Which WDC on the grid has the strongest team mate?

So what does that say of Rosberg, who's keeping him honest now?

Still too early to judge. There have been periods when Webber has spanked Vettel.

Alain Prost beat 5 champion team-mates (Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Hill), more than Fangio (1, Farina) Clark (1, Hill), Senna (1, Prost) and Schumacher (1, Piquet) combined.
It makes no sense whatsoever, if it was as vital as you make it out to be, that Prost is usually considered the 5th driver of that list.

Its one of the reasons Prost is rated so highly, the quality of his team mates. Its not the single most important thing, but its important, and has been expressed as such by experts and the paddock since the start of the sport.

Still too early to judge. There have been periods when Webber has spanked Vettel.

So you'll agree with me when Rosberg keeps keeping Hamilton honest, you're going to give Webber and Vettel the credits they deserve.
I don't imagine you'd be the kind of person that is so dishonest he wouldn't.

Its one of the reasons Prost is rated so highly, the quality of his team mates. Its not the single most important thing, but its important, and has been expressed as such by experts and the paddock since the start of the sport.

I know you love hanging on to Prost, because it fits your argument, but unless you actually comment on Clark and Schumacher, we're just running in circles.

Let me keep it simple for you, with one straight-forward question:
If team-mates were as "vital" as you make them out to be, why are Schumacher and Clark ranked, often also on top, among the 4 very best drivers ever?

So you'll agree with me when Rosberg keeps keeping Hamilton honest, you're going to give Webber and Vettel the credits they deserve.
I don't imagine you'd be the kind of person that is so dishonest he wouldn't.

No because Rosberg never had a fair go as a rookie and was very inexperienced, and not comparable to Lewis who was on the pace of double world champion.

Let me keep it simple for you, with one straight-forward question:
If team-mates were as "vital" as you make them out to be, why are Schumacher and Clark ranked, often also on top, among the 4 very best drivers ever?

Michael is rated so high because his statistics dwarf every other driver, and the fact that despite this he is still rarely rated number 1 is evidence of how vital quality team mates are.

No because Rosberg never had a fair go as a rookie and was very inexperienced, and not comparable to Lewis who was on the pace of double world champion.

So you are a dishonest person... wow. At least you're honest about that.
Though I am curious how 'Rosberg never had a fair go as a rookie', and how his inexperience was somehow a worse factor than in Lewis' case.

Michael is rated so high because his statistics dwarf every other driver, and the fact that despite this he is still rarely rated number 1 is evidence of how vital quality team mates are.

Let me help you understand all the errors you are making, since you seem to have some trouble understanding.

• Prost's statistics are much better than Senna's AND he's beaten more quality team-mates, including Senna. Yet he's generally rated lower. Lower than drivers who do not have the 'quality team mate' achievement. You keep going around in circles, yet fail to explain this.
• Best or not, your own arguments confirm that a driver can be considered one of the very best without having quality team-mates. So I'm not sure why you're arguing against your own point.
• Why do you seem to have a deep hatred again Jimmy Clark? For some reason, you ignore him in every post.

Rosberg's debut was a worse case than Hamilton, yes. I don't know why, but it was. Maybe because Rosberg was only 20 years old, but Hamilton 22, so maturity difference. Maybe because Hamilton had been trained by McLaren for 10 years and even though Rosberg had had decent preparation too, it wasn't a match to Hamilton's conditions.

Any case, Rosberg has improved from his debut season, while Hamilton has sort of plateaud.

So you are a dishonest person... wow. At least you're honest about that.
Though I am curious how 'Rosberg never had a fair go as a rookie', and how his inexperience was somehow a worse factor than in Lewis' case.

Not dishonest just educated. In 2006 the practice sessions were shorter and teams barely did any laps in the first session because of engines so Rosberg only had about 20 laps practice before qualifying, plus the car was always breaking down. Lewis was clearly an exceptional rookie who matched the pace of a great driver, so equating Rosberg and Hamilton is actually the height of dishonesty, and desperation. According to your logic Lewis was no better than any rookie in history because they were all classed as rookies.

Let me help you understand all the errors you are making, since you seem to have some trouble understanding.

• Prost's statistics are much better than Senna's AND he's beaten more quality team-mates, including Senna. Yet he's generally rated lower. Lower than drivers who do not have the 'quality team mate' achievement. You keep going around in circles, yet fail to explain this.

Because Senna was regarded as the superior driver when they were team mates. Another great example of how vital team mate comparisons are. I hope you understand now.

Best or not, your own arguments confirm that a driver can be considered one of the very best without having quality team-mates. So I'm not sure why you're arguing against your own point.

Why do you seem to have a deep hatred again Jimmy Clark? For some reason, you ignore him in every post.

Its possible but it always remains a question mark in a drivers career. I have a deep hatred for clark because I did not address him? You really need to calm down. He is from a different era and those drivers are always seen through rose tinted glasses. They are not really comparable to modern era.

Edited by matthair, 05 June 2013 - 11:04.

Rosberg, as underrated he is (was?), appears on the way to be recognized as a strongest racer among candidates on the list.

Not dishonest just educated. In 2006 the practice sessions were shorter and teams barely did any laps in the first session because of engines so Rosberg only had about 20 laps practice before qualifying, plus the car was always breaking down. Lewis was clearly an exceptional rookie who matched the pace of a great driver, so equating Rosberg and Hamilton is actually the height of dishonesty, and desperation. According to your logic Lewis was no better than any rookie in history because they were all classed as rookies.

There is a difference between being 'just as good' as a rookie, and thinking that Rosberg went from 'so horrifically bad he lost out with a margin to an average journey man' to now keeping one of the best drivers on the grid honestly. If Webber was as bad as you (lot) make him out to be, and Rosberg was still so soundly beaten, Rosberg would not even have gotten into F1 as a pay driver.

Because Senna was regarded as the superior driver when they were team mates. Another great example of how vital team mate comparisons are. I hope you understand now.

So because Senna was better than Prost, Prost is automatically worse than two drivers who have done less on your 'vital' team-mate statistic?
What does that make of Massa? Worse than Marques? Because that is the exact same reasoning you're applying.

Its possible but it always remains a question mark in a drivers career. I have a deep hatred for clark because I did not address him?

No, because you keep ignoring him. You only keep mentioning Schumacher, because he fits your agenda. But because Jim Clark doesn't fit the way you think F1 works, you will not mention him, despite you being specifically asked about him. Same for Fangio.

He is from a different era and those drivers are always seen through rose tinted glasses. They are not really comparable to modern era.

Jim Clark was considered the best ever before he partnered with a quality team-mate. Not now, back then.
When Jim Clark was doing exactly what Vettel is doing now, and he was considered the best driver.
Jim Clark is the very proof that your argument is fundamentally flawed.

The problem is that you're rewriting history as you go, just to suit your anti-Vettel agenda. I can't wait to see some forums implode if Vettel teams up with Hamilton or Alonso and beats them. You will not be able to handle it, because you are not open to the education you talk of: you are only interested in 'educating' yourself on how things can happen without creditting Vettel. When something happens that doesn't suit that agenda, you re-write history to make it suit your agenda.

Edited by mnmracer, 05 June 2013 - 12:25.

So what does that say of Rosberg, who's keeping him honest now?


Alain Prost beat 5 champion team-mates (Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Hill), more than Fangio (1, Farina) Clark (1, Hill), Senna (1, Prost) and Schumacher (1, Piquet) combined.
It makes no sense whatsoever, if it was as vital as you make it out to be, that Prost is usually considered the 5th driver of that list.

It's a bit unfair to squeeze Moss out. He was the same value as a number of WDCs.

It's a bit unfair to squeeze Moss out. He was the same value as a number of WDCs.

You mean it is unfair not to give credit to a driver, because he hasn't won WDCs against a multiple champion?
Webber appreciates your comment :-)

There is a difference between being 'just as good' as a rookie, and thinking that Rosberg went from 'so horrifically bad he lost out with a margin to an average journey man' to now keeping one of the best drivers on the grid honestly. If Webber was as bad as you (lot) make him out to be, and Rosberg was still so soundly beaten, Rosberg would not even have gotten into F1 as a pay driver.

My point is that Rosberg was not as bad as he appeared. There were lots of circumstances that distorted the picture. So far he has kept Lewis honest in 4 races, so like I said its too early to judge. in 2008 Vettel was out qualified 3 or 4 times early in the season by Bourdais.

So because Senna was better than Prost, Prost is automatically worse than two drivers who have done less on your 'vital' team-mate statistic?
What does that make of Massa? Worse than Marques? Because that is the exact same reasoning you're applying.

You keep trying to exaggerate things. A great team mate does not make or break a drivers greatness, but its a big negative. Its quite easy to fix though. Accept a quality team mate instead of getting your boss to not hire him so you can keep the easy beat.

No, because you keep ignoring him. You only keep mentioning Schumacher, because he fits your agenda. But because Jim Clark doesn't fit the way you think F1 works, you will not mention him, despite you being specifically asked about him. Same for Fangio.

Jim Clark was considered the best ever before he partnered with a quality team-mate. Not now, back then.
When Jim Clark was doing exactly what Vettel is doing now, and he was considered the best driver.
Jim Clark is the very proof that your argument is fundamentally flawed.

I'm not going to get into a debate about every driver in history. There is no need. Clark is like a mythical legend, its a different era and drivers are judged differently these days as the sport has evolved and as great drivers since clark have gone to battle head to head like true champions rather than pick on tired old journeyman. Clark himself is overrated anyway.

My point is that Rosberg was not as bad as he appeared. There were lots of circumstances that distorted the picture. So far he has kept Lewis honest in 4 races, so like I said its too early to judge. in 2008 Vettel was out qualified 3 or 4 times early in the season by Bourdais.

But the possibility that Webber is not the sub-par driver you make him out to be, is not something you are willing to consider...
Really educated.

You keep trying to exaggerate things. A great team mate does not make or break a drivers greatness, but its a big negative.

How is it a big negative when 3 of the 5 best drivers in history have this 'big negative' over them?
You are the one exaggerating this 'big negative'.

Edited by mnmracer, 05 June 2013 - 13:18.

But the possibility that Webber is not the sub-par driver you make him out to be, is not something you are willing to consider...
Really educated.

Webber has done nothing to make me consider otherwise. He has consistently failed to deliver in amazing cars since 2009. You can only judge a driver from what he has achieved not from your fanciful imagination. Its not like he has done anything really impressive in his career like beat Kimi and come within a few corners of winning a world title.

Vettel or Alonso

Webber has done nothing to make me consider otherwise. He has consistently failed to deliver in amazing cars since 2009. You can only judge a driver from what he has achieved not from your fanciful imagination. Its not like he has done anything really impressive in his career like beat Kimi and come within a few corners of winning a world title.

So Massa gets credit for beating Kimi in Kimi's off years, fighting for the world title once, and then being destroyed by a multiple world champion.
But Webber gets no credit for beating Rosberg in Rosberg's developmental year, fighting for the world title once, and giving more resistance to a multiple world champion.

It is so obvious that you have no interest in a fair discussion, and are just arguing whatever double standard is necessary to make Webber-Vettel look bad, it is mind-boggling that you try to keep on this charade of a fair commenter.

What makes your comments even more ridiculous is that you're not even abiding by your own rules.
Because for all your preaching about the 'vital importance' of quality team-mates, apparently becoming world champion in a car miles faster than the F2005 and 42 points more reliable than the MP4-20, beating one of the worst drivers in modern history, getting beaten by an Italian wine farmer and beating Giancarlo Fisichella is enough against to warrant the creditentials of 'real deal' and 'new king'.

2005 when Alonso proved he was the real deal and the new King.

So Massa gets credit for beating Kimi in Kimi's off years,

'off years' huh? Another example your fair and honest style of discussion.

What makes your comments even more ridiculous is that you're not even abiding by your own rules.
Because for all your preaching about the 'vital importance' of quality team-mates, apparently becoming world champion in a car miles faster than the F2005 and 42 points more reliable than the MP4-20, beating one of the worst drivers in modern history, getting beaten by an Italian wine farmer and beating Giancarlo Fisichella is enough against to warrant the creditentials of 'real deal' and 'new king'.

I'm not sure if you watched F1 back then but Trulli was rated as one of the fastest drivers, and Fisichella was rated for years universally as one of the best drivers on the grid and had thrashed every team mate he ever had. Quality proven drivers, who had been stars their entire motorsport careers. Webber is not bad, I mean he managed to beat a retiring Coulthard, almost a decade ago.

Edited by matthair, 05 June 2013 - 14:51.

Good joke.

I'd rate it

1. Rosberg (Lewis)
2. Webber (Vettel)
3. Perez (Button)... may move up to 2nd over the year
4. Massa (Alonso)
5. Grosjean (Kimi)

That's about how I would rate them, I'd say it's super close between Webber Perez and Massa though

So Massa gets credit for beating Kimi in Kimi's off years, fighting for the world title once, and then being destroyed by a multiple world champion.

Raikkonen's "off years"? Pretty pathetic excuse, and Massa beat him in both 2008 and 2009; even in 2007 he was at least as fast as Kimi, but screwed over by worse reliability. Throughout 2007-2009 at Ferrari, Massa beat Raikkonen, simples.

And this is the same Massa that is currently being dominated by Alonso for the 4th consecutive season...

But Webber gets no credit for beating Rosberg in Rosberg's developmental year, fighting for the world title once, and giving more resistance to a multiple world champion.

Massa's 2008 was far more impressive than Webber's 2010.

Massa won 6 out of 18 races in 2008. Webber won 4 out of 19 races in 2010.
Ferrari and McLaren were equal in 2008. Red Bull, on raw pace, were in a class of their own in 2010.
Massa had a lot of bad luck in '08. Webber, unlike his teammate, did not have horrendous luck in '10.
Massa came within 1 corner of winning the WDC, Webber was nowhere in Abu Dhabi.

Let's see you try to twist this, I can already see a list of excuses coming.

It is so obvious that you have no interest in a fair discussion, and are just arguing whatever double standard is necessary to make Webber-Vettel look bad, it is mind-boggling that you try to keep on this charade of a fair commenter.

Comes from someone who can call Webber a "good and underrated" driver in one comment, and then has the straight face to not rate teammate performaces against Fisichella and Massa?

What makes your comments even more ridiculous is that you're not even abiding by your own rules.
Because for all your preaching about the 'vital importance' of quality team-mates, apparently becoming world champion in a car miles faster than the F2005 and 42 points more reliable than the MP4-20, beating one of the worst drivers in modern history, getting beaten by an Italian wine farmer and beating Giancarlo Fisichella is enough against to warrant the creditentials of 'real deal' and 'new king'.

Alonso decimated Grosjean; beat Trulli, Fisichella, and Massa; and tied Hamilton. That's a more impressive team mate list than Vettel, no matter how you try to twist it.

As for your comment on Fisichella, do you have any clue how highly he was rated before he teamed up with Alonso? Here's a hint: A lot higher than Webber back in 2008!
http://forums.autosp...w...t=0&start=0

Edited by Kingshark, 05 June 2013 - 15:07.

Massa won 6 out of 18 races in 2008. Webber won 4 out of 19 races in 2010.

To be fair to Webber, the 2010 grid was much more competitive than 2008. McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull drivers were all in the title hunt. While in 2008, all races but 4 were won by McLaren and Ferrari drivers and those 4 wins were very random: BMW Sauber, STR, and two Renault wins (one of which shouldn't have happened at all if not for Piquet, Jr.) In 2008, it was mostly Hamilton vs Massa, with a few random wins of other drivers. It was a championship with a relatively weak competition compared to what we see now.

To be fair to Webber, the 2010 grid was much more competitive than 2008. McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull drivers were all in the title hunt. While in 2008, all races but 4 were won by McLaren and Ferrari drivers and those 4 wins were very random: BMW Sauber, STR, and two Renault wins (one of which shouldn't have happened at all if not for Piquet, Jr.) In 2008, it was mostly Hamilton vs Massa, with a few random wins of other drivers. It was a championship with a relatively weak competition compared to what we see now.

Not quite.

In 2008, 4 out of 18 wins were taken by other teams, BMW, Toro Rosso, and Renault; while in 2010, 5 out of 19 wins were taken by McLaren.

That means overall, there were still 14 wins to play for with Ferrari and McLaren in 2008, as with Ferrari and Red Bull in 2010.

Red Bull had a large performance gap over Ferrari in 2010, while McLaren and Ferrari were neck and neck in 2008.

Massa won 6 races, Webber only won 4; and that's not even including the fact that Massa in '08 had more misfortunes than Webber in '10.

Edited by Kingshark, 05 June 2013 - 15:29.

To be fair to Webber, the 2010 grid was much more competitive than 2008. McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull drivers were all in the title hunt. While in 2008, all races but 4 were won by McLaren and Ferrari drivers and those 4 wins were very random: BMW Sauber, STR, and two Renault wins (one of which shouldn't have happened at all if not for Piquet, Jr.) In 2008, it was mostly Hamilton vs Massa, with a few random wins of other drivers. It was a championship with a relatively weak competition compared to what we see now.

The 2008 grid were much closer to each other pace wise. 7 different winners from 5 different teams.

In 2010, Red Bull had quite a large gap, pace wise to the other teams. 5 different winners from 3 different teams.

As for your comment on Fisichella, do you have any clue how highly he was rated before he teamed up with Alonso? Here's a hint: A lot higher than Webber back in 2008!
http://forums.autosp...w...t=0&start=0

Was watching a classic Canadian GP on the BBC website the other day. It was 1998. As Fisichella crossed the line for 2nd place, Murray Walker said "Many people in the paddock are sure that he will be a future WDC".

Not quite.

1)In 2008, 4 out of 18 wins were taken by other teams, BMW, Toro Rosso, and Renault; while in 2010, 5 out of 19 wins were taken by McLaren.

That means overall, there were still 14 wins to play for with Ferrari and McLaren in 2008, as with Ferrari and Red Bull in 2010.

Red Bull had a large performance gap over Ferrari in 2010, while McLaren and Ferrari were neck and neck in 2008.

2)Massa won 6 races, Webber only won 4; and that's not even including the fact that Massa in '08 had more misfortunes than Webber in '10.

1)I'm perfectly aware of that. But don't you see the difference between 4 random wins of 3 teams and 5 wins of the same team(McLaren)? McLaren drivers were up there in the mix more often than Kubica and Alonso (and definitely more often than Vettel).
2) I won't argue with that. But don't you think Webber's relative stats might be affected by the fact that his teammate was more competitive than Massa's teammate in 2008? Kimi had only 2 wins. Vettel had 5, and that's not counting his numerous misfortunes.

And this is the same Massa that is currently being dominated by Alonso for the 4th consecutive season...

Really? The same Massa? Nothing happened to him in between?
It must be a lonely club you're in, not many people believe that Massa is as fast as before spring break 2009.

Massa's 2008 was far more impressive than Webber's 2010.

More impressive, yes. Far more, no.
It might be a crazy bit of context, but you'll generally find it much harder to win if you're up against a much better team mate.

Massa came within 1 corner of winning the WDC, Webber was nowhere in Abu Dhabi.

Really? You want to discuss where the 2010 championship candidates were in Abu Dhabi?

Comes from someone who can call Webber a "good and underrated" driver in one comment, and then has the straight face to not rate teammate performaces against Fisichella and Massa?

By the standard your buddy uses, Fisichella and Massa are not better.
If you think it's unfair, go complain to that joker.

As for your comment on Fisichella, do you have any clue how highly he was rated before he teamed up with Alonso? Here's a hint: A lot higher than Webber back in 2008!
http://forums.autosp...w...t=0&start=0

Not sure why you talk about 2008, and then link to 2002.
Not that I'd expect you to give a fair assessment, for instance by also linking to articles that name Webber the next Schumacher...

1)I'm perfectly aware of that. But don't you see the difference between 4 random wins of 3 teams and 5 wins of the same team(McLaren)? McLaren drivers were up there in the mix more often than Kubica and Alonso (and definitely more often than Vettel).

Nothing random about Kubica's win. He had 7 podiums during the season, and was very strong in the first half (IIRC he was leading the WDC after Canada). Nothing random about Alonso's wins either. He was very strong in the 2nd half of the season.

2) I won't argue with that. But don't you think Webber's relative stats might be affected by the fact that his teammate was more competitive than Massa's teammate in 2008? Kimi had only 2 wins. Vettel had 5, and that's not counting his numerous misfortunes.

Kimi was World Champion at the time. How was he not competitive?

Nothing random about Kubica's win. He had 7 podiums during the season, and was very strong in the first half (IIRC he was leading the WDC after Canada). Nothing random about Alonso's wins either. He was very strong in the 2nd half of the season.

I'm sorry, but arguing that the 2008 grid was as competitive as the 2010 grid is ridiculous. By random I don't mean undeserved. Hamilton had 9 podiums (and 3 wins). Button had 7 podiums ( and 2 wins). Alonso had 10 podiums ( and 5 wins). Vettel had 10 podiums (and 5 wins). We had 4 WDC contenders going into the last race.

Compare it to the level of competition of the 2008 grid. Yes, Kubica had 7 podiums, but Alonso had only 3.

Kimi was World Champion at the time. How was he not competitive?

I didn't say he wasn't competitive. I said he was relatively less competitive in the 2008 season than Vettel was in 2010. What do WDCs have to do with that? He had only 2 wins in 2008 while Vettel got more wins -- the wins Webber could potentially get.

Edited by rasul, 05 June 2013 - 16:40.

Ok i voted for HAM. It is not that i want to make him look better but i really think Rosberg is the best of those. Remember Webber was clearly off the pace in the dominating RB from 2011 (he did just win the last race because of gearbox problems on Vettels car). Massa is sometimes on top of Alonso but he's not faster than Alonso constantly. Perez is hard to judge. He was outqualified by Kobayashi (right?) and wasn't constantly faster than Kobayashi in race. Kimi has also a sometimes-fast teammate as you can see in the Bahrain race.
So Rosberg was faster than MSC (atleast most times while MSC's second career) and he drives constantly fast

Edited by nosecone, 05 June 2013 - 16:32.

I'm sorry, but arguing that the 2008 grid was as competitive as the 2010 grid is ridiculous.

No it's not.

By random I don't mean undeserved. Hamilton had 9 podiums (and 3 wins). Button had 7 podiums ( and 2 wins). Alonso had 10 podiums ( and 5 wins). Vettel had 10 podiums (and 5 wins). We had 4 WDC contenders going into the last race.

Compare it to the level of competition of the 2008 grid. Yes, Kubica had 7 podiums, but Alonso had only 3.

If we're talking podiums, then there were 14 different drivers on the podium in 2008, as opposed to 8 in 2010. If we're talking the whole grid, then you can't just look at the top teams.

I didn't say he wasn't competitive. I said he was relatively less competitive in the 2008 season than Vettel was in 2010. What do WDCs have to do with that? He had only 2 wins in 2008 while Vettel got more wins -- the wins Webber could potentially get.

Fair enough. Although to counter this, Massa's car was not as good as the RB6 (relative to the rest of the field) and he had the mechanical failure in Hungary and pit stop disaster in Singapore (both costing him what looked to be likely wins).

Edited by TheThirdTenor1, 05 June 2013 - 17:44.

If we're talking podiums, then there were 14 different drivers on the podium in 2008, as opposed to 8 in 2010. If we're talking the whole grid, then you can't just look at the top teams.

It actually only proves my point. In 2008, McLaren&Ferrari were the only ones fighting for the championship, and that's why we got so many drivers from midfield teams on the podium in 2008. In 2010, because we had 3 top teams and 5 very competitive drivers, it's only logical that some of said drivers were always on the podium, and naturally, drivers of midfield teams had less chance to end up on the podium than they did in 2008.

Really? The same Massa? Nothing happened to him in between?
It must be a lonely club you're in, not many people believe that Massa is as fast as before spring break 2009.

I believed it back in 2010 up and until midway 2012, but Massa has gained a lot of his confidence back since his podium at Suzuka last year, and he still can't match Alonso overall. You can keep making excuses, but one accident does not make a 4 year imprint, he's simply not as good as Alonso, nor has he ever been.

More impressive, yes. Far more, no.
It might be a crazy bit of context, but you'll generally find it much harder to win if you're up against a much better team mate.

Maybe that is why Massa has looked poor in the past 3-4 years?

Really? You want to discuss where the 2010 championship candidates were in Abu Dhabi?

I'll put it another way: Massa was much closer to winning the WDC at Brazil 2008 than Webber was in Abu Dhabi 2010.

Not sure why you talk about 2008, and then link to 2002.
Not that I'd expect you to give a fair assessment, for instance by also linking to articles that name Webber the next Schumacher...

Did you even understand my point?

Back in 2000, most people rated Fisichella as the 3rd best driver in Formula 1 after Michael and Mika, he was trashing all his teammates. Some drivers were even rating Fisichella ahead Schumacher in terms of raw talent, Fisi was always rated very, very highly back in 1997-2004, then he teamed up with Alonso, who trashed him two years in a row.

Sounds pretty similar to Massa, doesn't it? Back in 2008 and 2009, most people spoke very highly of Massa, and rated him as among the very best drivers on the grid, then he teamed up with Alonso, and is now being dominated for the 4th consecutive season.

It actually only proves my point. In 2008, McLaren&Ferrari were the only ones fighting for the championship, and that's why we got so many drivers from midfield teams on the podium in 2008.

BMW were in the WDC title fight until the penumtimate race.

In 2010, because we had 3 top teams and 5 very competitive drivers, it's only logical that some of said drivers were always on the podium, and naturally, drivers of midfield teams had less chance to end up on the podium than they did in 2008.

Which shows that the whole grid in 2008 was more competitive.

Which shows that the whole grid in 2008 was more competitive.

No, it doesn't, but let's just agree to disagree, then.

Maybe that is why Massa has looked poor in the past 3-4 years?

I'll put it another way: Massa was much closer to winning the WDC at Brazil 2008 than Webber was in Abu Dhabi 2010.

You were comparing Massa 2008 and Webber 2010.
How many miles was between them and a WDC is moot in that discussion. A couple of miles does not make the difference between a driver deserving credit for fighting for the WDC in the last race, and a driver not deserving credit.

Massa did really well, but had Alonso or Vettel been his team-mate, he would not have been as close to the WDC, even if he performed just as well.
Webber did have Alonso or Vettel as a team-mate, so he will always look relatively worse, even with the same performance.

Did you even understand my point?

Back in 2000, most people rated Fisichella as the 3rd best driver in Formula 1 after Michael and Mika, he was trashing all his teammates. Some drivers were even rating Fisichella ahead Schumacher in terms of raw talent, Fisi was always rated very, very highly back in 1997-2004, then he teamed up with Alonso, who trashed him two years in a row.

Sounds pretty similar to Massa, doesn't it? Back in 2008 and 2009, most people spoke very highly of Massa, and rated him as among the very best drivers on the grid, then he teamed up with Alonso, and is now being dominated for the 4th consecutive season.

And how is that different from Mark Webber being named the next Schumacher in 2003, being considered the best qualifier on the grid, and then being beaten by Vettel in >70% of all qualifying sessions?
I assume you're wise enough

And how is that different from Mark Webber being named the next Schumacher in 2003, being considered the best qualifier on the grid, and then being beaten by Vettel in >70% of all qualifying sessions?
I assume you're wise enough

Webber named the next Schumacher? what a load of nonsense. He was considered a good qualifier but that was mainly because he was flattered by lighter fuel loads and nothing team mates. Now Massa was actually considered one of the qualifiers after beating Kimi

Webber named the next Schumacher? what a load of nonsense. He was considered a good qualifier but that was mainly because he was flattered by lighter fuel loads and nothing team mates. Now Massa was actually considered one of the qualifiers after beating Kimi

Really? So that's why the official F1 website uses "qualifying ace" to describe him 3 times?

Would people have voted differently after todays session, I know i wouldn't.

Would people have voted differently after todays session, I know i wouldn't.

Correct.

Romain and Massa were awful, Perez outpaced Button, Webber was a distant 2nd to Vettel and Rosberg was almost equal to Lewis.

As far as I'm concerned, Rosberg is still best, with Perez moving up to 2nd.

Out of the five, Perez has the most room for improvement. Grosjean doesn't know how to improve, he keeps getting worse. Rosberg is at the peak of his career, and Massa and Webber are both well past their prime.

At the moment however, Rosberg > Webber and Massa > Perez > Grosjean

Raikkonen's "off years"? Pretty pathetic excuse, and Massa beat him in both 2008 and 2009; even in 2007 he was at least as fast as Kimi, but screwed over by worse reliability. Throughout 2007-2009 at Ferrari, Massa beat Raikkonen, simples.

And this is the same Massa that is currently being dominated by Alonso for the 4th consecutive season...

Massa had the same amount of reliability issues as Kimi in 2007. Of course you were quick to point out that he was just as fast as Kimi in 2007, but you wouldn't point out that Kimi was mostly the fastest in the races in 2008. In fact Kimi was leading the WDC in 2008 until halfway through the season, he had pretty bad luck during 2008 and even with Kimi being regulated to 2nd driver he still couldn't win the WDC.
In 2009 Ferrari was a mess, up until Massa's accident they messed up practically every race due to reliability and bad strategies, Massa and Kimi only had two normal race weekends were nothing went wrong for both between them up until that point. The point dont tell the whole story.

Massa's 2008 was far more impressive than Webber's 2010.

Massa only had Lewis to compete against.

Massa won 6 out of 18 races in 2008. Webber won 4 out of 19 races in 2010.

Massa was lucky to inherit two of those wins, in France he inherited Kimi's win because of a broken exhaust, and in Spa Massa was far behind Kimi and Lewis but inherited the win due to a lame penalty.

Sounds pretty similar to Massa, doesn't it? Back in 2008 and 2009, most people spoke very highly of Massa, and rated him as among the very best drivers on the grid, then he teamed up with Alonso, and is now being dominated for the 4th consecutive season.

There was much less competition during the Schumacher years then what we have now, Fisichella was highly rated by a few fans but it is telling that he never really got a top seat at the time. He only got a top seat to play second fiddle to Alonso in the end. I guess that does compare a bit to Massa, only Massa was groomed by Ferrari.

Where was Massa so highly rated? Massa can be very, very good at times but even in 2008 when he was much better, it was clearly visible to most people with an understanding about WDC campaigns, that he was just to inconsistent. Massa just usually has to many lows, or up and down performances, like crashing out today and at Monaco. Even if he was better in 2008, in the first two races he spun out and drove directly into a wall. Or I remember in Silverstone where he spinned out something like 5 times during a race. Webber is more consistent and generally has less of these lows.

There was much less competition during the Schumacher years then what we have now, Fisichella was highly rated by a few fans but it is telling that he never really got a top seat at the time. He only got a top seat to play second fiddle to Alonso in the end. I guess that does compare a bit to Massa, only Massa was groomed by Ferrari.

Where was Massa so highly rated? Massa can be very, very good at times but even in 2008 when he was much better, it was clearly visible to most people with an understanding about WDC campaigns, that he was just to inconsistent. Massa just usually has to many lows, or up and down performances, like crashing out today and at Monaco. Even if he was better in 2008, in the first two races he spun out and drove directly into a wall. Or I remember in Silverstone where he spinned out something like 5 times during a race. Webber is more consistent and generally has less of these lows.

Have to agree with that. I don't think Schumacher lost too much in his comeback, it's just that Alonso, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Hamilton and Vettel were his match and would have been against the 1996 - 2002 Schumacher, too.

Raikkonen nearly won in 2003 with a lesser car. Alonso won in 2006 with an equal car.

Now back to the topic at hand, Massa is the least consistent of the teammates, after Grosjean. He isn't a WDC because in 2008 he spun out on a slow corner in Malaysia. He suffers from #2-itus, which is, the inability to deliver in all ~20 races of a season.

Now Raikkonen proved he could in 2003 when only car issues cost him a title in what was not the best car. He then did win it in 2007 despite having a car failure in Spain. Aside from a silly qualifying error in Monaco and a bad race in Europe, every race was pretty much perfect by Kimi in 2007. And this was against the ridiculously reliable McLaren, which suffered ZERO mechanical DNFs in the whole year.

Rosberg > Perez > Webber > Grosjean > Massa

The 3 bottom guys should clearly be replaced next season. Rosberg and Perez are doing well.

Lewis did a great job today all things considered in this poll.

Lewis did a great job today all things considered in this poll.

Grosjean looked like the strongest team-mate today, or perhaps Webber.