Mansell won almost half of his races in the Williams FW14, that was miles better than its nearest competitor. Patrick Head was upset when the car did not have the 1.5 second per lap advantage over the field that he and Newey calculated it was quicker. Mansell's reputation took a bit of a setback when Prost joined him at Ferrari and dominated him. Mansell like Hunt could be quick on his day, but really suffered if things weren't perfect. Speaking of Hunt, Allister Caldwell admited in a recent interview with Peter Windsor that Mclaren had used extra qualifying tires in 1976 to help them move up. Seems they had a way of replicating the required markings on the tires to be able to get an additional set for qualification. He did say that Hunt had no idea that they were cheating, they never told him. Both were very good on this day, but I am not sure I could say they were great like Senna, Prost, Clark, etc.
I think the most underrated driver was MS in his second career. The haters said he couldn't even beat mid field driver Rosberg and that in his 40s he was well and truly over it. The fact is that Rosberg is as fast as Hamilton, as we now know, and has excellent speed.....and out of the races both MS and NR finished last year, MS came out on top more often. Actually, MS second time around *AND* NR are underrated...esp around here.
What? Montoya's McLaren in 2005 was a title-capable car. Raikkonen almost won it. So was his 2003 Williams
You've backpedaled. You used to proclaim that LH would have no trouble with Rosberg. In actuality, he has had a LOT of trouble with him (169-144 in the standings, very close). You also proclaimed time and again during Schumacher's comeback that he didn't have the pace anymore. That was clearly a bunch of BS, since MS tied Rosberg in qualifying his final year of the comeback and there is essentially nothing between LH and Rosberg in qualifying this year. MS at 43 was blindingly fast. You were just wrong. The only year of his comeback where he sucked was 2010 (to be expected after 3 years away). The rest was undone by misfortune and a crap car. Ross Brawn has basically echoed Aircon's post. But what does he know? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109284
In f1: Sebastien Bourdais Definately also Piquet Jr. Perhaps also Jan Lammers, was a great talent but never really made it.
Lets just cool the jets: Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Either one actually. The 05 McLaren was unreliable as you said and the 03 Williams wasn't as quick as the Ferrari. He had a shot and lost. No shame in that. Doesn't make him overrated, he was quite a good driver at one point.
I think he was overrated based on how highly he was rated at Williams before moving to McLaren and getting easily beaten by Kimi. Sure he was a pretty good driver, but not as good as some built him up to be, IMO.
I'd have to say from the current crop Raikkonen is ridiculously overrated. The guy came into F1 as the next big thing, barely old enough to have a driver license. Much like Jenson Button. He got a few wins here and there and took a fluke WDC. Much like Jenson Button. After that, he got beaten by Massa on more than one occasion. Yes, that is Felipe Massa. And now, he has shown flashes of brilliance, but only flashes, which is really not enough. And when he is not brilliant, he is almost invisible. Plus, even Grosjean seems to be getting the better of him this last few races. Ferrari truly missed the boat by signing him instead of Hulkenberg, which is nothing short of a tragedy.
Loads of nonsense in this thread. No one is over rated for long. Team managers and sponsors usually get rid of drivers that are not up to scratch. Also, it's not a surprise if the best driver end up having the best car; it's meant to be that way! . Top teams have a choice, and if Vettel hadn't been outstanding in a mediocre Toro Roso, it's unlikely he would have been promoted to the Red Bull team. Just look at Scott Speed, Patrick Bourdais, Luizi, Alseguira, Buemi and others that were unceremoniously replaced. Calling world champions "overated" is sheer lunacy. Damon Hill was an excellent tester who knew how to fine-tune his car and drive it very efficiently. He wasn't as good as some at dicing too close with opponents, but drove very well. Mansell was a gutsy racer who never gave up the fight. He was very competitive, in ANY car. Jacques Villeneuve was competitive as long as he had good cars under him. The BAR and Sauber never matched the Williams that gave him his title. He made the wrong career move, but his talent wasn't in doubt. I agree that some WDC looked more deserving than others. I remember Keke Rosberg winning the title with only ONE GP, when it's closest rival had won 4 that year; but that's when the point system rewarded regularity. Phil Hill inherited the title in 1961, when his team mate and rival Von Trips was killed when leading on point. That tarnished a bit P.Hill's reputation, but no one called him "over-rated".
Why would we? Phill Hill has had all sorts of success outside of Formula 1. The real deal, if there ever was one.
You raise an interesting point by mentioning Alesi. How was he actually rated? In 1989 and 1990 he truly was hailed as the second coming. Duking it out with none other than Ayrton Senna in the streets of Phoenix. If anything, his career was damaged by poor choices, but how good was he really? I'd like to say in terms of car control, he was the best. He showed what it looks like when a driver is more capable than the car when he was stuck with the poor aero of the F92A. That same car was single handedly responsible for killing off the promising career of Ivan Capelli.
Maybe, but he was new to the team and Kimi had been there a couple of years already. I tend to think that the team and JPM just didn't get on. RD has said as much a couple of times. While I don't think he was ever going to be a multi WDC, especially in that era, he was quite good. It seemed he just got sick of F1 much like Kimi did with Ferrari before coming back.
Alesi was easily good enough to win the WDC from 1995-1997 if he was in a Williams. He ruined his career by going to Ferrari but the Tifosi will always love him for it. He got a HUGE cheer at Monza this year when he came out to do the podium post race interviews. BUT, that said, Schumacher tested the Alesi's '95 412T upon his arrival to the team and reportedly said "how did you guys not win the title with this thing?"
Thanks kraftwerk. This is the only thing that matters but people who are hell bent on rewriting F1 history so their idol comes out on top will not bother with details like facts and real life. MS' comeback was a dismal failure.
I don't have to rewrite history for MS, he did it himself. But anyway, feel free to disagree with Ross Brawn himself. Whatever floats the old boat. It's easy to call anything a dismal failure when the car is that poor. Alonso/Vettel would have had a "dismal" 3 years in the 2010-2012 Mercs.
MS wrote history while at Benetton and Ferrari. He didn't rewrite any history at MB because he didn't achieve anything. If you want to praise him for how he did given his age, then he still didn't rewrite history because that history was written long time ago by Fangio and others who actually won races and WDCs in their forties. Careful by hanging your hat on that pole: Brawn himself stated that the driver change from MS to Hamilton was not only very needed but the biggest step forward for the team.
