You're supposed to vote based on skill not emotion. Take personal hatred aside and he is the best driver on the grid today with Hamilton a close 2nd.
That list is old now. Alonso and ham would def be in the top 10 now - Vettel top 15. Kimi wouldn't feature. Let's hope they do an updated one in 5 years or so.
Gotta also remember the folk who got to vote - Most probably weren't born when many of these guys were plying their trade - Human nature suggests the guys you "know" will generally rank higher than those that came before. We'll never agree, which is what makes it such a fun bar-room (online?) debate. Cheers, Ian[/QUOTE] I know Ian, if it werent for that drivers like Hamilton would never enter top 20. But age or not, to put Patrese above Ickx jut shows ignorance to me, not a diferent opinion.....and Alesi and Berger drove together so no excuse there either.
Even if that was true (wich IMO is not), he would still be out of the top 10.... Again IMO, from thr 50s you had to pick 3 names: Fangio, Ascari and Moss. From de 60s i would say Clark was by far the best, 70s you have Rindt, Stewart, Lauda, and Gilles as the very best, 80s, you have Gilles, Piquet, Prost and Senna, 90s, Prost, Senna, Shummi. To me all these guys are better than the folowing ones were you can find drivers like (kimi, Alonso, Seb, Hamilton).....but these for are for me inferior to many others thta came before and that i didn't even mention.
Yes a guy who will by end of season have more wins than senna from similar number of starts, third in all time pole list, 3 time wdc (by end of season), more podiums than senna and the only driver in f1 history to win a gp in every year he competed won't make the top 10. Sounds logical
Senna had the number 4 guy on the list as his teammate-who did hammy have as his teammate? Same of course could-and should-be said of schumey and seb but schumey didn't have the advantage that seb had and hammy has-no testing. Nothing prevented the competition from closing the gap back then, not Honda, Toyota, BMW, or MB massive budgets. No engine freeze bs. Try as the may, they couldn't. Schumey wasn't just fast but very smart-first hint of trouble hammy freaks out; in this regard i think he has regressed as a driver. Contrast his hungarian gp performance with spa. In the end Schumey, Seb and Hammy were the beneficiaries of an excellent technical team, but schumey really helped build sf much more than seb or hammy did with their respective teams. I also recall that hammy started f1 with a premier team, didn't race a car anywhere near as uncompetitive as a toleman. It was only senna's brilliance that made him win with the lotus. I like what that poll said about Prost-"fiercely intelligent"; not always about speed. Just for the record, these guys are brilliant drivers but are not heros or role models. On the track or just after a bad race I think they are arse holes. All my opinion, ymmv.
It's not just about stats. That's the problem you don't seem to understand. You always argue the statistics, but its more than that. If it was just stats guys like Stirling Moss, Ronnie Peterson, Jacky Ickx, Gilles Villeneuve, Francois Cervert wouldn't even be on the list. No WDC between either of them.
Michael Schumacher, Mika Hakkinen and the Ferrari 2003 GA. Or maybe the 1998 MP4/13. That particular McLaren lapped the entire field in the opening race, and then the FIA ruled their two brakes system illegal. That car would have lapped the field in every race.
I think there is a balancing act that needs to be performed here. Results count for something and so do other considerations. Drivers who were brilliant and then died before having any results to show for it may be classed as having Amazing untapped potential. But you do need some results for it to count. Likewise if you get a good car and win everything and then start doing poorly after you shouldn't be looked on as the best simply because of the statistics (I am not trying to say that drivers like moss don't count because clearly they do and they raced a lot - maybe someone like cevert wouldn't count as he never got a chance to really prove himself - as you say he stuck behind jackie and wouldn't pass him) there is a line that needs to be drawn but it's hard to determine - holistic approach is best Even with the holistic approach Lewis deserves a top ten placing - he's getting up there in the list with the best of the best - everyone is in the top 10 with stats like his. That statistic from the other thread was telling - 26 poles at mclaren and in that same time period his team mates managed 4. Lewis is brilliant over one lap, masterful at late braking and one of the most aggressive on the grid. Pesto hates him so he won't see reason - due to his age he is unwilling to consider any modern drivers - sure he has a lot of f1 knowledge and has watched seasons but I think he ought to be more open. Yes I may not know as much as some but it should be quite obvious to all that Hamilton is a top 10 driver - as his career goes on he will just rank better and better
Also testing probably benefitted Ferrari - Schumacher pounded so many laps around fiorano that it allowed them to get ahead of the competition. It's all relative. No testing in the modern era is no advantage of everyone is subject to the same conditions. The Ferrari became great because it was developed so much in testing - with a testing ban Schumacher would've faired a lot worse
That Cevert fun fact was only at the Ring. That was the only race he could've passed him and didn't. Lewis is one of the best out there today, no disputing that at all. Regardless of what you may think i'm actually a Lewis fan. However, there were more talented before and will be more talented after. Its all luck in F1. If you luck into the best team like Vettel did at the right time, you get 4 WDC's. All these drivers are within a second of each other in the same car on any given track. It's the real genius's that stand above the rest. When you take guys like Clark, Prost, Senna, Lauda, Stewart, Piquet (yes i said Piquet), Villeneuve, Peterson, Alonso(imo)...they are the stand outs.
I think Lewis isn't on the list for the same reason as Vettel....still in the middle of their careers with something to prove. Either would be a great addition, but by nature a "dream team" tends to be made of people from the past that you'd like to see driving now. I chose Senna/Clark, but I'd have absolutely NO concerns plugging in Lewis or Seb. Alonso is the only other one on the current grid I would plug into a Dream Team. Good to see the F1 guys are choosing my car choice also (F2002) while the F2004 seems to be the more popular Ferrari choice. I have always felt the F2002 was the best of the Ferraris in that 7 year run.
I think that clearly Lewis will be highly ranked when all is said and done. Stats don't lie and he's been very resilient at responding to challenges with BIG wins. Spa was one of those races where I thought there was a ton of pressure on him to impress and he knocked it out of the park. Unfortunately for Alonso (due to bad timing), Lewis and Seb will be remembered as the dominant drivers of this era. Fernando enjoyed his zenith towards the end of the Ferrari/Schumacher run.
I see the logic in Clark Prost senna.... Don't see why any of the others would be ranked above Hamilton. Interestingly, why alonso? Ham matched him in his rookie season and it would be a reasonable assumption to make that he's improved since then. At least you recognise Hamilton as somewhat up there - that's a start. Good point rick, dream team certainly does suggest past drivers.
Yes poor alonso - he needs to get out of mclaren asap. If rb get merc engines he should try get in there
