please log in to view this image http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19998444 Thus far: Number 5 - Alain Prost Number 6 - Stirling Moss Number 7 - Jacky Stewart Number 8 - Sebastian Vettel Number 9 - Niki Lauda Number 10 - Fernando Alonso Number 11 - Alberto Ascari Number 12 - Gilles Villeneuve Number 13 - Nigel Mansell Number 14 - Mika Hakkinen Number 15 - Lewis Hamilton Number 16 - Nelson Piquet Number 17 - Emerson Fittipaldi Number 18 - Jack Brabham Number 19 â Graham Hill Number 20 â Jochen Rindt Still to come (predicted): Jim Clark Ayrton Senna Juan Manuel Fangio Well, I'm a touch surprised. I thought Schumacher would be higher. That makes Senna #1 I'd say. Less simply put, this thread should go well. [NSFW]I call 12 in the "number of posts before someone mentions traction control" sweepstakes. [/NSFW]
Hmm, interesting article. It seems to simultaneously try and project this message that he was the greatest driver ever, and that he was lucky with the circumstances around him. I'm slightly surprised he was only 4th though. I wouldn't be surprised if Clark is top, just so the BBC can be different.
Looks like if you take out a Brit in a Williams and win 7 WDC's the BBC will rate you 4th in the standings, if you take out a Frenchman in a Ferrari and win 3 WDC's you get number 1 in the standings, biased much BBC?
This ties up with my list of top 10 driver, which is of course the defacto list Other than Mika, he won his titles in a era of F1 where there weren't that many great drivers, he had team mates that weren't allowed to race him, he had, from 2000 to 2005 clearly the best car, a tyre advantage and maybe other gizmos on his car he shouldn't have had, does it tarnish his records, not sure it does but it doesn't make them (IMHO) greater than they actually were.. Great driver, just not the greatest!
Personally I don't care, for himself he has done what he has ever needed to. -Broken nearly every record.. if not all (and be the first to do it), -Race against multiple generations of drivers. -Maintain mental and physical fitness when needed over 20 years. -Provide the entertainment and emotional factor in races. -Engraved himself in history. -Cause drama and increase interest of the sport around the world. -Be the single most successful driver of all time by a long shot. -Bring two mediocre teams to the sharpest point on the grid. -Have the balls to come back and experience racing in a new era/ and complete his 3 year contract when others thought he wouldn't. For me....... he made me dream again. Thank You Michael.
To all the Schumacher fans questioning him at "only" 4th, numbers aren't everything. And if they were Fangio would be first, not Schumacher@andrewbensonf1 3 hours ago. So Fangio is not first then, well it looks like it is the obvious Clark (Brit) and Senna (Romantic driver), to be first. Also take a look at Benson's twitter, re-tweeting compliments from followers, what a self-loving bellend.
How does that make Fangio not number 1? He's just stating Fangio is statistically the best driver. Although I think he'll be next. Then Senna, then Clark #1
He will not be first, you can read behind that tweet. Ranking drivers from different eras, in different machines, with multiple careers/ careers that are not yet complete is ****ing downright juvenile, especially for the BBC. I would say this even if MSC was first, mark my words.
It's okay, but 1) It would have been a flaw if Michael decided to retire in 2010 based on that, he has had a few mishaps, but who hasn't? 2) Give me any nation that does not know the name (Michael Schumacher). 3) Yes, Mclaren are now mediocre, if not.. worse.
In all fairness if McLaren were winning one or two races a year as Ferrari were doing before Schumacher arrived I would call that mediocre, especially by their extremely high standards. Then he was given possibly one of the worst Ferrari's ever in 1996 and worked wonders with it. It's as if he was painting a landscape with a rock...and doing it successfully. We saw that a lot with him terrorising the top team between 1997 and 2000 when Williams and the Silver Arrows had quite easily the best cars on the grid during that period. Put Schumacher in the car Villeneuve had in 1997 and he would have won it by mid season. Do the same in McLaren in 1998 and 1999, he would have won it by mid season. It's remarkable that he came so close to winning 97 and 98. And he should have won it in 1999 but it wasn't to be due to his accident at Silverstone. A remarkable driver who spent years in cars that were inferior to the opposition - it's only justice that he was given the best car (which he made a whole lot better in his hands - just look at the slim efforts of Barrichello in comparison) between 2001 and 2005. (McLaren still had the better car in 2000 but he secured both the worlds and drivers in one of the best and most deserved and indeed classy Championship claims by any f1 driver). So anyone saying "he had the best equipment". Put up and shut up and learn your f1 history from a non biased/bitter perspective. 4th place BBC? Jimmy Savile...and now this!
It's totally your opinion anyway, I just think the BEEB were predictable with the rankings. And silly with that.
His numerous titles were tainted, and everyone knows it, that's why he isn't, and shouldn't be, number 1. Johnnybaws points it out nicely and doesn't need repeating.
Not that I don't think these rankings aren't a pile of ****e but if Schumacher was number 1 I am fairly certain you would not be calling them 'predictable'.
