Think of all the world champions of the last 20 years: Senna, Mansell, Prost, Schumacher, Hill, Villeneurve, Hakkinan, Alonso, Raikkonan, Hamilton, Button & Vettel. Out of these 12 drivers who would you least prefer to bring back into F1?.... Would it be Jaques Villenueve by any chance? Why is this? The guy has been campaigning to get a drive back into F1 but hasnt been given a shot by the teams. Not even a test to proove himself so Im just wondering what you guys think would make him so unattractive to drive in F1 again? Villenuerve has also recently gone on record of comparing his time at williams where his carear began and Sauber where it ended saying "I loved Williams because there was a nice atmosphere," said Villeneuve. "But that is normal as we rode along the front. I could develop the car well and had alot of freedom in that area. there was also no political problems." and then how it was the opposit at sauber "'Shut up and drive. We do not want you to design the car.". Surely as the experianced guy at sauber at the time this is hard to believe. Let me know your views...
From what I remember Villenueve won his WDC and then just went completely off the boil. He didn't even seem to be a good driver any more, never mind a great, WDC challenging one. I'm not sure what went wrong for the rest of his career but he got out driven by several team mates of supposed lower quality. I take your point about helping to develop a car (which will obviously suit his style), but its no excuse to be beaten by your team mates who has exactly the same problem
in 1997 he was mustard. even with the poor car of 98 he did alright. First few years at BAR it seemed he was still quality but building a team up. Then I think when Button joined it went downhill. BAR nolonger needed him. He drove a few races in a competitive Renault but was poor. and then at sauber I would say he was so-so.. maybe to early to have sacked him but BMW had some talent in waiting.
Might get shouted down here but do you think there was a lull in competition round the mid 90's. I know we had various winners, but that period seems a quite one when discussed these days. Villenueve was the best of an average bunch (either due to skill or car related).
I dont know obviously he inherited the williams #1 status from Hill. In 97 I guess the Williams was still riding high on a crest of a wave. Hill had moved to Arrows Yamaha, and schumacher was building the Ferrari up. williams rival Benetton lost thier mojo using practically the 96 car And Mclaren were just about to become competitive with the mercedes package. 97 was Villeneuves for the taking. Maybe the same case for Hill in 96. But as 98 and 99 were the boring dominant years of mclaren and then followed the even more boring ferrari years. I would put down 96/97 as classic racing years when I was actually entertained.
The 90's bar 98 and 99 were definitely a good time for the sport competition wise. The McLaren and then Ferrari domination greatly hurt the sport, but you can't blame a team or driver for being too good. Its nice to have mixed fields again in the sport, but its a mixed field with some very top class drivers and teams.
I would agree the quality of drivers in the 05/10 period have been better than the 96/97 but both these periods have given good even racing. 86/95 surely is the best period of time for F1 =)
I wouldn't know, I wasn't born until 1987, So I missed most of that period, and as a 7 odd year old there's only so much you can take in All I have is the opinions of experts I respect. I stand by by original answer that I think Villeneuve is the lesser of said mentioned Champions. He was a little lucky with the situation he found himself in round 97ish, but after that it went down hill.
well your only 1 year younger than me... and I guess I only know of the 86 to 90 period from reading and youtube =/. I wonder what peoples comparasons of JV to Damon Hill are? in 96 it seemed that JV was just as good but the team favoured Hill for national backing. So Is JV better than Hill? and therefore Hill might be the lesser?
Williams had the best car in 96 and 97 by a country mile, Hill '96 and Villeneuve '97 only won their title's because of that! In fairness to Hill though, he finished an Arrows Yamaha in 2nd place at Hungary in '97 and would have won it if not for a throttle linkage failure. Coincidently it was Jacques Villeneuve who won that day but I doubt JV could have done the same job as DH in that Arrows. Jacques Villeneuve is a terrible driver, terrible interviewee and a terrible prospect for mechandising ala Vettel, Button, Hamilton, Alonso etc. That's why no one wants him! Also all of JV's 11 Grand Prix wins came in the flying Williams whereas DH actually won a Grand Prix for Jordan! I think all of this proves DH is a miles better driver than JV. JV was just lucky he had a drive at the team that happened to have the best car for the two seasons because he was gifted 2nd and 1st in the WDC! Most drivers in the field could have won the title in these years driving that Williams which bring us onto this argument.
Im just talking about the 96 season. JV seemed to be just as good as hill but wasnt given the chance to take the title. JVs worst carear move was going to BAR with his manager Pollock. Im sure his reputation would have been better if he went to Mclaren or Ferrari
I wish I could re-live the 80's again, I'm a bit older and for me the sports been in decline since that time. It's good that safety is a priority but it's led to sanitised racing in some ways. I think a lot of drivers from the current generation would struggle going back in time.
