If you say so. Geez, let go. Massa really is a threat to the WDC and Ferrari's best hope to this point. I have no idea why anyone on this site is so down on Phil. Seems to me, we should all be up on both team drivers, especially the one that is doing the best: Phil Massa. At the end of the day, as a Ferrari team fan, who cares who wins the WDC as long as it is Phil or Kimi. This Monday morning armchair driving is ridiculous.
Ferrari's #2 drivers have traditionally not received the same support and enthusiasm as the #1 driver. Or should we say the better paid driver.
I think your view is shared by a lot of people.I certainly agree, and hopefully I am in my right mind. While both Felipe and Kimi still has a chance for the championship, there is no question that Felipe is in the best position to achieve it at the moment. I do have a feeling that Kimi will fight back with a win this weekend though...
At this point, it has been well publicized that Massa does receive a bit more support primarily because he spends more time with the team. But he is not the better paid driver. Yet. So does this make him #1? I do not think so. In interviews from Montreal, both Phil and Kimi have stated there is no #1 as of yet at Ferrari.
Ron i have been a Massa fan from the start, and agree with your stance on Massa. I can't fathom some of the critics saying he is only a mediocre driver in a good car, but say Kimi is the best driver on the grid. The races have proven quite the opposite. People CAN improve their skills, but some here believe in F1 nobody can. I support both Ferrari drivers, and im hoping Kimi can bounce back. But its obvious Massa has the best shot for the WDC
Tha'ts right, I don't care who wins this weekend. I would like Kimi to win to help boost his morale and confidence in the car. The constructor's championship needs him to catch up in points. But then I would like Phil Massa to win because he deserves it. And the WDC. Ferrari 1-2 Monteal and Indy.
How hard is this to understand: Irvine: -Couldn't win prior to joining Ferrari. -Joins Ferrari, wins GPs, finishes #2 in WDC. -Leaves Ferrari, performance returns to mediocrity Barrichello: -Couldn't win prior to joining Ferrari. -Joins Ferrari, wins GPs, finishes #2 in WDC. -Leaves Ferrari, performance returns to mediocrity Massa: -Couldn't win prior to joining Ferrari. -Joins Ferrari, wins GPs... You can fill in the rest from here.
Good one. Some more Ferrari #2: Alesi: -Couldn't win prior to joining Ferrari. -Joins Ferrari, wins GP -Leaves Ferrari, performance returns to mediocrity Salo: -Couldn't win prior to joining Ferrari. -Joins Ferrari, wins GP (well, gave it away based on team orders) -Leaves Ferrari, performance returns to mediocrity
Again, no room for driver improvement in any of your theories. You assume a driver stays at one level and that is it. Is it possible that previous lack of victories has to do with being in mediocre cars? Lack of an effective team? If you are a mediocre driver, are you suggesting that just by driving a Ferrari F1, you will win? That is absurd. Most wins, most poles, most fastest race laps. That is a statistic that matters for 2007. Then a moment ago I did just hear Steve Machett explaining that Michael Schumacher is at the track acting as Phil Massa's personal driving coach. Just possibly that explains Phil's amazing improvement? No, too logical.
I understand your point, but did you expect them to be able to win in crap cars? How was Massa supposed to win in a Sauber? How was Irvine and Barichello supposed to win in a Jordan? Not even Michael would win in those cars. Also, please don't use Michael winning in the Benetton as an example. The Benetton was the 2nd best car on the grid compared to the Williams. Also, Damon obviously wasn't as talented as Michael. Actually, the gap between the Williams and Benetton was pretty close during the 04-05 seasons, compared to the Williams advantage in say in 92 and the 96-97 seasons.
Herbert won in a Stewart (the same year Rubens was his team mate), Frentzen, Fisichella and Hill in a Jordan, Panis in a Ligier, Button in a Honda. It is not impossible. The point is that a top car flatters the driver. Particularly if it is an otherwise mediocre #2 driver.
Yes, my mistake, that was before Monaco. He is now tied for most wins with two time WDC Alonso. The other statistics were correct.
Yeah they all had the convenience of the top runners crashing out. I can't believe you used Damon as an example. First of all, let me name some of the drivers who crashed out in the race. Michael Schumacher, Mika Hakkinen, Eddie Irvine, David Coulthard, Jacques Villeneuve, etc. etc. Also, you name Frentzen, but it's a fact that Jordan steped up their game considerably for the 1999 season. Not to mention that Frentzen also had the help of the top runners retiring. The fact is, you can't win in a crap car unless the top runners are out, period. Also, don't use the "Damon almost won in an Arrows" example. The reason is, and you can read this in his own book, that Arrows exhauseted their efforts and finances to develop the car for that one race. The rest of the season the car was crap.
So that theory could be used to potentially describe Hamilton, right? But it takes more than a mediocre driver to make a top car perform consistently. A mediocre driver will not be on top with wins (tied), poles, fast race laps. You know, this discussion about Massa is really ridiculous. I prefer to believe what I am hearing from Italy, than to take such a negative position based on old out dated information. I felt the same negativity about him 15 months ago, but now I believe Massa is much more than a mediocre driver, not a Schumacher, but substantially better than most here give him credit. So far, Felipe has proven that position to be correct.
Interesting info on Damon. What book was that? I agree that my examples are extreme. But the point is, that a really good driver can win in a midfield car (not in a backmarker car unless everybody crashes out). A mediocre driver will sink back into mediocrity in a midfield car. In the scenarios and examples listed below we don't really show what happens to a top driver before and after he was in a top car. And there are plenty of examples for that. I guess we'll continue this discussion (if we even remember it) in a few years from now when Massa will be sitting in a Red Bull or whatever midfield car will then be around.
"Through the eyes of Damon Hill" It was written by him during his time at Jordan, it contains quite a few pictures that I haven't seen online or anywhere else.
Damon Hill did. Frentzen did. Even Ralf did. Johnny Herbert won in a Stewart (nee' Jaguar) that neither Irvine nor Rubens could. The point is that Irvine and Rubens looked a hell of a lot better when driving a Ferrari than they they did when driving a mid-field car. Given Massa's performance over the last 5 years, I fail to see any reason whatsoever to believe that he is anything other than the same. Massa was no closer to Schumacher's times than either driver before him so it is hardly arguable that he suddenly transformed himself into WDC material as Ron would have us believe. Perhaps if Massa were as close to Schumacher's times as Hamilton is to Alonso's, then he would have an argument. However it appears that Massa was slower than Rubens, when their qualifying differential to Michael's times are reviewed. No one is going to argue that Rubens is anything other than 2nd tier at best. The fact is that Massa has done nothing more than his predecessers in the Ferrari and likely has done less than drivers like JB or Heidfeld could in the same car. Winning in a Ferrari doesn't mean much when you can't outpace your teammate in a Sauber. While it is possible for a driver to improve, teh magnitude of improvement that Massa would have had to experience to go from being the backmarker he was at Sauber who couldn't keep pace with his teammate to now (according to Ron) being the prohibitive favorite for the WDC, ahead o fthe likes of Alonso and Hamilton let alone Kimi, simply defies belief. Andreas may be right, in 5 years time Massa will be in a Red Bull or similar. Frankly my money is on DTM...
Please see my previous posts. Just for you though, i'll quote myself. "Yeah they all had the convenience of the top runners crashing out. I can't believe you used Damon as an example. First of all, let me name some of the drivers who crashed out in the race. Michael Schumacher, Mika Hakkinen, Eddie Irvine, David Coulthard, Jacques Villeneuve, etc. etc. Also, you name Frentzen, but it's a fact that Jordan steped up their game considerably for the 1999 season. Not to mention that Frentzen also had the help of the top runners retiring. The fact is, you can't win in a crap car unless the top runners are out, period. Also, don't use the "Damon almost won in an Arrows" example. The reason is, and you can read this in his own book, that Arrows exhauseted their efforts and finances to develop the car for that one race. The rest of the season the car was crap."
Sorry, I wrote that before I saw your comments. Nevertheless, I will point out that it appears (according to you) an awful lot of drivers have extraordinary fortune yet in over 200 GPs for Rubens, he never "got lucky" once?? ...other than joining Ferrari, I mean. A top driver finds a way to put himself in a position to win, to capitalize on the mistakes and misfortunes of others. Surely, someone like Irvine or Rubens could get lucky once in their career? Or could it be when the breaks should have gone their way, they were not in a position to capitalize on it? The fact is that not only did neither of them win in cars that other (even lesser) drivers did, neither of them has even remotely exhibited even a flash of the brilliance that they "presumably" had when they were winnign GPs for Ferrari. A top driver gets himself noticed, even in a mediocre car. Conversely, a mediocre driver can find a way to turn a top car into a backmarker every now and then (read: Massa & rain). Success in F1 speaks fo r itself, unfortunately so does failure.
Good point, but you supported my side of the arugement right here. Irvine and Barrichello did enough to get a seat at Ferrari, the most glamorous team in all of F1. Now why didn't Ferrari hire Damon Hill, Johnny Herbert or any other drivers that got lucky and took advantage of half the field, including the top runners retiring? The reason, in my opinion, is because they didn't see that as an indicator of talent, but more of luck and circumstance. So to me, a better indicator of being quick, is putting a crap car near the top in qualifying. Just like Schumacher did in that Jordan. Now this leads us to another arguement doesn't it? Are you ready to give Webber a bit more credit now?
Ron's in a race with Ferrari for the championships. Everything he says and does should be considered to give an edge to his team. His deep concern with Kimi warms my heart but may have the opposite effect on KR. I hope KR uses this as a spark to re-ignite his seeming lack of passion. I'm going to use the next few races to judge his character under adversity, which he handled well last year.
Hi, I belive tha Kimi will go down with Ferrari history as being one of the best drivers they had. I see him cliping curves with the same intensity of Senna. Sure he is not a great talker with the press but, he can drive a great qualifing lap. Paul
