I kind of get what Byron is saying, but am a relative new comer to the sport, what do the hardened fans on here think? http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/michael-schumacher-retires-its-rubbish-1360656
Lol seems he has completely forgotten that Fangio, Clark, Senna, Stewart, Mansell, Prost and Alonso all had their advantages when winning their worlds titles. This mostly applies to all multiple world champions, not just Schumacher. Didn't he ever wonder why Senna and Prost used to qualify 2-3 seconds faster than anybody else on the grid? Of course it was 100% talent lol! Class A Hamelot/Damelot in my opinion.
Byron is a big-headed, Daily Mirror journalist. Simple minded fool. He is only wanting to be different for publicity. What a selective little twat. You are right Silver.
An interesting article, crcjack. I don't quite agree with Byron's top ten. My personal opinion is that both Fangio and Clark were better than Senna, and that Jackie Stewart should swap places with Villeneuve. However, I'm wandering off my point. My point is that I agree with the main thrust of Byron's article; and that I also have Schumacher out of the top ten. In fact, I rate him somewhere between 11 and 13. Similarly, I agree with Byron that Schumacher's 'true' tally of World Championships is two, and thus equal to Damon Hill's true value, who had to fight his team mates as well as the odd cheat with an illegal car or the backing of Ecclestone and/or the FIA ! N.B. This comment is largely to balance the thread.
It's the wrong argument, sensational for the sake of being sensational. Had the argument been "With the advantages afforded to Schumacher from 2000-5, would the likes of Hakkinen, Montoya, Raikkonen or Alonso won the titles Schumacher did" then fair enough, he has a point. But to write them off entirely as charades is unfair. I'd also pick holes in his top 10, but then everyone has their own opinion, as our discussions of the BBC top 20 has demonstrated.
It's just stupid though, I had seen the article before today, I didn't bother with it. But to write off 5 world titles, under the heading "gained from an advantage". Show me any champion that didn't have an advantage, whether it be the fastest car on the grid, or the number one status (which still occurs today). It get the feeling the guy hasn't even watched F1 like we do. He just won more world titles than anybody else, and until somebody gains that title, he will be the panto villain to the children that like that idea. Michael Schumacher is the most decorated F1 driver in the history of the sport, get over it. What is a fat chump "no-name" journalist against that?
Fangio: Handed 2 world titles at the result of being gifted the victory. Had 2 years with the famous Silverarrows in the 50's that were the same degree as the Lotus' of the 60's. The public always criticised him for always having the best car and the reason for his success (Just like Seb now) Ascari was always considered the faster of the two while he was alive and Fangio even admitted it himself. Senna: Always demanded number 1 status, once refused a British driver that he was scared of to enter Lotus while he was there. He cheated, he crashed into people to win world titles, he didn't give a **** about safety that the likes of Stewart and media hated him for. Only his death excused him for the **** he left in his wake and he would make Schumacher look like a saint. McLaren's cars before Williams dominance were always a cut above anything else that era, on average the slowest McLaren would always be 1-2 seconds ahead of anything else. Prost: Same as Senna, used his connections with the president of the FIA to make his rivals life hell. Clark: The fragile but unbeatable Lotus' of the 60's that gave all of Jim Clarks success G.Hill won the WDC after his death so Clark would of likely been a 3 times champion with a very dominant car. He was accused of the murder of how many italians? with regards to the von trips crash? Mansell: 1992, quite possibly the easiest world title ever won considering what was under the hood and demanded number 1 status until Prost wanted in on the action and so leaving! I remember seeing a video in 1991 of Patrese being told by Williams to attack Senna and ruin his own race just so Nigel could waltz past Senna a few laps later since he would just preserve his tyres during his "number 2" minions onslaught against the leader. Every driver has their skeletons, excusing this lot above and singling out Schumacher just shows how little he actually knows of F1...
Good points raised in the post lads. But surely a driver is always better than the car? Im not a statistics man, but watching Lewis, Senna and, he's not a 'Great' Webber (his pass on Alonso at spa was amazing!!!) show that the greatest drivers, can be aided by the car they are in.
I don't agree with the Senna part though, SilverArrow. Prost ran into him the year before ('89) to win his championship, so I think a spot of revenge was definitely in order the year later
Driver and car go in perfect harmony, but it takes the driver and his feedback to make the suitable car in the first place.
Oh cosi you are one bitter man as far as Schumacher is concerned. Nothing about somehow working miracles to have the Ferraris of 97 and 98 in contention come the end of the season (probably would have won 98 had it not been for Coulthards baboonery in Spa) and almost certainly missing out on the 99 title after breaking his leg. I know 7 titles is a large and bitter pill to swallow but just get it over with and stop the boring agenda obviously deriving from how you percieve him to have wronged any of your favourite driver of the day simply born out of frustration at his dominance being so complete they hardly stood a chance
No Senna tried a divebomb pass and Prost closed the door, Senna caused a frightening crash at well over 100mph. Dont belittle the severity of his actions by calling it "a spot of" revenge
Look up: Ayrton Senna Vs Nigel Mansell Italy 1991 Patrese being used as a sacrificial lamb to gift Nigel the lead and also ruin Senna's race so Mansell had nothing to worry about. Before Schumacher this was the norm and it was never ever unethical or questioned by the media, double standards.
I think in the Senna film Prost came out in the open with Ron that he was not going to leave the door open for Senna this time round and if I remember correctly he also did it in the previous race. he was always going to pretend to keep the door open just to slam it shut when he tried to overtake to make him think twice about going for it. Senna thought he was bluffing and he was proven wrong.
And I find it funny how he has the cheek to put Senna on the top of this list as it seems he forgot the time Senna purposely stayed out during the Monaco qualifying of 1985 and ruined people's laps so he could keep pole... And the time he shot into the pits to cut the distance driven to again get pole position, how cute. A real "number 1" of legends isn't he that Senna, never the ****, always the victim with the public. I would put Raikkonen, Seb, Button and Hamilton already above the likes of Senna by this guys logic!
**** newspaper, **** journalist and **** article. Having said that 100000% better than the Sun. Things like Hillsborough and Phone Hacking made me stop buying that piece of **** a year ago. Daily Mirror is next on my list followed by the Daily Fail(check out there website barrels of articles are legendary fails they will actually make you laugh). Going back on topic Schumacher is probably 4th or 5th greatest of all time in my opinion. Clark, Senna, Stewart and Fangio were all better in my opinion.
