Xig, You were banging this drum on old 606. Maybe its becuase the English are more intelligent that we have more to offer the world of motorsport in terms of technology, innovation and application, than just sat in a seat turning a wheel and pressing some pedals? We don't crave out and out success and fame, just merely get satisfactio in knowing that we were the brains behind everyone else's triumphs. Without us, they'd acheive nothing
Of note however, should be that England has produced 8 World Champions in total. No other country can get even close to that figure. Maybe its because we have so much talent, that it all has to be spread around? We can't focus on just one individual talent as we have so many? Rule Britannia etc etc
The only country to have more than one driver in the top ten poll (Autosport's) is Scotland. All of them trained on English racetracks, in English designed and built cars and English designed and built engines. If only Mansell could have eeked another WDC he would have jumped from no.11 into the top ten? Then we'd have two as well and the argument would be over! When you look at it overall, we're ****ing fantastic.
Maybe we just spend too much time arguing over which drivers are the truest, and which are the greatest.
I'd say most racers are flawed in some respects... especially the best. Truest and Greatest rarely go hand in hand.
i never saw any of those drivers cc , so i cant really talk with any real knowledge on any of them , however we know hill was no real match for clark at lotus , and moss was no real match for fangio which brings me back to my original question of whether england has ever had a driver that can be included in the very small and very elite group of all time greats --
i had alot of time for mansell bhaji as he was a major part of my favourite era , however i do know alot about his career and can only really judge him in comparison with his team mates in the same machinery -- it would seem de angelis very often had his number at lotus , he was certainly no match for prost at ferrari , and the only time he could win was when he had a big car advantage at williams , add all this together and his limitations begin to surface , however i have to say he was allways very good at silverstone in front of his home crowd , and there lies his achiles heel - if had been able to drive at that level thruout his career everyehere else he would have won alot more than the 1 WDC he did , whatever demon that was floating about in his head very often prevented him from replicating his silverstone performances which ultimately tarnished his legacy --
suggest you get hold of the 88 and 89 seasons watford and have a good look -- ironically the 89 season that prost won his WDC against senna was the season senna completly dominated prost --
It was tongue in cheek based on nothing but statistics. But my point is that if two great drivers go against each other, one is almost always going to do better than the other.
Okay... Mansell vs De Angelis & Prost. Both instances he was a #2 driver. Neither team was in a position to field two identical cars to compete for the title. It's very easy to take those two instances and say that Mansell was inferior. Some will look at the history and say he was, but that isn't a true reflection of what happened in my mind. Especially when it comes to '90.. Mansell was stiffed by Prost and left looking like an idiot. Had Prost not made his position at McLaren untenable and had to move then there is a good chance that Mansell would have been fighting for the championship that year. I think if Enzo had still been around then Prost wouldn't have seen the light of day in a Ferrari. We only have to see how he was unceremoniously dropped by Ferrari to understand was never deserving of that drive. Mansell managed to win against Rosberg, Piquet was one of the only drivers to really challenge Senna for a number of years... he was a fantastic racer and could have been triple if not 4 times WDC had circumstance been different. F1 never remembers the what if, the maybes... so unfortunately he'll always be the plucky Brit that took one title and most will say it was gifted. But in my memory he'll be the most brave, honest, and down right exciting drivers to grace the sport. He may not have the mystique of the likes of Senna... but f*** me he could put on a show! As for England's input in to F1 and it's champions... I tend to not see it as just England, I see us as Britain. And for a very small island sat on the extremities of Europe and not a million miles from the Arctic Circle, We have produced a bloody lot of success... See bellow for Drivers and Constructors. Drivers: Mike Hawthorn Graham Hill Jim Clark John Surtees Jackie Stewart James Hunt Nigel Mansell Damon Hill Lewis Hamilton Jenson Button Teams: Cooper BRM Lotus Brabham Tyrrell McLaren Williams Benetton Brawn And if you want to be Technical, Red Bull. Now if we want to start counting Engine Manufacturers That have been labeled as others *cough*Ilmor*cough* we could expand it further. While we're at it it we can start counting Indy chassis if you like... I'm not sure what your point is... I'm not even sure why you're trying to make it... But lets pick any other nation on the planet and compare it's input/achievements to those of both England and Britain as a whole.
you little tinker watford , i gathered you had just consulted wiki or whatever but i didnt like to say --
hey bhaji i have nothing against mansell as i said he was an important part of my favourite era ( the 80s )that first got me addicted to our sport , hence why i think i can speak with authority about nigels career , and i certainly believe he was as good or better than any english driver that came after him , and yes that certainly includes button or hamilton , however as you mentioned mansell when you replied to my topic i gave you the most honest answer i can about nigel , he had equal status with de angelis at lotus and prost at ferrari and came up short both times , he was a match for rosberg at williams and in fairness was probally a little quicker than piquet in equal machinery but lacked nelson"s on track savvy - put all this together and does it really qualify nigel as an all time great alongside the elite half a dozen i have previously mentioned ? --- when judging any driver you have to take into account his performances in equal machinery with his team mates , that is exactly what i did with nigel when you replied to me --
I agree Hill was not as 'great' as Clark (except when they went to Monaco); however, being beaten by someone does not necessarily preclude them from being great does it? Or is this another matter of opinion which goes nowhere? P.S. If you are 'Xiggly', I want to welcome you here with open arms. If so, I used to enjoy some of your stuff; it was always fun debating with you because unlike so many, you were always able to maintain a level of politeness and respect. And from your posts here in the threads I've seen, it seems that is still the case. You might be interested to know that, if indeed you are Xiggly, I actively encouraged another forum to go hunting for you! I believe you add candour to a forum, even though we often do not hold the same view. If you are not Xiggly, please ignore this - but stick around anyway!
Unfortunately, Mansell was never on equal status in either of those situations... I wish he had have been so that he may have gained more accolades. Lotus were a team that could only furnish one driver with it's latest developments and Ferrari have been notoriously inclined to pick one driver to put all their resources behind. Prost walked in to Mansell's drive (has he had an uncanny knack to do) in '93 and stumbled to that title. In my opinion, Had Frank retained Nige that year, it would have been title #2 quite comfortably. Anyway.. I don't want to turn this in to the great Mansell debate, as I stated... I'm quite a fan(boy/man). Going back to your original point... I'm still struggling with it. England has many great drivers and the UK as a whole has even more. What we have provided to the sport is some incredible engineering, some ingenuity and some fantastic minds. As far as Champions, we have provided more that most nations... so I'd say we are the over-achievers in this sport. Hence why so many of us have a passion for it.
