small team
and had limited resources. So he wanted to get all the support he could
from the team, he wasn’t afraid of having a capable team-mate. When he
was in McLaren he never asked for a specific driver or special terms in
any other driver’s contract, because he knew he was in a team that had
the resources to give equal (top) opportunities to its drivers. MS DID.
But no, MS owns the team so we wouldn’t want anybody else to come and
steal his glory do we? He did put his career on the line didn’t
he???????? You can see the outcome but you are too blind to see the
reasons.
AS had competitive cars in 88,89,90,91. He had the best in 88,89. MS had
competitive cars in 94,95,97,98,00,01,02,03. He had the best in 01,02. You
can hardly compare a car at the beginning of the year with the same car at
the end of it. You can understand the amount of development in 94 Williams
if you compare MS and Hill at the beginning and at the end of that year
but maybe that’s too much for you to understand.
No Ryan I don’t understand why you care to mention that Lotus had won
before and then that Benetton hadn’t unless you wanted to relate their
performances. You can’t compare absolute numbers established in
different eras, ratios however are more acceptable although, again, do not
always say the truth. You dare to compare Prost from 88 and on with
Montoya and Raikkonen of 03? What is that, new joke? No respect here at
all dear Ryan. The ‘THREE IN A ROW’ comment is way of your league. You
hardly know what happened back then. Twisted things??? Have you really
watched any races before 94?? You know, those books you have over there
just state the results, nothing more.
I must be nuts, I keep on spending time debating with people who actually
compare Prost with Piquet(92), 92 McLaren with 88-91 McLaren, and on and
on…HELP!!! - George - Greece
Paul D from Scotland : How can you say that Benetton would
have won without Schumacher & Lotus wouldn’t have without Senna ?
(That’s a one-eyed statement. Isn’t it ?) How many wins did you say
Benetton had after Schumacher left ??
Paul, Schumacher won 2 Championships not 1 or 2 races. Where’s Benetton
now anyway ? You are prepared to give Senna Credit for winning Races but
not for Schumacher’s Championships ? Come on.
On the subject of Mega Rich Teams; Are you saying that McLaren was poor
& how come Ferrari didn’t win a Driver’s Championship since 1979
until Schumacher did it. Didn't they have the money at that time? Weren't
they capable?? Also, if Byrne & Brawn’s Technical interpretations
are not correct, the authorities would have dealt with it. If I remember
right, Schumacher was stripped off one of his wins in 94. If they pushed
the regulations to the limit, well, that’s what this sport is all about
–push everything to the limit.
Why can’t you speak about ’92 ?? I agree with you that Senna &
Schumacher were not in comparable cars. Senna was in the car that won the
Drivers Championship for the four years prior to that. I am sure that
McLaren would have had a bigger budget than Benetton (correct me if I am
wrong, that’s my one assumption). So, using your own argument about
budgets as well, Senna had a better car than Schumacher. Couple that with
the fact that he had 8 years’ experience against Schumacher’s six
races, Senna should have beaten Schumacher hands down.
No doubt Prost was a good driver & may have been the biggest name at
the time. But you can beat a bigger name only if there’s some one bigger
than you are! However, Senna did it only once in EQUAL CARS & Prost
beat him the other time. Tell me, what’s so good about “THE Alain
Prost” compared to Hakkinen , Montoya or Raikkonen ??
As for the points system that helped Senna win, well, the rule was that
the one who had the eleven (I think) best finishes was the Champion.
Everybody played by that rule. So Senna was the Champion. No question
about it. You are the one bringing it out!! If you haven’t noticed, my
assessments are mainly based on achievements. A win is a win. No “If”s,
“Could have”s or “Would have”s. When I said that Schumacher did at
least as good as Senna from 1991 – 1994, I included 91 to be fair by
Senna, even though Michael took part in only the last six races. So, if
you say Senna won in 91, then you must take Schumacher’s win in 94 or
exclude both. That leaves us with 92 & 93 where they did better than
the other once each. This is not even taking into account the fact that
Schumacher had just begun his career. You had a good twist to it saying
the cars were highly similar in 93. Paul just because both had the same
engine doesn’t make these cars any similar. There are other factors such
as the Chassis that could make a big difference. And that is where
Experienced Teams get the edge.
You say that in ’94 Senna’s car was “Difficult” quoting Frank
Williams. Paul you are the one saying that Senna was good & won in
these sort of cars. How come Hill managed to push Schumacher to the limit
in the same car ?? Why do you give excuses when Senna messes up & say
it is suspicious when Schumacher wins? Obviously, if you knock off all
negative performances of Senna & positive performances of Schumacher,
you will end up with Senna being better!
As for Williams cleaning the floor with Benetton : with due respect, Senna
should have kept his car on the track in the first place. THREE IN A ROW
in the best car is not good at all.
George from Greece: Firstly, please read my comments on Lotus again &
try to comprehend – or ask someone else to explain it to you. Otherwise
you’ll be the joke! I agree with your answer to why Senna didn’t join
Ferrari & I think that it was the right move by him. I asked the
question because many people imply that Schumacher walked into a winning
Team in Ferrari. I hope the others have read it.
George, I couldn’t agree with you more when you said “we only see what
we want to”. You are the perfect example! For instance, when Senna doesn’t
do well (92), you say that the “car wasn’t reliable” (the car that
won the Championship from 88-91), without giving credit to Schumacher who
was in his first full season. You asked if Prost running into Senna &
Schumacher running into Villeneuve were fair, without mentioning Senna
doing the same to Prost! (whoever does it, it is wrong & unfair)
On the subject of Contracts & Team mates, although I don’t think it
is sporty, you can’t blame Schumacher for it. He gave up his
Championship winning team & put his career on the line by joining
Ferrari. You wouldn’t want to let someone else come & reap the
benefits of it. Would you ? I guess it was a similar reason for Senna
objecting to Warwick joining his team. (sorry for reminding you of things
Senna did) And as for Senna having Prost for a Team mate, he really didn’t
have a choice did he ? Prost was already there. Wonder what would have
happened if Senna was the man at McLaren & Prost wanted to join ? Team
mates helping the No.1 driver has always been there. I don’t like it but
that’s there to stay. The mistake Ferrari made was that they were open
about it. However, you can hand pick the number of times Schumacher got
help from his Team Mate. Most of the time his mate was behind his
competitors. (Just to add to things, do you remember McLaren offering to
block Schumacher for Williams in 94 or 95 ??)
On statistics, I haven’t read you saying it is not important, but plenty
of others have ( & contradicted themselves immediately ). Statistics
don’t say the whole truth, but longer the period (or larger the sample)
the greater the accuracy. 10 – 13 years (160-200 starts) should give a
fare result.
George, could you let me know in which seasons Senna & Schumacher had
competitive cars, respectively. I will take-up your “strong advice”,
keep my mind clear & try to be more informed.
As for your “@#$%^&%$#” – you can keep it (a bit like Greek to
me). The wrong/ manufactured claim was mainly from Paul D of Scotland. I
don’t see any of it in your statements although you have conveniently
twisted things to suit your opinion. So what is it that I have to get
right ? Cheers - Ryan T - Sri Lanka
I am a devoted fan of Ayrton Senna and I truly cannot say
honestly who is the best.
Ayrton did not have the chance to finish his life naturally. I love
Schumacher also but never like I still love Ayrton (beco). I still mourn
his death, I feel I always will.
We all missed the best racing between two competitors which even you have
to admit is true - Glynis H - Australia
Schumacher is the greatest and most complete driver in
history. Senna was a brilliant driver and I would put him third in my
all-time rankings in the third position. The driver I consider the most
brilliant was Jimmy Clark, but Schumacher is more complete and efficient.
In my opinion the best way to see who is the greatest is that: put the
greatest 10 drivers ever (Nuvolari, Caracciola, Rosemeyer. Fangio, Moss,
Clark, Stewart, Prost, Senna, Schumacher) in equal cars and let them
battle, then we will we see who is the best.
My opinion: 1. Schumi, 2. Clark. 3.Senna - Valy - Romania
Senna is the greatest F1 driver have ever existed - Luca
- Switzerland
Dont compare Senna to Schumacher, Senna is the best driver
at all time in the history of F1 forget the 6 times what Schumacher did.
If Senna is alive even 1 world champion he cannot win. AYRTON NO ONE IS
GREATER THAN YOU - Vencent - Philippines
If you would see that Michael has 6 championships and
senna "only" 3, you would think Schumacher is twice as good as
Senna. But don't forget that Michael is driving with all the driving aids
possible, even traction control. Senna used the real "tuff"
materials, his own gearbox, no traction control and of course the cars in
that time were a lot harder to drive so I still think Senna is MUCH better
than Schumacher - Tobias - Belgium
Hi, and Happy New Year to you all, and to the erudite Ryan
T. from Sri Lanka. My point about Schuie not having to toil in
underperforming teams compared to Senna is, I believe, borne out by the
evidence. I'm sure that Benetton did not win before Schumacher joined it,
but my point is that Benetton were a young team, with a very significant
budget and huge potential. They'd have won races anyway, with Brundle and
Herbert and whoever else, had Schuie not joined them. The same cannot be
said for Lotus and Senna in '85, '86 and '87. Few doubt that Lotus would
have won anything without Senna at the wheel. Also, Benetton went on to
take victories after Schuie left; Lotus NEVER won again after Senna left.
All of Schumacher's teams have been either capable of wins or stable,
mega-rich teams with great potential, and all of them have had the same
Schuie-Brawn-Byrne combo, whose interpretations of technical legality have
always been, shall I say, questionable.
I cannot speak for the 1992 results but I suspect that Senna and Schuie
were not in comparable cars. This makes comparison difficult. Fortunately,
we all know that the 1993 McLarens and Benettons were highly similar, and
this leads to much more valid comparison. We can see that Senna ran rings
around Schumacher that year, 5 victories to 1, including that immortal
drive at Donington.
You mention that Senna's championship came in the already dominant McLaren
Honda. While this is true, the REALLY important point is that Senna beat
Prost to the title. I mean, THE Alain Prost! Senna didn't get a leg-up
from a stooge who sacrificed his own development budget, testing time and
track position for Senna's benefit - he went out and beat the biggest name
in the sport, in equal cars! And don't say 'but he got fewer points' as
that point and its refutal (that we don't know how a modern points ruling
would have affected his strategy) have already been made. Senna also took
pole position in every race he contested in 1994, in a car that even Frank
Williams described as "...a difficult car, we'll be the first to
admit that." Even with such an early lead in the championship, due to
Senna crashing in one race, spinning whilst trying to catch what many
would say was a *suspiciously* quick Benetton in another, and having a
fatal accident in another, Schuie still only barely took the title in the
LAST race of the season, from Hill, a driver who could be fairly described
as the No.2 driver at Williams at the start of the season. Even then he
only managed it by intentionally ramming Hill, just because he'd knackered
his own suspension and knew he was going to lose the championship by his
own mistake. Had Senna lived to race in Adelaide, Williams would have
cleaned the floor with Benetton. Of that there is no doubt.
You also say that in 1991-94 and after that Schuie has done at least as
well as Senna if not better. Well, don't forget, Senna was champion in
1991, and markedly more dominant than Schuie in 1993. And for most of 1994
and from then on the Schuie-Benetton and Schuie-Ferrari combo has not had
a competitor-and-car package to compete against that was in the same
league. There were no Prosts, Piquets or Mansells stopping SCHUIE from
racking up the wins (AND Schuie has had it written into his contract that
he must ALWAYS have No.1 status, thus forever obscuring his true level of
ability)
Lastly, you wrote "...some say that championships are not important.
Can anyone tell me what these guys are risking their lives for..." -
I think the point was more that the NUMBER of championships are not
important to us, the fans, when we assess the merit of an individual
driver (e.g. Gilles Villeneuve, Moss, Ronnie Peterson etc. who all, as you
know, never won any). In fact, someone on this mailing list said that a
driver's display of ability was more important to them than in judging
their skill than the number of championships that they won, while someone
else wrote that "Schuie's championships were tainted with team
orders, cheating and downright dirty driving", an opinion I happen to
agree with. Senna was not only a better driver than Schumacher, but he
made the sport sustainable, dramatic, engaging and fun in a way that
Schuie never can and - guaranteed - never will. Paul D - Scotland
Hey guys I'm gonna do something none of you (meaning MS
supporters) ever did in this debate. I'm going to answer to a question.
The question is: Why didn't AS join Ferrari in 94? Ok think, you're 33 and
you've been struggling for the last 2 years with cars that are hardly
competitive more than that they can barely finish a race. You still have
about 2-4 years in F1 that is if you want to retire at your prime and not
after that like Piquet or Hill did. So going to Ferrari means it'll take
you about 2-3 years to have a competitive car, given the situation over
there at the time, and then retire. Do you go there? NO, you go were there
is a competitive car because you don't have time to build a team being not
so far from retiring, especially if that team is where Ferrari was back in
93. Unless.. Unless you're 26 having about 10 years in front of you and
already 2 titles behind. But even though you're one of the best guys ever,
you really aren't so bright so when Willie Weber first tells you to join
Ferrari you say: Gee Willie why would I wanna go to Ferrari when I can
easily overtake them with my Benetton and not go to Williams or McLaren?
YES HE RECENTLY ADMITTED SAYING THAT. However you do go there and take
with you Brawn and Byrne to build the team around you. And because you can
,you pick up a team-mate whose contract says something like this:
1. if he is in front of you he must move over
2. if he is in front of you and there is another car between you he must
slow down in order for you to catch up and overtake
3. if he's right behind you he must also slow down in order to delay the
guy behind.
If anyone has any doubts about the above I suggest he should watch again
Suzuka 97, if he ever did.
Yes Hakkinen was really brilliant but sadly he lost motivation too soon,
he did manage to beat MS though back in 98. However Hill and Villeneuve
remain a joke (Ralf too). So is it the same having Hakkinen as an opponent
for 2 years as having Prost for 3 and Mansell for 1. Of course dear Ryan
you conveniently forget (as most of MS supporters do) that when AS joined
McLaren (who were winning anyway,right?) HE HAD PROST AS A TEAM-MATE
@#$%^&%^%$#. You can easily compare AS's first 2 years in McLaren with
MS during 01,02. Of course you can only do that if you forget Prost ever
existed or if you rate him at the same level with Barrichello.
Again no one knows how AS would have driven in 88 if the point system was
different and anyway it's really pathetic judging past championships with
today's rules, suits Mathew though.
Another question. Given the fact that Prost won in 89 crashing into AS
(pretty much what MS did back in 97) IS THAT RESULT FAIR? If you believe
that the 94 Benetton and 00, 03 Ferrari were sub-standard equipment then
the 90,91 McLaren were too. However I do not believe that. It was quite
obvious that those cars may not have been the best of their time but they
WERE COMPETITIVE (COMPETITIVE DOES NOT MEAN BEST) and quite enough for AS
and MS because they could (and can) make the difference.
The fact that Lotus had won titles in the late 70's did not make it a
better team in 85, good joke though.
And about 92 maybe you should check McLaren's reliability but then again
we only see what we want don't we (sorry I meant you). Statistics are
important never said myself they weren't, but don't always tell the truth.
For startness MS has been racing 3 years more than AS did and again he had
competitive cars for a lot more years than AS did. I would like to know
which of the above are wrong/manufactured claims. But I would also
strongly suggest you kept yourself more informed and clear minded. In
other words maybe you first should GET THE FACTS RIGHT.
By the way as I recall the only guy who tried to "simulate" a
championship with AS and MS with similar equipment and get his own results
was Mathew. I do hope you don't take this mail as an attack on you
personally or MS, I don't hate or despise him, I believe he deserves
everything he has achieved it's just that he has been luckier than AS
(never faced someone like Prost or Ballestre) and any other great driver
in F1.
I am lost though this taxi driver really doesn't know where he's going,
God I can't even find my head.... George - Greece
Senna would have ended up with 6 if he would have remained
with the living for a couple of years longer as he would obviously have
always been hired by the best team - Otto - USA
