Michael's 7 or 8 titles have anything to do with Ayrton Senna?

No one can take any of the records away from Michael Schumacher's great career.

But one question I'm hearing a lot (in sites that aren't all Ferrari Fans)....is did the lack of a 2nd or 3rd superstar driver, durring the last ten years, play a bigger part in Michael setting so many records in F1?

Or...

If it wasn't for Ayrton Senna's sad passing.... could Senna have ended up at Ferrari in 1995 or 96 and caused MS to go to another less winning team?

 

i think senna would have stayed at williams for the next few years, considering they were doing better than ferrari. i also think had he not died, he would have won the 95,96,97 and maybe even the 94 title. if damon hill was able to compete against michael and win the title in 96, then i think senna would have dominated. also, jaques villeneuve wouldn't have won his 97 title for williams.

 

Thanks

I was trying to get an idea of what his situation was like with his team and with Ferrari.

 

I just don't think that Senna's personality would have suited Ferrari. That has nothing to do with Senna's incredible skill at driving a race car. I think he would have stayed at Williams, Williams was showing much better than Ferrari at that time. It took Michael Schumacher to change things at the Scuderia. A level of patience and organization that I would guess that an emotional Senna would not have demonstrated.

But I would have to disagree that there were no superstar drivers, other than Michael, in the last 10 years. Mika Hakkinenenenenetc, was right up there.

I would also suggest that there were other drivers over the last 10 years with a skill set as good a Senna's, that for one reason or another, never had the ride to allow them to shine as a World Champion contender.

 

Senna was clearly being courted by Ferrari, during the Prost years, but he was not convinced that they had the goods to deliver a race winning car.

I think Senna would have eventually made it to Ferrari ... and may have been successfull... that is a big question that will never be answered.

as for Schumacher not having any competition.... I believe he raced with folks like:

Prost
Senna
Berger
Alesi
Hill
Villeneuve
Hakkinen - SP?
Piquet
Mansell

so I would say he raced against the best... albeit some of the best were past their sell by date.... thats why I'm glad he is retiring now... go out at the top!

 

I think Raikkonen and Alonso are better drivers than Alesi, Berger, Hill, Villeneuve and Piquet at that stage of his career. It is not Michael's fault that there was not as deep of a talent pool as there was for Senna, Prost, Piquet or Lauda, but one does have to ask the question of what may have happened had Imola 1994 had not taken place. Is Michael one of the all time greats along with Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Prost and Senna, absolutely. Is he better than all of the rest, I am not prepared to answer that question without pause.

 

I think the lack of competition isn't from drivers of other teams, but
from Michael's refusal to have a teammate of any quality. The pairings
in the past include Clark/Hill, Hill/ Rindt, Lauda/Reutemann, Andretti/Peterson,
Jones/Reutemann, Prost/Rosberg, Prost/Senna, Hill/Villenueve, and
Hakkinen/Couthard. I believe these combinations provided a much
closer pairing of talent than any of the Schumacher/(name your driver)
pairings during his career. He was smart not to have a competing driver
who take away points, but it ended up hurting his reputation.

Mark

 

Where has the notion come from that Michael refused to have quality teammates? I assume Ferrari would alway try to get the best drivers that they can afford and that are available. I do not know which "quality drivers" where not under contract by another team when Ferrari had an opening. It sounds like hate talk to me. Maybe if Ferrari had another "quality driver" they would have won more championships... like last year?

 

On the other hand you could look at it as Schumacher was so much better than anyone else, including his teammates, that it appeared like there was no competition. In another time, Rubens might have had the opportunity to be a world champion. For all we know Massa, may grow in the next 3-5 years, and be a world champion himself.

Many of the drivers you mentioned, never became world champion, and you are suggesting that Reuteman, Coulthard, and Peterson were better than any of Schumachers teammates. I do not think you can make that comparison without looking at the competition that each of these drivers faced in their time. Would Rosberg, Hill, Jones, Villeneuve have become world champion if their competition had been stronger? Or was the competition at the time mediocre? Would they stand a chance today? Gilles was better than Jacques, yet he never became world champion.

And it is just not the same today as it was pre 1996. I do not believe that you can fairly make the comparison that you made. Some of these world champions could be second rate drivers in today's climate.

 

I think Michael winning the 8th championship and the current constructor's championship has a lot to do with...

Saying thank you to the fans and to all the people at Ferrari!

 

lots of things could have happened if senna had lived. i still think MS could have got the 94 title. but the real classic part starts in 1995. thats when the real battle could have been seen.

i understand that Ferrari have been desperately courting senna. even if didn't come to Ferrari, the way MS turned things around at the scuderia, i suppose senna could have came anyway. maybe in 97. it's just a waste that the world was denied one of the best battles. i can't imagine senna-schumi-mika all locked in a battle in the 98 season. all in diff cars, williams-ferrari-mac. would have been a classic.

 

Agreed!

 

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop, you're killing me!!!!!!!!!

 

I hope so.

 

+1

 

This is actually becoming entertaining. Haven't laughed so hard for days.

 

yea...till i have a sore throat now. my 1st in 2 years ! oh bugger...

 

Glad you clarified that.

Most of them are awesome #2 drivers at best, Piquet was totally lost without a turbo, and as you said, several (most) were on a downswing.

I don't think Senna's personality is much different than Michael's is - they both want to win at all costs, and if you don't want that, ya better get out of racing.

No question Senna would have ended up at Ferrari at some point, and all we can do is speculate on all the 'what ifs'.

 

What's up with this thread? It's like we're back at school, class is in session, and I'm sitting in Grand Prix 101.

Take notes, this will be on the test:

1. Michael's contracts have stipulated that he receive unilateral #1 status on the team. While the wording probably didn't refer to a #2 driver of "inferior" ability, the result would be implied. No GP driver worth his salt would agree to being anyone else's byotch. Sorry Andreas!

2. Yes, the passing of Senna had a direct effect on Schumacher's career. However, history played out the way it did, and nothing will change that.

3. No, Michael Schumacher has NOT seen competition anywhere close to the talent level of Ayrton Senna in the last 10 years. But that in no way reflects on Michael's abilities. That is also why he won so many races by enormous amounts.

4. Senna probably would never have driven for Ferrari. It's the stuff of fantasy that the Tifosi like to hypothesize over; Senna in a Ferrari. But had he not died, as was mentioned earlier, he most likely would have won anywhere from 1-4 more World Championships with Williams. '96 (Hill) and '97 (Villeneuve) would have been his for sure. And it's probable he would have taken one, if not both, of '94 and '95. Beyond that, who knows. All though in all likelihood Senna would have retired after '97.

The "Who was better?" debate is purely subjective. There are clear fans of many drivers, all of whom had their faults. The bottom line is you can't realistically rank them numerically, but rather put them into classes. You've got the class of drivers like Clark, Fangio, Senna, Schumacher, etc., and they were the best.

 

+1

 

+2

 

In all honesty I think people are forgetting a lot of the advances in technology and how that would affect the sport. I think Michael was the first person to really adapt to the new era of formula 1 racing.

If Senna didn't die, then sure maybe he would have won a couple more championships, but I think Schumacher would still have 5-6 not including this year if he wins.

On another note I think it's impossible to compare drivers like Lauda to Schumacher because the cars are SOOOO different. I mean has schumacher ever even used a clutch in formula 1 racing? Wasn't the first f1 style tranny debued in '91?

 

Very well said! Fair and objective assessment .......................

 

I like the way you stated this. No one driver was really better than the others, but they were the best of their time considering their challenge at the time.