Whitmarsh; "it was not doing those things that meant that Fernando left us." [split]

You mean Jerez 1997 and Adelaide 1998 where situations in which McLaren had to give the win to Mikka? But then when did they give wins to David?

When did an axe hit David in form of badly timed pitstop call like in Jerez 97 or a radio hacker like in Adelaide 98 that made him lose his fairly earned lead?

And obviously you missed for example Austria 99. David pushed Mika off the track with a dumb passing attempt in the opening corners so Mika had to climb back from the back of the pack, but being tons quicker that day he eventually did get back behind David. Despite Mika already looking like their only shot for the title McLaren still let David finish in front of Mika. Davey surely must have been the team principal's love child at that moment?? Ronnie sure has been busy back in the day.

They pitted Webber early, because his rear tires were going off and he complained over the radio. He even touched a wall.

I don´t know from where on Earth the bait story/interpretation came from. It was the fastest way for him to get to the finish line from the position he was in. It would have been for anyone able to clear the traffic/get out in front of it. That was Ferrari´s mistake: thinking clearing the traffic would be easy.

I'm amazed to see the support FA still has after a race like Singapore 2008. Yeah.. let's pretend he knew nothing.
_
HAM sunday started fron 2nd on the dirty side, but won the race!
It was an unnecessary move by Ferrari to drop MAS. What the guy is supposed to do? When he is slow, people complain that he is slow, when he is fast, let's use him to gain FA some places.
Now I understand why Montezemolo wanted a 3rd car in F1.

Edited by revlec, 20 November 2012 - 15:40.

The Alonso/McLaren relationship began to fracture as early as Round 1 before the race even begun imho.

Think about things from Fernando's perspective for a moment. The guy is a double world champion at the peak of his game at that point in his career. He decides to pick McLaren to move to and wants to emulate what Schumacher achieved at Ferrari by moving to McLaren and winning multiple world championships. He even smartened up his act, got a new hair cut and tried to fit into the McLaren culture. He wanted to lead the team to glory.

He arrives at Melbourne, the first race at his new team. Number 1 on the car. The big move has happened and he's about to get started on his dream. What happens on the grid? Ron Dennis is sat with Lewis giving him 1 to 1 time while Alonso is somewhere in the back of the pits on his mobile phone. Now you can say so what, was Ron expected to ignore Lewis? But the fact is, Lewis was the golden boy and Alonso was in the shadows. And it was Round 1.

And we all know what happened next. Lewis went on to challenge Alonso on the track and quite rapidly the wheels began to fall off the relationship between Alonso and the team he had committed to. He expected a certain status, as a double world champion. Status he was already used to at Renault. Instead, he got equal footing with a rookie.

It can be reasonably argued that had McLaren enforced a number 1 & 2 status with Fernando and Lewis.. basically telling Lewis to learn from Alonso in year 1.. it's more than possible McLaren would have won the drivers championship that year and Alonso would be a three time WC by now. Then perhaps the next year Lewis gets his shot. It's also arguable that Lewis, in being forced to spend a year or two in a lower position, may well have benefited in the long run too.

Was it unreasonable for Alonso to expect a certain status? I don't think so. His stock was far higher than Hamiltons at that point in time. Hamilton was a rookie who went straight into a top team, a winning car. Alonso had moved up the ranks with Minardi and Renault and had two titles. You can perhaps understand why Alonso felt frustrated that this kid comes into the team with equal status. You may not agree with it. But I can understand it. It was certainly not unreasonable or unusual in the sport.

It's something I believe strongly in and I think ultimately it led to the destruction of the relationship between Fernando and the team. The media painted it as him having a problem with Lewis but ultimately I think his problem was with McLaren and perhaps a feeling of betrayal that they expected him to operate with equal status with a rookie driver. Perhaps they even misled him on status. We may never know.

I started a thread on it the day of the Aussie GP that year. The writing was on the wall. http://forums.autosp...amp;hl=Fernando

In case you forgot, after the 6th race, HAM was already leading the WDC table.
Did you want McLaren to slow him down to "help" ALO?

I think HAM had a better chance to win the WDC that year and if ALO were willing to help him like MAS with RAI, HAM would have won the WDC that year.
Please check the results at this site "www.formula1.com"

This sense of "entitlement" from ALO fans really annoy me.

p.s: I am 100% for equality between drivers.

Your memory seems a little dazzy. Let me refresh it for you:

From Wikipedia



In Abu Dhabi 2010, Webber was in front of Vettel in the Drivers's Championship. And he was told to pit before needed, baiting Alonso and Ferrari to pit in order to cover him. That was hailed as a genius act by Red Bull Racing. And it was. The problem is that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't use one driver who is in front of the other one as a bait, and then, three years latter, have the chuztpah of saying I never used team orders, and never compromised the race of one of my drivers in benefit of the other.

Which, truth be said, is not said by RBR themselves.

Go and watch the race again. Webber did touch a freaking wall, and complained to the team on the radio about his tyres AND asked them to pit him early.

Because by their driving they had earned the right to be on the clean side, Alonso hadn't - Or is that too simple for you to understand...

That's BS. Nobody earned a place on the clean side of the track. They were placed there by chance based on quali times. It just so happens that the organizers screwed up with the sides being unequal.

If anything it is the organisers' responsibility to guarantee that a driver that has qualified further up the grid does not a have a major disadvantage. It is NOT Ferrari's job. If anything, Ferrari move a lot of drivers further up the grid.

And yet it's the first time it's ever been done (that we know of).

The difference between two sides hasn't been that big.

Because by their driving they had earned the right to be on the clean side, Alonso hadn't - Or is that too simple for you to understand...

In fact, Grosjean penalty deprived some of the rightful owners of the clean side of their rights. Which were restored by Massa demotion.

he didn't get it because Dennis dont allow drivers to blackmail him so he went to Mosley himself.

As a result Ron got a disproportionately vicious whipping from Spankie while Teflonso got off scot free something he has made quite a habit of.

Of course we must look back on Spankies motivation that in how that seasons farcical comic opera played out in the light of the downfall of the News of the World

As a result Ron got a disproportionately vicious whipping from Spankie while Teflonso got off scot free something he has made quite a habit of.

Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,
There never was a Cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatever time the deed took place - Macavity wasn't there!

In fact, Grosjean penalty deprived some of the rightful owners of the clean side of their rights. Which were restored by Massa demotion.

You can't be that thick. The difference here is that the Grosjean penalty was already pending ahead of qualifying whereas the trick by Ferrari was used to manipulate the qualifying results to their liking afterwards. There were no rightful owners to any of the grid slots at the time Grosjean was known to be penalized.

Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,
There never was a Cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatever time the deed took place - Macavity wasn't there!

Just did a search and read that ensign,

Reading the the title of this thread, which is apparently a quote from MW, I'm just wondering if he ever said in the passed that "in hindsight" he would have done things differently to keep Fernando?

Well, surprise surprise indeed. Or not really. Seems Ferrari and Fernando are a perfect match. I know Fernandos followers will argue that they dont see any problem with it. But it only once again highlights the shady nature of Alonso. One thing is to win on merit. Another thing is to completely use and extrapolate your teammate to an inch of his dignity and then shrug your shoulders afterwards. And use the rules to gain what I think is an unfair advantage. What about those people that were on the clean side and suddenly found themselves on the dirty side.

To me, that is not sporting, nor deserving, nor honorful or commendable. But perhaps those things dont matter to some people anymore. They do to me. And that is why I could never support a person like Alonso. No matter how great a driver he is. He is great, yes. But he is seriously sticky.

There are honest teams and there are hypocrits. Theres a hypocrit team favoring their #1 driver, giving him his team mates' front wings, worse components, bad race strategies, but they simply deny it. Their fans like to deceive themselves but they know their team are a bunch of hypocrits in the end

I'm amazed to see the support FA still has after a race like Singapore 2008. Yeah.. let's pretend he knew nothing.

It seems that these things follows Fernando from a team to another yet he never knows anything.

Sometimes I wonder is he just trolling with his comments like he is proud of the fact that Ferrari gave Felipe a 5 place grid penalty or claiming that Vettel has been so lucky and all the problems are always on Webber's car forgetting the points what he has gained by Vettel's problems. Also the talks about 120-150% what he was able to take out of the car... did he borrow the 20-50% of the parts from Felipe or what?

MW is turning into a sanctimonious old so and so these days. Whether or not what he said is true, was there really any reason to come out with it at all?

I've always quite liked McLaren, mostly because of their drivers, although they've always been a little too corporate and grey. However I'm starting to go off them quite quickly. Bring back Ron - for all his gobbledegook he generally knew how to conduct himself with some dignity.

Edited by Talisker, 21 November 2012 - 05:49.

Thats due to Massa not keeping himself in the title hunt. You cant blame a team for putting their hopes in the one driver of theirs still in with a shot of the title.


What they did was within the rules, so its not cheating. They didn't do the switch cuz they were upset that Massa outqualified him or anything, they just saw an opportunity to get their title contender off the awful side of the grid, which was a smart move in the end. I was skeptical that it'd make that much difference, but the fears of the drivers/teams were proven legitimate looking at the start of the race.


Everything you just described is of Ferrari's doing, so I'm not sure why you're taking it out on Alonso.

From Ferrari´s perspective it was a rational thing to do but are you claiming OTOH that if FA had voiced his concern they would still have made the switch?

From Ferrari´s perspective it was a rational thing to do but are you claiming OTOH that if FA had voiced his concern they would still have made the switch?

But of course he tried to avoid it. Just like with Nelson Piquet's case. I think nobody listened Alonso though.

It seems that these things follows Fernando from a team to another yet he never knows anything.

Sometimes I wonder is he just trolling with his comments like he is proud of the fact that Ferrari gave Felipe a 5 place grid penalty or claiming that Vettel has been so lucky and all the problems are always on Webber's car forgetting the points what he has gained by Vettel's problems. Also the talks about 120-150% what he was able to take out of the car... did he borrow the 20-50% of the parts from Felipe or what?

[citation needed]

From Ferrari´s perspective it was a rational thing to do but are you claiming OTOH that if FA had voiced his concern they would still have made the switch?

What should he say: "Sorry Boss, I really appreciate the effort, but I rather would not win the WDC for your team, so that Felipe can get a podium...."

What should he say: "Sorry Boss, I really appreciate the effort, but I rather would not win the WDC for your team, so that Felipe can get a podium...."

More in the lines of: "That is not the way I would like to operate." I know, integrity is apparently a bit naíve...

More in the lines of: "That is not the way I would like to operate." I know, integrity is apparently a bit naíve...

Integrity towards the sport or the team.... Going by history Ferrari always cared only about Ferrari

You can't be that thick. The difference here is that the Grosjean penalty was already pending ahead of qualifying whereas the trick by Ferrari was used to manipulate the qualifying results to their liking afterwards. There were no rightful owners to any of the grid slots at the time Grosjean was known to be penalized.

Oh, it seems that you are getting it, but you are not yet there.

There were no rightful owners of slots. Full stop. I don't like what Ferrari did, but neither did I like what RBR did at Abu Dhabi. Everything in a race affects other racers. Had Schumacher been given a penalty, would there have been an outcry because other drivers would have been penalised? No. The difference would have been that in one instance Ferrari manipulated the grid, using the rules, and in the other it would have been FIA, by their penalty. That, and not the fact that some drivers would be indirectly penalised. So stop with the crap of other drivers being indirectly affected. They are in every freaking race.

Edited by e34, 21 November 2012 - 09:40.

Oh, it seems that you are getting it, but you are not yet there.

There were no rightful owners of slots. Full stop. I don't like what Ferrari did, but neither did I like what RBR did at Abu Dhabi. Everything in a race affects other racers. Had Schumacher been given a penalty, would there have been an outcry because other drivers would have been penalised? No. The difference would have been that in one instance Ferrari manipulated the grid, using the rules, and in the other it would have been FIA, by their penalty. That, and not the fact that some drivers would be indirectly penalised. So stop with the crap of other drivers being indirectly affected. They are in every freaking race.

This. This repeated a million times or until people think about it rationally.

Even though I thought Alonso acted disgracefully at Mclaren, ratting them out to pay a 100 million dollars when he lost to a rookie Lewis Hamilton, I would genuinely admit his skills behind the wheel this year, getting the Ferrari to second place in this years championship. But there is seriously some character flaw that he needs to work on.

As a Mclaren Fan since 2001 when I started watching F1, I believe that no driver is bigger that the time and that kind of nonsense would not be tolerated. I had seen Mika Hakkinen loose a championship because of a single race in 2001 and Kimi Raikkonen loose 2 championships (2003, 2005) because of reliability of the Mercedes engines and didn't hear any criticism, blaming the team, throwing tantrums. Vettel, though he acts childish sometimes, does not criticize his team and not command explicit team orders.
sometimes
These and I see Alonso and Hamilton blaming the team when things don't got their way even though I believe Hamilton not request for team orders. Well about Schumacher, there is always a question about his dominance due to a clear No 1 driver policy.

Though team order have always been part of F1, there are situations where it can be applied and where they should not be applied and I believe that they should definitely not be applied when it shows the whole world that the second driver is a doormat right from the start of the championship when he has mathematical chances of winning the championship or at least few races and that's why I have not had issues with Mclaren, Redbull, Renault in the last decade whereas Ferrari did whatever it takes to win.

Ultimately, Mclaren, thought they think of Fernando Alonso as a great driver, had to let go of Fernando Alonso, since he was not sporting enough to shut the hell up and drive unlike many great drivers that had driven for them and thus the response.

Edited by Nevermind, 21 November 2012 - 10:47.

Well, Alonso did not force them to "spy" on Ferrari. He "just" his knowledge to blackmail them, which is an all time low in the sport, but he is not to blame for the penalty given to Macca.

Well, Alonso did not force them to "spy" on Ferrari. He "just" his knowledge to blackmail them, which is an all time low in the sport, but he is not to blame for the penalty given to Macca.

Plus, as seems necessary to point out every time this comes up, it was ultimately Ron Dennis who spilled the beans to Max, not Alonso. Alonos threatened, temporarily, but Ron delivered.

Plus, as seems necessary to point out every time this comes up, it was ultimately Ron Dennis who spilled the beans to Max, not Alonso. Alonos threatened, temporarily, but Ron delivered.

Integrity during the spygate vs. integrity last weekend?

Integrity during the spygate vs. integrity last weekend?

The Alonso/McLaren relationship began to fracture as early as Round 1 before the race even begun imho.

Think about things from Fernando's perspective for a moment. The guy is a double world champion at the peak of his game at that point in his career. He decides to pick McLaren to move to and wants to emulate what Schumacher achieved at Ferrari by moving to McLaren and winning multiple world championships. He even smartened up his act, got a new hair cut and tried to fit into the McLaren culture. He wanted to lead the team to glory.

He arrives at Melbourne, the first race at his new team. Number 1 on the car. The big move has happened and he's about to get started on his dream. What happens on the grid? Ron Dennis is sat with Lewis giving him 1 to 1 time while Alonso is somewhere in the back of the pits on his mobile phone. Now you can say so what, was Ron expected to ignore Lewis? But the fact is, Lewis was the golden boy and Alonso was in the shadows. And it was Round 1.

And we all know what happened next. Lewis went on to challenge Alonso on the track and quite rapidly the wheels began to fall off the relationship between Alonso and the team he had committed to. He expected a certain status, as a double world champion. Status he was already used to at Renault. Instead, he got equal footing with a rookie.

It can be reasonably argued that had McLaren enforced a number 1 & 2 status with Fernando and Lewis.. basically telling Lewis to learn from Alonso in year 1.. it's more than possible McLaren would have won the drivers championship that year and Alonso would be a three time WC by now. Then perhaps the next year Lewis gets his shot. It's also arguable that Lewis, in being forced to spend a year or two in a lower position, may well have benefited in the long run too.

Was it unreasonable for Alonso to expect a certain status? I don't think so. His stock was far higher than Hamiltons at that point in time. Hamilton was a rookie who went straight into a top team, a winning car. Alonso had moved up the ranks with Minardi and Renault and had two titles. You can perhaps understand why Alonso felt frustrated that this kid comes into the team with equal status. You may not agree with it. But I can understand it. It was certainly not unreasonable or unusual in the sport.

It's something I believe strongly in and I think ultimately it led to the destruction of the relationship between Fernando and the team. The media painted it as him having a problem with Lewis but ultimately I think his problem was with McLaren and perhaps a feeling of betrayal that they expected him to operate with equal status with a rookie driver. Perhaps they even misled him on status. We may never know.

I started a thread on it the day of the Aussie GP that year. The writing was on the wall. http://forums.autosp...amp;hl=Fernando

This is a good post, thank you.

When Hamilton came into F1 I thought it was exciting for F1 and I loved the fact that he was fighting with Alonso for the championship. Then he didn't win and Alonso acted the way he did and Hamilton won in 2008 so I was pretty much over the moon. Now. with hindsight, I'm not so sure I was right. There is now no doubt in my mind that McLaren could have won more championships from 2007 to 2012 by having a #1 driver and a #2 driver and ensuring that the #1 driver maximised his points every race weekend. There is also no doubt that Alonso expected, and let's face it probably deserved it on account of his record and experience, to have the team unite behind his title challenge in 2007 as you've said above. I think I agree with you, especially also in your assertion that having one or two seasons as a #2 may have benefitted Hamilton in the longer term.

Integrity during the spygate vs. integrity last weekend?

The common denominator was FA. People questioned Fernando´s integrity during the spy-gate for blackmailing his boss but no-one has heard a word from him during the gearbox-gate. Did he approve it or voice his concern?

I think it is worth reminding posters that this thread is about Whitmarsh's comments at the weekend. There are other threads to discuss what actually happened with the gearbox penalty, and the fallout, and the approach taken by Ferrari to tell the public about it, but this is about MW's comments regarding Alonso's time at McLaren.

Perhaps they even misled him on status. We may never know.

That's probably the starting point of everything that happen that year, but as you said, we will never know till Alonso speaks, something that probably will never happen if McLaren forced him to sign a contract to stay silent in exchange for his freedom.

Whitmarsh (in 10 years time): "it was not doing those things that lost us so many championships...."

This is a good post, thank you.

When Hamilton came into F1 I thought it was exciting for F1 and I loved the fact that he was fighting with Alonso for the championship. Then he didn't win and Alonso acted the way he did and Hamilton won in 2008 so I was pretty much over the moon. Now. with hindsight, I'm not so sure I was right. There is now no doubt in my mind that McLaren could have won more championships from 2007 to 2012 by having a #1 driver and a #2 driver and ensuring that the #1 driver maximised his points every race weekend. There is also no doubt that Alonso expected, and let's face it probably deserved it on account of his record and experience, to have the team unite behind his title challenge in 2007 as you've said above.

Again, tell me who was leading the WDC after 7 races(in 2007). Whilst it's true, that McLaren would have won more championships with ALO, I can not see why HAM could not have won them too.

I think I agree with you, especially also in your assertion that having one or two seasons as a #2 may have benefitted Hamilton in the longer term.

How? Tell me the name of a former #2 who then became multiple WDC winner.

Whitmarsh (in 10 years time): "it was not doing those things that lost us so many championships...."

"With hindsight we should have..... done those things..."

Again, tell me who was leading the WDC after 7 races(in 2007). Whilst it's true, that McLaren would have won more championships with ALO, I can not see why HAM could not have won them too.



How? Tell me the name of a former #2 who then became multiple WDC winner.

It's just an opinion I have. I am a Hamilton fan but I am not blind to the fact that he's only won one WDC in 6 years. I also said being #2 for one or two years so I've been thinking, especially when I read the post I was replying to, that he could have learned how to win a championship in 2007 by watching Alonso win and then been a stronger driver for it from that point on.

I could argue that Senna was not the perceived #1 when he joined McLaren. I could also argue that Vettel was not the #1 driver when he joined Red Bull. It's all opinion though and a difference of opinions are healthy, surely?

It's just an opinion I have. I am a Hamilton fan but I am not blind to the fact that he's only won one WDC in 6 years.

ALO last WDC was in 2006. So what?

I also said being #2 for one or two years so I've been thinking, especially when I read the post I was replying to, that he could have learned how to win a championship in 2007 by watching Alonso win and then been a stronger driver for it from that point on.

I disagree!
How can he learn to win the WDC when he is actually in front of the 2xWDC in the first place? did he have to let him pass(or do a MASSA) whenever ALO was behind him?
I guarantee you, if HAM was #2 in 2007, he would have never won a WDC!
Nowadays, many new drivers careers are destroyed thanks to this flawed logic of the #2 because they need to pay their dues.
#1 and #2 must be earned only on track, not through politics and shabby practices.

I could argue that Senna was not the perceived #1 when he joined McLaren. I could also argue that Vettel was not the #1 driver when he joined Red Bull. It's all opinion though and a difference of opinions are healthy, surely?

Were Senna or Vettel "slowed" down when they showed to their team they had the pace to beat the best? NO.
Did you want McLaren to stop HAM? because it was the only way they could have done to give the #1 to ALO. I'm glad McLaren didn't, otherwise HAM would have become another "Piquet Jr".

Witmarsh comment translated: had we done those things we would have probably kept the best driver in current F1 and have three or four World championships under our belt by now. But we are what we are, and we have always done things this way.

Edited by bl-f1, 21 November 2012 - 14:03.

ALO last WDC was in 2006. So what?




I disagree!
How can he learn to win the WDC when he is actually in front of the 2xWDC in the first place? did he have to let him pass(or do a MASSA) whenever ALO was behind him?
I guarantee you, if HAM was #2 in 2007, he would have never won a WDC!
Nowadays, many new drivers careers are destroyed thanks to this flawed logic of the #2 because they need to pay their dues.
#1 and #2 must be earned only on track, not through politics and shabby practices.



Were Senna or Vettel "slowed" down when they showed to their team they had the pace to beat the best? NO.
Did you want McLaren to stop HAM? because it was the only way they could have done to give the #1 to ALO. I'm glad McLaren didn't, otherwise HAM would have become another "Piquet Jr".

Just my opinion, nothing more. It's pretty subjective though given we're hypothesising over what might have been

How? Tell me the name of a former #2 who then became multiple WDC winner.

Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Nelson Piquet, Alain Prost, Michael Schumacher...

Witmarsh comment translated: had we done those things we would have probably kept the best driver in current F1 and have three or four World championships under our belt by now. But we are what we are, and we have always done things this way.

Here we go again...
So their problem is the driver.. right..

Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Nelson Piquet, Alain Prost, Michael Schumacher...

I'm not old enough to go against your arguments but if #2 means "slow down" your driver, it's not possible for a #2 driver to become a WDC winner.
Someone could think that in 2007, with 3 races to go, ALO was leading the WDC and McLaren with their equality policy did lose because they were obsessed with HAM.

I think you should stop talking about Alonso & Hamilton in 2007. It was a weird year and 5 years after that, Alonso and Hamilton seem to be quite different characters now, more experienced and I like to see that they get along quite well.

During all these years after 2007 I see that McLaren has won 1 title, they have lost Alonso in first instance (a reasonable 2 or 3 times WDC with them) and Hamilton afterwards. They may very well be the third or fourth team next year, not even winning a race, who knows. So McLaren driver managemnt is more than questionable. And now these words by MW are simply out of time and an unecessary critic to a driver of another team who drove only once for McLaren 5 years ago...

Edited by Cesc, 21 November 2012 - 14:44.

I think you should stop talking about Alonso & Hamilton in 2007. It was a weird year and 5 years after that, Alonso and Hamilton seem to be quite different characters now, more experienced and I like to see that they get along quite well.

During all these years after 2007 I see that McLaren has won 1 title, they have lost Alonso in first instance (a reasonable 2 or 3 times WDC with them) and Hamilton afterwards. They may very well be the third or fourth team next year, not even winning a race, who knows. So McLaren driver managemnt is more than questionable. And now these words by MW are simply out of time and an unecessary critic to a driver of another team who drove only once for McLaren 5 years ago...

Don't think they are any different characters these day. If they would be in same team it still wouldnt work out, Alonso cant handle getting beaten by his team mate,he never has and never will. It's his strenght as it's his weakness.

I'm not old enough to go against your arguments but if #2 means "slow down" your driver, it's not possible for a #2 driver to become a WDC winner.

Oh, you mean at the time? Well, there are good reasons no. 2s don't win multiple titles. Firstly, if they win one, they effectively become a no. 1 driver. Secondly, the reason why many are no. 2s in the first place is because they are not good enough to be no. 1s.

De facto no. 2s who won titles would include Farina, Hulme and G. Hill x1, and some others would have done with a smidge of luck, like Reutemann, Irvine and Mansell.

Here we go again...
So their problem is the driver.. right..

I don't think this is the correct interpretation of my post.


__

I think you should stop talking about Alonso & Hamilton in 2007. It was a weird year and 5 years after that, Alonso and Hamilton seem to be quite different characters now, more experienced and I like to see that they get along quite well.

During all these years after 2007 I see that McLaren has won 1 title, they have lost Alonso in first instance (a reasonable 2 or 3 times WDC with them) and Hamilton afterwards. They may very well be the third or fourth team next year, not even winning a race, who knows. So McLaren driver managemnt is more than questionable. And now these words by MW are simply out of time and an unecessary critic to a driver of another team who drove only once for McLaren 5 years ago...

Good post.

I do wonder what is driving Martin Whitmarsh to be so critical of so many things. You don't hear the other team bosses being as critical as he is atm. Nothing lasts forever in F1 and no-one has a right to remain at the front simply because they have consistently been around the front end of the grid for so long. Losing Hamilton, paying for customer engines, taking on a pay driver (Perez is brininging £'s into the team), most likely 3rd in the WCC (reduced income for 2013), Perez not being fit (McLaren's words), Perez a risk (-"-), etc, and MW seemingly under pressure and spouting forth on things that to be honest he shouldn't be. I hope we're not seeing the start of a gradual decline but I fear we might be. As you say and others have said, they haven't won that many championships in the recent past.

He is right.

FA blackmailed them to giving him #1 status.

He wanted it. Every driver would take it. I cannot object because my fav driver had it.

But that is not the Macca way.

And FA looks bad still to this day for his deplorable actions.

What I do like about FA today is that he seems to have matured into a better professional.

Alonso would have won the 2007 title if he hadn't binned it in the rain at Fuji...