You can argue all you want, I still think the Mercedes had a more consistent drivers line up than the opposition over the last 6 years. I make no apology saying that. The point is not if Hamilton, Rosberg or Bottas would have been driving a ****box better than Senna or Schumacher, because they didn't have to !!! Mercedes gave them constantly good cars. Good cars + good drivers = good results.
Surprised? It’s a ferrari focussed site Forza Ferrari..... the only racing team and car marque that matters. Italia forever It’s easier to apologise than it is to ask permission
Plenty of Ferrari fans by 2004 got bored of it. I genuinely want to see competition. I don't want to see utter domination from a single team year after year. I accept it happens every now and then.
If Ferrari would have won 5 in a row the circumstances would have already changed... especially as even you admitted that Ferrari is in a weak position in front of FIA as seen in the latest stewards decisions. So yes, there would be no such discussion as it wouldn't have happened! Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
It’s 80-90% car and has been this for sometime. Your logic applies to most capable drivers. Just ask Vettel. The ultimate over rated driver flattery in a car at RedBull. Exposed by Ricci and he left defeated lol
I agree - the Mercedes is the place to be if you are average (Bottas) or good (Hamilton) Except Vettel did perform in a sub-par Torro Rosso. He planned well for the wet Italian race and executed it superbly. I never saw Hamilton perform so well in a sub-par car. Hamilton is a good driver, getting great results, in a great car.
Hamilton never drove a sub-par car, he never had to. For his first year in F1, he was immediatly trusted in a top team, and alongside a double WDC. He was more than a match for his team mate and was in contention for the title up to the last race. That doesn't tell you something ?
+1 Can include the other wet races where Vettel did fantastic in his Toro Rosso, including Fuji 2007 (at the time only his 5th or so race!), when he was in 3rd among and beating much faster cars...he crashed into webber, but courtesy of Hamilton who did some brake testing, in massive downpour where no one could see!
Unless you've forgotten 2009, YES HE HAS. The MP4-24 was sub-par for the first half season. Hamilton managed to score a total of 9 points in that car. If you can prize off your blinkers - what does that tell you ?
It's debatable if McLaren, that finished 3rd in the WCC that year, had a sub-par car. But anyway, you destroy the arguments if Hamilton haters who claim that he never drove a sub-par car like Vettel, Alonso, etc and is therefore less deserving.
Huh???? The argument is that he never did something extraordinary in a sub-par car and he said absolutely nothing that contradicts that...he had one for a fee races and he was completely off. Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
You have a crush on Hamilton, we get it. But we shouldn't let romance cloud the facts. Hamilton drove a sub-par car for half a season, and did not perform. FACT
It’s the team to be in period. Ferrari are a joke. Again. As far as capable drivers - Mansell said it best - there are a number of drivers, who in the right car, can win. I’m quite sorry to tell u and all here this - LH is making the best of the situation presented to him. Name a driver not wishing at all to be in that situation. LH is making a good car work for him and is driving smart as well. Vettel being provided a free education in this. When given a machine that can win. You make the win happen. LH has not failed. Vettel takes a winning car and loses. As a F1 fan this is an objective view as a Ferrari fan I expect better and we do not get that at all.
I also remember one race, over his radio while languishing at the back either through mechanical issues, or having a crash, he was on the radio asking whether he should ‘just park it, it’s not worth it, what’s the point’, not exactly the words of a true champion
Hardly the nose of Hercule Poirot Hamilton cannot perform in a sub-par car. Hamilton gets results only in a winning car.
yep. He's not a superhuman. He's not doing things any other current driver in the top can't do. I'm fine with people supporting him. But he's simply not the superhuman some try to force down our throats. It's as simple as that. Alonso did things with cars that shouldn't have been possible. Schumacher did, too. The Mercedes is a very flattering car. Schumacher of course won some titles in cars that where class of the field, too. But he proved time and time again that he could win in cars that simply shouldn't be able to. Alonso has done things with cars few other drivers on the grid can do. As has Verstappen. I still maintain that Hamiltons greatest performance to date is 2008 Silverstone, where he put in an absolutely stellar drive. But these performances are few and far between and quite simply I can't remember another time when he looked that good in a car. Frankly, when Hamilton is in a car where he is not leading, he suddenly doesn't look so great anymore (a fact supported by his fanboys who immediately start grasping at straws and accuse others of being terrible drivers, who, ironically, Hamilton fails to beat that day). Hamilton himself at the same time then starts to go on the radio and start moaning about how pointless the race is, how terrible his car drives, how it's possible the team didn't give him the very best of strategies and so on, instead of getting on with the job. I remain of my opinion that Hamilton is a very good driver, but ultimately, not as great as his (pole/winning) statistics suggest. There are better drivers in the current field, let alone history.
If you don't like Facts that is upto you. Bottas and Hamilton are getting excellent results with Mercedes. The car and organization is certainly great.
