Alonso...the pathetic :)

Your comment was about a driver building a team around them and Senna built Lotus around himself, just as Schumacher built Ferrari around himself. That is what I was referring to. Furthermore he was absolutely the catalyst for Honda's supremacy in F1 so technically speaking he built that "team" around himself, Honda readily admitted so back in the day. In fact, during 1988-89, Prost was referred to as a McLaren driver with a Honda engine but Senna was called a Honda driver with a McLaren chassis.

What we know for certain was that Schumacher told the team he had not recovered from his injury. LdM found out, from MS' daughter, that he was out running around, playing soccer. LdM told him that if he is fit enough to play soccer then he is fit enough to drive...and frankly he was proven right.

What is debatable is if Schumacher did not want Irvine to reap the benefits of Schumacher's work. While it is true that we don't know what is in Schumacher's head, it is certainly a valid argument, given what we DO know about Schumacher, that he is concerned with himself winning, and not just the team, otherwise he would have taken on a competitive teammate. Schumacher is an extremely self-centered driver, as are most every other great driver, but in his case his self-centeredness and arrogance do not necessarily add up to folks here calling him the consumate team player. Far from it, he was concrned with teh team giving HIM the best chance to win, not him giving the TEAM the best chance of winning.

Schumacher is a great driver, amongst the best ever, but he was not a team player unless that team was Schumacher.

 

Actually, Lotus was in deep trouble when Senna arrived. They had finished 3rd in the championship with DeAngelis but hadn't won a race in a couple of years. With Senna pushing the development of the first active suspension and later helping get Honda engines he turned the team into winners again. When he left the team for McLaren, sadly, the Lotus team never won again.

 

Fact: Senna didn't stay at Lotus long enough to win a title. Things may have been different had Chapman not died, we will never know.

 

Schumacher was hired by Ferrari to win races and titles. He was not hired to be a team player. That is the role of the second driver. If you are the best driver in the world and are being paid that much money and are asked to win championships, it is your OBLIGATION to build a team that works best for you. It is a system that works as it is supposed to work. That is unless you want to be STR or Spyker or Toyota or any other team that doesn't want to work hard enough to win.

Schumacher earned his paycheck at Ferrari. He did what he was hired to do. If someone thinks they can do better, that someone should enter F1 and win 8 world titles. Schumacher is the greatest driver of our generation. Period. It makes me laugh when I hear other people tell me that so and so is better because so and so is nice or talks to the media or is a team player or won a race in the rain or had a better car or whatever else they want to say about it. I don't want to hear about % or pie charts stats on other's, just WIN MORE than he did. Either WIN MORE or SHUT UP.

If Alonzo gets 96 wins or whatever MS's record is, he will then be the greatest driver out there and my hat will be off to him. Same goes for anyone else that may do it.

 

+1

 

Prost was the previous record holder at 51. He had 4 titles, more than anyone other than Fangio. Do you think he was the rgeatest ever before Schumacher?

Nope, me neither.

The problem with relying on statistics like that is that it ignores facts like Fangio winning half the races he entered. Sure Schumacher won 91 GPs but he started something like 240 (I don't recall the exact number). Fangio won 25 from something like 51 starts. Whose record is more impressive? I don't know.

Determining the relative merits of one driver over another is subjective by its very nature. I can find one statistic that suits my argument, you can find another that suits yours.

This is a debate with no resolution. All we can do is argue our position and that's that. I feel one way and you feel another, with both of us having good arguments to support ourselves. It is not simply as cut and dried as saying my guy won more than yours.

 

That's why I didn't say greatest driver ever. Instead I said of our generation, meaning contemporary. This leaves drivers like Fangio safe in their own era.

And I do believe MS was better than Prost

 

IMO there can be no "Greatest of All Time". One cannot make comparisons across eras.

For Fangio to survive 51 races at that time was incredible, although he did break his neck having been thrown into a tree. 51 races today is less than 3 seasons today.

99 F1 races for Stewart was a long run at the time to have survived.

MS statistics will be surpassed when they are racing 26 Gps per season. Many things have changed over the history of F1 racing - Points totals, # of races in a season, survivability of a crash - that it is irrelevant to compare across long periods of time.

 

Exactly, which is this debate is entirely subjective. Statistics aren't the full picture and trying to compare drivers of a different era is difficult at best.

 

I do too. The question was, would you have considered Prost to be the greatest driver of all time prior to Schumacher's arrival in F1?

Most folks wouldn't, including myself.

 

Actually I think Senna was better

 

Actually, if you really read my post you would have noticed that my comment was about a driver building a team around them and "winning a title". Yes, Senna won races with Lotus, but not a title. I think it is safe to say that all of us can agree on the differences between winning race or races vs. winning a WDC title. By your logic and definition, Jesen Button can be considered as the savior of Honda-BAR, afterall, he did win a race last year for Honda-BAR.

As far as your reference to Prost-Senna-McLaren etc, there is no doubt that Senna was Honda's little darling, which is the main reason that Honda switched from Williams to McLaren. Honda was only going to supply two teams with it engines, Lotus got to keep the Honda engine because of Saturo Nakajima (Honda wants a Japanese driver, and Lotus was more than willing to comply just so they can have the almighty Honda engine) and Honda wanted Senna thus William was left as the odd man out.

I think it is also safe to say, and most of the people that knows F1 will agree, that Prost is better than Senna on the techinical front. I am sure with Senna's talent, McLaren-Honda would have become a winner eventually, but IMO, Lauda-Prost made it just a little bit easier for Senna to win with McLaren.

Let's see....can you please name one WC that is not concern with winning? who asked the team to give him second rated quipment and always wanted to come in behind his team-mate at every race? I can't think of any, can you? I am sure your hero, the late, great Ayrton Senna, didn't care about winning races at all, he was only so ruthless and competitive on track just so he can get the girls. Oh wait, Nelson Piquet accused Senna of not liking girls once during an interview....Great, now I have no clue to why Senna became a F1 driver now. According to you, he certainly was not there to win races that for sure.

Think what you want, and I am sure you will, IMO, Schumacher did what he had to and what is necessary in today's F1 to win titles for himself and the team. Just like Senna, he also did what he had to do to win races and titles for himself. Trust me, altruism will not win anyone a WDC in today's F1. Worship Senna all you want, and I am sure you do and will, just don't try to tell us that Senna was a saint, because he wasn't.

 

+1 again, another great and intelligent post

 

No he didn't, but the team started winning races after he got there and didn't again after he left. The team didn't suddenly forget how to win, the earlier success was down to Senna's talent and influence.

BTW Chapman died in 82, three years before Senna got to Lotus.

 

Tony I'd give anything to see GV take all these whiny biatches to school...

Dijon 1979-hard racing, no complaining...Could you imagine that happening today? Still the best 3 laps I've ever seen....

I'm really starting to sour on today's F1....Last year 2 teams won all the races (aside from JB's freak victory) and this year my biggest fear is being realized again....1979 7 different drivers won in 4 makes of cars-in only 15 races....

 

Jensen Button won one race, and a wet one in changing conditions at that. A skillfull drive, but no where near what Senna did for Lotus. With Senna aboard they finished 4th(85) 4th (86) and 3rd (87) in the driver's points. Compare that to the record Mansell had with them in 5 years. His best finish in the driver's points was 9th. Senna did bring the team up and left them in shambles afterwards. Senna knew his best chance was with McLaren so he did the best thing for his career.

No one is accusing Senna of being a saint. Heaven knows he had his faults as all of us do. The one thing that is clear to anyone was that Senna had no fear of getting into an equal car with the man concidered to be the best driver at the time or ever and fight it out with him for the title.

MS never had to do this and it is a shame, his career will be forever marked to some people because of it. Had he allowed Mika on the team, or had Kimi as his teammate all the doubt would have been erased. One must question a driver's mental strength when they are scared of a fast teammate.

What makes the whole thing even more dissapointing is that I think he could have eventually handled Mika and would have beaten Kimi this year as well, at least during the first part of the season. All the epic battles we were deprived of simply because MS wouldn't accept a driver he feared on the team. A pity actually.

Before anyone mentions it, Senna didn't allow Warwick on the Lotus team because he knew that Lotus didn't have the resources to have two top drivers, not because he thought he couldn't beat him. Ferrari had and still has ample resources to run two top drivers and give them both first rate stuff.

No one calls Senna a saint but by the same token it's foolish to think MS was such a great "team Player" when the indications are that he raced only for himself. To me, and many others, Alain Prost was a team player. It was his suggestion for the team to hire Senna, regarless of the fact that Senna had already had proven himself to be an extraordinary talent. Prost was clearly thinking about the team's future. This is something MS NEVER did.

As for your other point. There was no Prost there in 91 and Senna won the title again. No Prost in 93 either and Senna, while he didn't win the title, had what was regarded by many to be his best year ever scoring 5 wins in a car that was underpowered. Prost was better on the technical side, no question but Senna could drive anything fast. That coupled with a great mechanical sensitivity made him good on the technical side as well. He could drive around problems with the car while others would be at sea if they missed thier set ups.

 

I hear a wheel nut falling off somewhere.

 

Not sure it belongs to a wheel.......

 

+1 that Dijon Race was sensational, the entire 79 Season was great. By the way even in 2000 when Michael gave Mika a hard time getting passed at SPA, Mika never showed any sign of it to the press, he handled it with Michael alone and with Dignity.

I said it before, Alonso definately should not have played it to the media, but at the same time I couldn't give two $hits about Massa, especially his oh poor me Fernando ruined my qualifying lap at Monza last year. I would much rather have Kimi win the championship or Lewis. Either of those two guys never complain.

 

u have a very good point here Tony. i think for me, the best season was the 2000 season to date. Mika showed MS with his hand how he overtook MS, and MS never go about whining, or Mika, when MS blocked him off the 1st attempt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeAVWhXhukc

 

By your logic and reasoning, both Schumacher and Alonso are better than Senna, considering that they both made Bennetton/Renault winners of races and each gave their team WCC titles, which is something that Senna was unable to do for Lotus, and both Bennetton and Renault experienced a dramatic decline in performance after their departure.

Chapman was the heart and soul of Lotus, he is as important to Lotus as Enzo was to Ferrari, Frank to Williams and Ron to McLaren. I think it is fair to say, and IMO, that Lotus would have been in better shape than it was in 1985 had Chapman been around and with that, it is possible, just possible that Senna may have never gone to McLaren at all. Again, we will never know.

Again, for whatever reason, Senna did not win a title with Lotus, regardless how competitive Lotus was with him at the helm. He did not finish the job which he started, it would have been nice, but he simply did not.

And as for using Button as an example, the comparison was done to illustrate, IMO, the flaw in Senna3xWC's logic, not mine. Again, winning race or races is hardly the same as winning a title, yes?

You may not think of Senna as a saint, but some others here does. As for the often repeated "Schumacher never allowed a worthy driver to be on the same team...", one can also say that it is because he wanted unity within the team. It is very apparent that he does not believe in a two #1 drivers, and I share the same view, as it can only creat unrest, bickering and thus result in a disfunctional team. Ask yourself why would he feel that way? The answer lies with in F1 history and Schumacher doesn't have to go back too far in F1 history to see what had happened at McLaren with Prost and Senna, and again with Mansell not wanting to team with Prost again after their time at Ferrari, and then with Prost not wanting to team with Senna again. Please think back and remember all that was happening as Schumacher matures into a WC, he is simply a product of that era. And can you say that Schumacher is wrong with his thinking? Look at the so-called equal status teams of the more recent years, Williams-BMW (JPM and RS), then McLaren-Mercedes (KR and JPM), how successful were they? LH and FA may be able to pull it off this year, but they are far from being buddies with each other, yes?

As for how much a team player Prost was, I ask you to look at how quickly it all changed for Prost after Senna's arrival at McLaren. So I guess you can thank Senna for Prost becoming more selfish and no longer a team player then. I guess you can also say that it was his biggest mistake to allow Senna in at McLaren. If he hadn't, and if RD/McLaren did not want Honda engine so much, Prost may never felt that he had to leave McLaren. But then again, without Honda, McLaren and Prost may never win again, who knows.

And as for Senna being a team player and his offer to drive for Williams for free in 1993, I hope you don't think it was out of the goodness of his heart?? Senna respected but hated Prost, he would have done anything to prevent Prost winning another title and move ahead of him on the title count. Just try to remember what it was like back then, you may see my view a little more clearly. You may still disagree with me, but just maybe you will have a better handle on what I am writing about here.

 

One more thing that I forgot to ask RacerX3317, which ex-team mate of Senna's, other than Prost, do you consider as a worthy adversary to Senna? Berger or Andretti? Again, IMO, Senna wanted to join Williams to prevent Prost from winning another titel, not to help Williams but to help himself. Who knows what would have happened if he and Prost were to team up again in 1993, at the rate they were going, there is a good chance that they could have gotten each other seriously hurt or killed even. Which sadly enough for Senna, did happen in 1994 as his region in F1 was being challanged by none other than, Michael Schumacher, the one driver that just about every single Senna-fan seems to hate the most.

Funny thing is, Renault wanted Prost and not Senna as Prost is French, Williams had no choice but to comply. Imagine that, Senna being rejected by a team, politics in sport just plain sucks, doesn't it?

 

As always, your posts are amazing. You have an excellent memory. It seems many others here either don't remember, were too young to have seen the races, or just don't want to accept how things were back then because it doesn't agree with their opinions.

 

I remember that era mostly as you do Anthony with a few minor differences, I disliked Schumacher MORE when he got to Ferrari than I did while he was at Bennetton, actually I liked him at Bennetton