The mayonaise in my sandwich filling turned it was so disgusted with Adelaide 94. I've never eaten a sandwich since.
Scumacher 94, Hill 96, Alonso 05, Raikkonen 07, Hamilton 08, Button 09 Vettel 10. You can argue all these didnt deserve to win those years.... Yet you cant argue they didnt deserve a title somewhere along the line so therefore are void from the OP debate
I have to disagree in places. Yes, Schumacher didn't deserve 1994, but Damon Hill deserved 96, Alonso deserved 05, didn't deserve 06, Raikkonen didn't deserve 07,Hamilton didn't deserve 08, Button deserved 09, Vettel didn't deserve 2010.
Having 2 engine failures, 2 brake failures, Webber shafting him at Hungary and Lewis slicing his tyre at Silverstone, still makes him undeserved? If anything, anybody else who could of won would of been undeserved since they needed a mechanical failure to beat him at 3 races.
Mechanical failures are just as related to car performance as speed, if you design a slow car then it is slow, if you design an unreliable car then it is unreliable. If you want to say they needed mechanical faliure to beat him, then you can also that he needed a faster car to beat them.
"What nonsense"? Clearly you did not read my statement properly did you Jacky? If you're going to pick fault with someone else's opinion, the least you can do is pay attention to what was said. Read it again. But just to help you, I'll copy the important line right here to save you the trouble: If we go by individual World Championships, I think the least deserving is actually Michael Schumacher. The word 'individual' refers to something in the singular doesn't it? Furthermore, I made it very clear I was referring to 1994. This was deliberate on my part, and not an accident. Neither is the thread entitled "Who is the least deserving multiple World Champion". Therefore it should be clear to even you that I was referring to one particular championship where I felt the 'claimant' was undeserving. Now, I don't mind if you disagree; but please don't spin my words into something that suits your argument. One more thing: at no point was I suggesting he was lucky to win every one of his (ahem) 'titles'.
I didn't even need to read the comments, I read the title and instantly new this would be all about Hamilton.
Read your post again. You stated "Of his 7 titles, he really earned a couple", a couple meaning he deserved only 2. So what 2 would they be and why did he not deserve the rest
Is it a waste of time debating with you Jacky? Your selective vision is quite unbelievable. However, I'll try one more time. Every single word of mine, including those which you've most recently quoted is chosen deliberately. I have made it clear that my response was in picking out one World Championship, but I felt it only fair to balance that against his subsequent achievements (even if to do so was not actually necessary) by acknowledging that he may have really earned a couple of them. If you were to read what I actually say, rather than how it reflects upon your vision of reality, you'd notice this - and hopefully have the grace to acknowledge it. Since you (unfairly to the forum) want to focus this discussion on my words, I will make another statement of my opinion, and keep it nice and simple for you so that it be less likely refracted in your rose-tints: In my opinion (which is surely what the author of this thread was asking for), Schumacher's 1994 title was the least deserving of any in the history of Grand Prix racing. Please don't read anything else into it. It is exactly what it says on the tin. If you want to debate Schumacher's other 'titles', another thread might be more appropriate; but it is clear that you have already objected to my acknowledgement that he may have earned a couple of them. I wonder why I even made such an acknowledgement when my words are twisted as surely as Schumacher's statistics (in my opinion)…
