Michael Schumacher was and continues to be one of the most controversial, divisive figures in the history of the sport. Whichever side you fall on in the Schumacher debate, I think we can all agree that his legacy sits across that particular line of fracture. What is more difficult to understand, however, is the attitude prevalent throughout much of Britain's f1 press. And this leads me to a certain Joe Saward. A veteran in f1 circles these days, there isn't much Joe doesn't know about. His blog is a collection of interesting musings both insightful and quirky, a talented writer in his own right. Until, that is, you get on to the topic of Michael Schumacher - so often the point at which a British f1 journalists turns from balanced, insightful and knowledgeable to resentful, bitter and agenda driven. Turning back the clock to the time of Michael Schumacher's skiing accident over 3 years ago and we have a perfect display of the bitterness that still persists to this day, no more encapsulated than within an astonishing and vindictive article written by Joe, published by Autocar. Now, many of you will no doubt have read this article and it's perhaps been discussed on here but if you haven't here's a link to it below. https://www.autocar.co.uk/opinion/motorsport/heres-hoping-michael-schumachers-luck-can-hold-out In the case of this particular piece of writing it's hard to deny that such musings are driven by anything other than an irrational, intense dislike of the Schumacher. To infer that Schumacher held responsibility for Senna’s death is incredulous that it could be said to be utterly defamatory. To then say that if he recovers (which it seems he hasn’t) it would be ‘good luck’ is even more extraordinary considering that Joe's understanding of Michael’s ‘good luck’ is utterly cynical in that ‘good luck’ in this sense was seeing Senna be killed, having little to no challengers during the years he dominated and, incredibly, down to ‘things happening in races just when Schumacher needed them to happen’. Such is the irrationality of the article I wouldn’t put it past Joe to understand these ‘things that happened in races’ was the oncoming of that most useful of driver aids and illegal of devices - wet weather. But putting all that aside, what is most gut wrenching about that article is that it was written at a time when the man was and continues to be bed bound having been cut off from living a normal life with his wife and two children. Crass in it’s insensitivity. Schumacher has always borne the brunt of a bitter British press who felt cheated in 1994 when Damon Hill suffered at the hands of a colliding Schumacher in a car largely deemed illegal. But that some needed to descend beyond that point leads you to one of the most nasty, vindictive and tasteless articles you are ever likely to read on this sport. Perhaps Saward is an extreme example of this resentful attitude in British f1 writing but an example it is nonetheless. Others like Alan Henry have done it but with greater nuance in withholding their spite (perhaps because Henry wrote for a major broadsheet?). But what drives such toxic feeling? It can't just be 1994 surely? Of course others will point to Jerez 1997 or Monaco 2006 (conveniently forgetting in the former the rather nauseating 'deal' between Williams and McLaren) and while they are deemed low points in Schumacher's career you really don't have to go far to uncover the sheer brilliance of the man - one season, one race even is enough to prove the magnitude of his greatness. For me what fuels the Schumacher agenda is a Teutophobia that has fuelled the British press and media for decades upon decades when confronted with German subjects. It has equipped many British writers where words like 'arrogant', 'cheat', 'cold' and 'humourless' have come in plentiful supply, ready to be spewed onto a word document whenever the topic of Schumacher, the German national football team or, even, Seb Vettel arises. It doesn't just drive falsehoods but rank hypocrisy where Schumacher's world titles can be devalued on account of just having the car do it for him while at the same time lavishing praise on their hero Hill's heroic 1996 title win in that assumed dog of a Williams car (ok - they didn't go that far but the silence regarding the sheer dominance of those mid 90s Williams machines is deafening). 1994 set the environment with which the British press could apply such attitudes guilt free, attitudes that have sadly flowed from newspaper to reader. It created a paranoia amongst the Sawards and co where Schumacher could not as much as sneeze without being accused of dirty tactics. Where one driver got off for 'hard but fair' racing, Michael would never have been given such a referral. I like to think that such an agenda won't spite another driver (ie Vettel) in quite the way it did to Schumacher. The positive thing regarding modern day f1 is that many of today's writers are new, upcoming and broad minded folk who are probably more aware of the fallacy of writing from a basis built on a bed of weedy subconscious xenophobia from which their more parochial minded predecessors acted upon. But it's hard to deny that such a precedent has not influenced narratives upon Sebastian - a truly unique, brilliant driver who is the finest example of Schumacher's incredible legacy in his home country. Many of the same arguments/insults regarding Vettel derive from those first flung at Schumacher. Arrogant. Spoilt. Bitter. Cheat. Lucky. His status as a young German and his title winning antics in a dominant car has done no good for his reputation seemingly while at the same time Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes success has not? Only in Britain can that be perceived to be a bad thing...but only if you're German.
Great to have a non-race topic to debate, but why bring up a 3 year old magazine article to do it? It's not like Seward has written it today because he has ran out of things to write about. As for the topic as we're on it, my view is a lot of ill-feeling for Schumacher came from the way he won the 1994 title and the way he tried to win the 1997 title and some questionable driving standards and tactics for a few years after that. Before then he was the bright young kid showing everyone how it should be done in a race car, then showed everyone how it shouldn't be done. His admirers say his all-out lust for victory at any cost is one of biggest attributes, his detractors say it is what made people dislike him because it didn't go along with the gentlemen's code for driving standards that generally existed and now causes half the issues we have today with acceptable driving standards now written into the rules (let's not get on to how these are policed by the stewards...........) However, this really is old news and with everyone wishing that he will eventually make some kind of recovery from his injuries it seems unfair to bring this all up again and start another England v Germany debate.
My OP makes no bones about the fact it is three years old, something I've clearly stated. Merely it is a perfect example of the kind of diatribe that has been a malign influence in British media reporting on f1 something which continues to this day and threatens to overshadow opinions on the current bunch of f1 drivers. This is a forum and debate can range on any topic you feel is worth debating in. Really is simple as that.
If the main topic is therefore the British press, then you only need to look at the German, Spanish and Italian press pieces to see how partisan they are about the drivers/teams from their own countries, but the British press haven't just reserved their ire to just German drivers, so lets not stoke up some kind of anti-German debate. There is some quality journalism out there, why focus on the ones who clearly do have an agenda? The less press they get, the less they'll be inclined to write it (or be allowed to write it) if people don't read it.
If senna or prost had rammed mansell not each other off the track then both would get same. the fact is hill is a vast superior car got done. he never deserved a title really IMO. its pure vindictiveness and pettiness to attempt to smear schumacher and then lionise senna
I love the people that praise Senna for ramming off Prost but have ago at Schumacher for the racing incident against Hill lol. Schumacher>Senna not even a debate.
dunno.... but i got into F1 at the end of senna and start of schumacher so for me schumacher was best i saw and broke all records while senna seems to be the "natural talent" greatest... that ld debate in all sports where one guy is the natural tlaent and one guy deleivers the results. Schumacher for me was the ultimate thinker and him winning at silverstone in the pits summed that up... well him and brawn together of course.
I'm not here to defend Senna ramming anyone off but that was no racing incident. And nor was the one where he tried to ram Villeneuve off the track but it didn't work that time.
Prost did it to Senna first in 89, then when it failed he got his buddy Balestre to change the rules on rejoining the track so he could steal the title. What happened in '90 was as much a '**** you' to Balestre and the FIA as it was to Prost. Schumacher did it because that was his character, win at any cost. Schumacher also had his contract so he could veto any challenger, Senna on the other hand, took on 3xWDC in his own backyard and retired him.
Bwahahahaha.... Not even a debate? That's something that will always be debated! Put yer head on straight man.
Bored of these kinds of debates, a few years ago I'd have probably got involved. Chris is right, if you don't think the article is publish-worthy just steer clear. Don't give them or the writer the advertisement.
The thing is, love him or lothe him, he'll always be among the very greats of this sport. No matter what bullshit is spewed about him or what casual viewers think, he's legend of the sport along with the likes of Senna, Clark etc... That can never be taken away.
Critics will come and go, but the drivers and memories they gave us will remain the history books. Simple as that.
