Another scenario might have been, considering the pre race premonition from Senna, he'd retired at the end of that season had he survived.
Let's not forget that he was concerned about Ratzenberger's death and about Barrichello's big shunt. The inevitable question: is it still worth the risk, would have popped up for him too. Was it worth to put everything on the line again, to figth a younger upstart? He just put the feud with Prost behind him.
On skill and car however, my guess would be 94-95 MSC, 96-97 Senna.
Good point, except he was already in F1 when the last fatality and some major crashes happened. He put himself beyond that and he also refused to give in when Sir Sid Watkins asked him to step away from the sport temporarily. But at the end of the season.. you might have a point there.
Also: Senna wanted to go to Ferrari one day. He had almost signed for Ferrari but he was blocked out because of Prost, iirc.
Interesting stuff about the seasons and their developments:
Schumacher would have tried anything to assert his dominance over Senna, just like he did with Hill. Silverstone would have happened probably and if everything else would have gone like normal, the title would have been his.
Taking into account that Hill was a good driver but not extreme, I recalculated 1995 to see what would have happened. My conclusions are, based on that Senna would have been faster than Hill in Q and slightly on raceday where Hill was a very reasonable driver:
Senna in Hills car would have experienced the same loss of points (13-17) as Damon on the technical side of things. Hill made a lot of mistakes that year, costing him 3 wins, 1 P2 and 2 third places. Crashing out, spinning, etc. Circumstancial stuff like the backmarker causing the crash between Hill and Schumacher added another 8 points. I'd like to say that I wouldn't automatically assume Senna would beat the crap out of Schumacher when the German was ahead on track, Schumacher and Brawn had a really good season in 1995. At the end of the season Hill was 33 points behind and I think that together with his status and the mental side of things it's quite likely that Senna and Williams would have won the WDC in 1995 as well, based on car performance and the natural abilities of the driver in the wet.
1996 is out of the question and 1997 Schumacher (compared to Villeneuve) for me was the winner, he had more mech failures compared to the Williams and was consistently scoring the points, like Alonso is doing now. But having Senna behind the wheel would have made less risky choices and would have been far more consistent, not always that fast as a young Villeneuve anymore but still a formidable opponent just like Schumacher still is today.
Another theory, I think Senna would have quit after 1997. Why? He came from the age of slicks. It could have been another factor with the introduction of the grooved tyre (together with age, pressure, nature's call and more) to announce his retirement. It's certain for me: Senna would have had (deserved) much more success because he was that good. And that comes from a hardcore Schumacher fan.
Edited by Jejking, 12 September 2012 - 12:07.