If Hamilton doesn't have the car to challenge for the title this year

Originally posted by Orin


Ah yes, I withdraw '94.
[the post contained a smidgen of irony anyway ;) ]

I would still argue that 97 was also "under pressure"-thingy, as the crash was very much deliberate, it wasnt by any measurement an accident. MS just didnt have an answer for JVs pace in that race and he did what people who cant handle the pressure do when they panic: steered towards JV hoping it will be a repeat of 94.

Anyway, giving that MS has won 7 WDCs and fought for it in additional 3 times in last race: 97,98,06 making it a total 10 times when he has been there, isnt it a bit odd statistical thing that he never won it with driving brilliant title-deciding race when it was last race of season? All he has to show is titles won before the last race or blunders, coincindence or showing weakness when under pressure? I´d say weakness.

Originally posted by yr


I would still argue that 97 was also "under pressure"-thingy, as the crash was very much deliberate, it wasnt by any measurement an accident. MS just didnt have an answer for JVs pace in that race and he did what people who cant handle the pressure do when they panic: steered towards JV hoping it will be a repeat of 94.

Michael did what any driver would do to try to win a WC and keep his rival behind him. Ram. Nothing to do with pressure, it was just a deliverate and neccessary action.

Originally posted by Durant


Michael did what any driver would do to try to win a WC and keep his rival behind him. Ram. Nothing to do with pressure, it was just a deliverate and neccessary action.

F1 is not demolition derby. So he did something that 99,9 % of F1 drivers wouldn´t do, but something what 100% of demolition derby drivers would do.

Originally posted by yr


I would still argue that 97 was also "under pressure"-thingy, as the crash was very much deliberate, it wasnt by any measurement an accident. MS just didnt have an answer for JVs pace in that race and he did what people who cant handle the pressure do when they panic: steered towards JV hoping it will be a repeat of 94.

Anyway, giving that MS has won 7 WDCs and fought for it in additional 3 times in last race: 97,98,06 making it a total 10 times when he has been there, isnt it a bit odd statistical thing that he never won it with driving brilliant title-deciding race when it was last race of season? All he has to show is titles won before the last race or blunders, coincindence or showing weakness when under pressure? I´d say weakness.

I wouldn't call either the '94 or '97 moves panic, just like Monaco '06 they were instinctive reactions from someone who could not tolerate defeat. In '94 a camera stayed on him while the marshal told him Hill had retired, Schumacher's thrill on learning that he'd smashed his rival out of the race wasn't in keeping with someone who had acted in blind panic - there was neither guilt nor embarrassment, just exultation.

But I do agree with you that he was prone to nerves in title deciders, both the examples you gave of '98 and '03 are good instances of it, particularly '03 where his driving was laughable.

Originally posted by Suntrek
Gilles Villeneuve is one of the most overrated drivers ever IMO.

Absolutely correct.

Spectacular but erratic. Rich man's de Cesaris.

Originally posted by Orin



But I do agree with you that he was prone to nerves in title deciders, both the examples you gave of '98 and '03 are good instances of it, particularly '03 where his driving was laughable.

Yes, and what I would like to highlight more than his failures in those situations, is the fact he never won with a style in a title-deciding race if it was a last race of year, never, that is quite remarkable when you consider he was a man who won 7 WDCs and had 3 other chances in final race to win it. Where were his masterpieces like Spain 96 or whatever when it was last race and title decider?

Well, every driver has his weakness, which was why I brought this subject up anyway, it remains to be seen if Hamilton has the same problem as Schumi had, I´m not saying it yet, but all the signs are there.

Originally posted by yr


Yes, and what I would like to highlight more than his failures in those situations, is the fact he never won with a style in a title-deciding race if it was a last race of year, never, that is quite remarkable when you consider he was a man who won 7 WDCs and had 3 other chances in final race to win it. Where were his masterpieces like Spain 96 or whatever when it was last race and title decider?

Well, every driver has his weakness, which was why I brought this subject up anyway, it remains to be seen if Hamilton has the same problem as Schumi had, I´m not saying it yet, but all the signs are there.

Suzuka 2000 may not have been a 'last race' but it's pretty damn close. I would also point out that it's gonna be easier to crack in a big deciding race if you find yourself in failing or inferior machinery.

Originally posted by yr

Well, every driver has his weakness, which was why I brought this subject up anyway, it remains to be seen if Hamilton has the same problem as Schumi had, I´m not saying it yet, but all the signs are there.

Yes, the jury's still out. I think he has the talent to win WDCs, there's got to be a question mark over his composure in closely fought contests... I can't remember his GP2 championship now, perhaps that gives a clue (ISTR Piquet pushed Hamilton in the final stages? I really can't remember anymore...).

Originally posted by Group B

I would also point out that it's gonna be easier to crack in a big deciding race if you find yourself in failing or inferior machinery.

You are quite right there. But I didnt mean that Schumi needed to win those final races, just pointing out he was way bellow his own standard every time he entered to last race of the season with title yet undecided. He won the title only twice in last race, that was 94 and 03, would you call those races as one of classics? A races where MS really drove much better than what his car was supposed to be able?

Originally posted by yr
Yes, and what I would like to highlight more than his failures in those situations, is the fact he never won with a style in a title-deciding race if it was a last race of year, never, that is quite remarkable when you consider he was a man who won 7 WDCs and had 3 other chances in final race to win it. Where were his masterpieces like Spain 96 or whatever when it was last race and title decider?

Well, every driver has his weakness, which was why I brought this subject up anyway, it remains to be seen if Hamilton has the same problem as Schumi had, I´m not saying it yet, but all the signs are there.

I like your style of saying something while not saying it yet...

Originally posted by Orin


Yes, the jury's still out. I think he has the talent to win WDCs, there's got to be a question mark over his composure in closely fought contests... I can't remember his GP2 championship now, perhaps that gives a clue (ISTR Piquet pushed Hamilton in the final stages? I really can't remember anymore...).

IIRC Hamilton did have some not-so-great races towards the end of the season in GP2. He had good season there, but most of all he had some extremely great races where he drove like he had F1 car and others something like undertuned GP2 cars or something. But if memory serves, LH didnt increase his superiority over others towards the end of the season, quite a contrary.

Originally posted by yr
He won the title only twice in last race, that was 94 and 03, would you call those races as one of classics? A races where MS really drove much better than what his car was supposed to be able?

Right. Numerous other drivers won the title far more often than twice in the seasons last race.

But Schumacher? Only twice. Pretty poor.

Originally posted by giacomo
I like your style of saying something while not saying it yet...

So you remeber title-deciding, final race(s) from Schumi where he shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bother? I dont remeber any, perhaps you could remind me?

Originally posted by giacomo
Right. Numerous other drivers won the title far more often than twice in the seasons last race.

But Schumacher? Only twice. Pretty poor.

7 WDCs and 3 lost WDCs in final race, not even one of those 10 times in WDC battle includes a great last final race. He won it twice in last race, yes, which one of those - 94 or 03 - he did with a style? Or to be precise, which one was The Race that made you sit down and wonder if there is any limits for this guy´s talent?

Originally posted by yr
So you remeber title-deciding, final race(s) from Schumi where he shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bother? I dont remeber any, perhaps you could remind me?

I don't remember any title-deciding, final races where the title winning driver shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bothered at all.

Okay, maybe Piquet in Kyalami 1983 might match that description. But apart from that... none.


So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Originally posted by giacomo
I don't remember any title-deciding, final races where the title winning driver shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bothered at all.

Okay, maybe Piquet in Kyalami 1983 might match that description. But apart from that... none.


So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I will give you an example of not cracking under pressure. Last year Kimi was 17 points behind Hamilton with two races to go, he needed practically won last two races to become WDC. Did he stall on grid or crash with Hamilton or cruised in 8th place or something like that? No he didnt, he did what was needed, which was win the last two (notice 2 not 1 race) GPs. Thumbs up for a guy He has a nerves of steel ;) , he doesnt start to crash or stall as soon as he founds out he needs to perform now, not in some unseeable future, but right now, so he performs instead of choking.

You will surely now give me the "Massa gave him that win" - card, but as you know there wasnt a race between those two so nobody knows which one had won it, and for more importantly, watch again Kimis faultless driving from your tape or dvd and then compare it to any title-decider of MS´s and you´ll understand my point.

Well, you might be rating Raikkonens performance in Interlagos 2007 as "shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bothered at all".

More realistic and objective observers would rate Interlagos 2007 as a race and a title won thanks to team strategy.
And critic observers even might use the mean term "team orders".


Comparing that to title-deciding, final Schumacher races... Schumacher did not win the 1994 or the 2003 titles thanks to team strategy or even team orders in those races.

Originally posted by giacomo



Comparing that to title-deciding, final Schumacher races... Schumacher did not win the 1994 or the 2003 titles thanks to team strategy or even team orders in those races.

I knew you would play that card, didnt I?

As for 03 and 94 WDCs, yeah, those are races that make KR blush every time when he remembers he didnt need to race his team mate in last race in 07. It is well known fact that Schumi always had hard-fought races with his team mates and they never played team-work thingy while MS was driving.

Anyway, gotta go now, my 13 year old daughter wont take a second anymore without having an access to her chit-chat system, irc-gallery or messenger or whatever it is now. You know how mean girls of that age can get if they dont have it their way.

Originally posted by yr
I knew you would play that card, didnt I?

The obvious reaction to everyone describing Interlagos 2007 as a performance that "shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bothered at all".

Fanboy talks de luxe.

Has ever there been an instance in F1 where a driver with a substantial points lead has let it slip away like lewis did last year? If there was was it due to mechanical failures or was it due to 100% chokage like lewis last year?

Originally posted by yr
As for 03 and 94 WDCs, yeah, those are races that make KR blush every time when he remembers he didnt need to race his team mate in last race in 07. It is well known fact that Schumi always had hard-fought races with his team mates and they never played team-work thingy while MS was driving.

Tell us about the number of titles presented to Michael Schumacher on a silver plate by his teammates.

And then let's compare that to the number of titles presented to Kimi Raikkonen on a silver plate by his teammates.

I thought this was a thread on what happend if McLaren don't produce a winning car for Hamilton, but it seems I've wandered into a "did schumacher win his titles in style ?" thread

Originally posted by Youichi
I thought this was a thread on what happend if McLaren don't produce a winning car for Hamilton, but it seems I've wandered into a "did schumacher win his titles in style ?" thread

Kudos to yr and his eternal desire to rate Schumacher below Raikkonen.

Since we are offtopic already, do i remember correct that the Finns WDC (-82,-97,-98-07) have always solved in the last GP of the season?

Originally posted by Panch
Since we are offtopic already, do i remember correct that the Finns WDC (-82,-97,-98-07) have always solved in the last GP of the season?

Small correction, not 97, 98 but 98, 99.

The answer to your question is yes however.

Originally posted by polymath
Has ever there been an instance in F1 where a driver with a substantial points lead has let it slip away like lewis did last year? If there was was it due to mechanical failures or was it due to100% chokage like lewis last year?

Hamilton had gearbox problem.

Originally posted by yr


My only point was that you cant consider a driver as "great" after only one season, even after having a best/equal best car and thus fighting for wins all year. For example Damon Hill was 3rd in WDC in his rookie year, behind Prost and Senna, but above Schumacher. Hill isnt one of the greates ever by any strech of the imagination but he was beaten only by two legends of the sport and he himself beat a legend in making, so that should give you some clue how much a great car can make it easier for the rookie to shine.

There are dozens of ways for LH to have only mediocre career despite his brilliant debut season. First one, and propably only bigger problem in his arsenal as a driver, was his total f@ck up when he had a chance to grab the title, that does raise some questions about his ability to deal with pressure. Perhaps it was because he was rookie, but it remains to be seen how he will cope if title is decided in last race and he doesnt have any points advantage, will he do mistakes again? Schumacher BTW had the same weakness, whenever WDC went to last race, he used to crash against the other title contender (94, 97) or stall on the grid (98) or just drove like it was first time in a racing car in his life (03). That didnt do much harm for his stats though as he had it his way in 94 and 03, rest of his titles came with more or less dominant car so he didnt need to deal with pressure. If Hamilton doesnt have such a luxury (have a dominant car for multiply years) he may have hard time winning the title even once.

Then there´s of course possibility of wrong career choises as was the case with Villeneuve, but I doubt that will occur unless Mclaren somehow drops the ball. That doesnt seem very likely, but who would have thought back in 79 that it will take 21 years for Ferrari to win title again? Who would have thought after Williams dominated sport in mid 90´s that they will not be even runner-ups for a decade, if ever again? If he then wants to change a team its not granted he will get a seat from current top team(s), just ask 2xWDC Fernando. Should he then stuck in midfield for rest of his career with Mclaren, he wont be rememberd after his career is over as a great driver.

That´s why one year is not enough to say anything more than "he had great debut year". Lets see some more of his career, ok?

Like Murray said: "anything can happen in F1 and it usually does".

Sorry to say but when a driver has a rookie season of the standard Lewis did, you can call them a 'great driver'. Up against arguably the best driver in the field, what more do you want? Talk about him cracking under pressure all you want but I think that's not really correct, rather take the season on a whole. All the title contenders made mistakes at some stage. Yet your crucifying Lewis for what exactly?

The comparison with Damon Hill in 1993 is interesting. IMO Hill was a great driver, again not a Schumacher or Senna but then again who is apart from them in recent times? Also one could say Damon shot himeslf in the foot also to an extent, rather than taking Ron Dennis' deal for 1998 at McLaren, he went to Arrows and things went downhill. Before that, Damon SHOULD have been the World Champion in 1994, he was robbed at the last race. 1995 he had a pretty average year but in 1996 won 8 races and the crown against another top drawer rookie in Villeneuve. Agree that Damon wasn't in the top 10 drivers ever but somewhere in the next tier, he certainly was. So while a great car of course throws a rookie automatically at the sharp end, you still have to perform. We've seen Hamilton and Villeneuve do so, we've seen other hyped up drivers (Frentzen, Coulthard, Fisichella.....etc) some not even in their first years, absolutely fail when the pressure to consistently win was thrust on them. So a great car DOES NOT make the driver. That's simply a myth created by some who know very little of how this sport works.

BTW your analogy of Schumacher cracking under pressure was rather hillarious. I agree he made some stupid decisions but given that, in 97/98 for instance he probably shouldn't have even been fighting for the title, I'd say its rather harsh. What he did at Jerez/Adelaide was not right by any stretch but I doubt he literally did what he did purely from the pressure. Look at what Ayrton Senna did at Suzuka 1990, that was 10 times worse than anything Schumacher did and I don't think it was Ayrton 'cracking under presure'......

In any case, I'm pretty sure it will be Raikkonen 'v' Hamilton this year, with maybe Alonso lurking also. I'll be interested to see your views if, in only his 2nd year, Hamilton pulls the World title off against your finnish hero. Should be excuses flying left, right and centre.

Until Lewis wins his first WDC he is far from a great. Isn't this the same way Kimi and all the other "could have beens" were judged? Do the rules change now suddenly???

Until Hamilton can actually clinch the title atleast once, he is FAR from the greats of all time. Everything else is hype, surely?

Originally posted by Menace
Until Lewis wins his first WDC he is far from a great. Isn't this the same way Kimi and all the other "could have beens" were judged? Do the rules change now suddenly???

Until Hamilton can actually clinch the title atleast once, he is FAR from the greats of all time. Everything else is hype, surely?

Hamilton is not an all time great. I never said that. Is he already a 'great driver' though? I think so. So was Raikkonen before he won the World title.

There is a difference between 'all time great' and 'great driver'. Sure he's massively hyped yet, again, surely that's because of how he performed last year, isn't it?

Originally posted by Menace
Until Lewis wins his first WDC he is far from a great. Isn't this the same way Kimi and all the other "could have beens" were judged? Do the rules change now suddenly???

Until Hamilton can actually clinch the title atleast once, he is FAR from the greats of all time. Everything else is hype, surely?

Right. To deserve the "great" label he has to prove himself over a number of years.

Compare: Villeneuve, Jacques.

Originally posted by former champ


In terms of 2003 though, I don't agree that Kimi was better than Schumacher. Not in the slightest. For one, MS won 6 races to Kimi's 1. For another, the points system was changed and this was to Schumacher's disadvantage. On top of that, Ferrari's form fluctuated alot through the year and at certain times both BMW Williams and McLaren were thereabouts, it was an open year. That said, the right man won the WDC given he won 6 races, it would have been a farce had Kimi snatched it with 1 win to his name.

Raikkonen was impressive in 03 but I rate last year and his 2005 season (not to mention his 04 win at Spa) as far more impressive and a genuine showcase of his abilities. He was consistent in 03 but benefited not just from Ferrari being all over the place but also BMW Williams and Montoya making one too many errors.

I too rate his 2005 season as his best season. And I agree on most other comments except the one about Schumi's disadvantage and Ferrari's form Fluctuation as the Points system is the same for everyone alike and it was Ferraris cocukp and Schumi's mistakes (JPM & Schumi collision) that resulted in Schumi almost losing the WDC. Credit to him to come back strongly in the second half even though Williams had a good second half.


The reason that I was talking about 2003 was that there wasn't much between the top three as an unlucky retirement for any of those drivers would have had a Different WDC Result.

Originally posted by Menace
Until Lewis wins his first WDC he is far from a great.

There are great drivers who never won WDC, and average drivers who did win it. I don't think you're making much sense there.

Originally posted by HSJ


There are great drivers who never won WDC, and average drivers who did win it. I don't think you're making much sense there.

Youe speaking about Kimi and Mika right?

Originally posted by giacomo
Tell us about the number of titles presented to Michael Schumacher on a silver plate by his teammates.

And then let's compare that to the number of titles presented to Kimi Raikkonen on a silver plate by his teammates.

First of all, why are you so sure that Massa had Brazilian GP won? There wasnt a race between Ferrari drivers, they both knew it was Kimis race if he needed that win to secure the title. As far as I understand, nobody cant gift a victory for someone else if they didnt even fought for it, right? If they had battled it out, it could have ended like France GP where Kimi overtook Massa during second pit stops when they were still racing each other. This whole "yeah, Massa gifted him that race and WDC" is just showing that you are either biased and thus try to use every possible excuse to belittle Kimis WDC or just ignorant.

Schumi has had his races handed to him on a silver plate, like Austria 02, that was race when all should have been still open between Ferrari drivers, but team ordered RB to give his position to Schumi and that was very nasty thing to do. The way Rubens executed those orders reveal quite well that he had illusion that he was allowed to win the race in which he clearly had MS under control, shame on Ferrari for giving orders so early on season. The fact it wasnt last race race in WDC doesnt make any more acceptable, quite contrary, it was outrageous to use orders so early, I just cant imagine how Rubens must have felt.

Concerning 2002: True, Barrichello gave Austria to Schumacher. But later in the year, Schumacher gave the Nurburgring, Budapest and Indy to Barrichello.

So where are the titles presented to Michael Schumacher on a silver plate by his teammates?!?

And concerning the gifted wins: For every single win gifted to Schumacher by a teammate there is at least another win gifted by Schumacher to his teammate.



I just love to watch you dance the fanboy shuffle, with distortions, half-truths and double standards all over your postings, exposing yourself as being a thoroughbred hypocrite.

"In Schumachers case it was evil team orders, in Raikkonens case there was no race at all".

Originally posted by former champ


Sorry to say but when a driver has a rookie season of the standard Lewis did, you can call them a 'great driver'. Up against arguably the best driver in the field, what more do you want? Talk about him cracking under pressure all you want but I think that's not really correct, rather take the season on a whole. All the title contenders made mistakes at some stage. Yet your crucifying Lewis for what exactly?

And what makes you think Alonso performed at his own level last year? He was new to team/tyres and after that was sorted out, he started whining about not having preferential treatment and when that didnt work he started to blackmail his boss. Like I said before, he seems to be very fragile on mental side and thus he needs a perfect enviroment to perform at his best. If mechanics clap their hand in a wrong moment or boss talks to his team mate few minutes longer than with FA, he seems to lost his concentration totally. I doubt very much that he was the measure stick you think he was for LH last year.

My guess is, that Mclaren was actually much better car than people understand last year, but with Alonso underperforming it gave you the wrong impression of super-rookie. Hamilton is good, not god.

Originally posted by giacomo
Concerning 2002: True, Barrichello gave Austria to Schumacher. But later in the year, Schumacher gave the Nurburgring, Budapest and Indy to Barrichello.

So where are the titles presented to Michael Schumacher on a silver plate by his teammates?!?

1. And concerning the gifted wins: For every single win gifted to Schumacher by a teammate there is at least another win gifted by Schumacher to his teammate.



I just love to watch you dance the fanboy shuffle, with distortions, half-truths and double standards all over your postings, exposing yourself as being a thoroughbred hypocrite.

2. "In Schumachers case it was evil team orders, in Raikkonens case there was no race at all".

1. The point is, why did Rubens give that win to Schumi? That´s right, to make sure that if championship will go to last race, MS has all the possible points he could have scored before last race. Had Massa gifted points already in Turkey where they finished 1-2 with Kimi, then he could have raced against Kimi seriously in Brazil. Had he won it on track he could have keep it, had he lost it, then Kimi could have gift the win back.

2. In Schumachers case, it was early on season and to top of it all, it was just some weeks or months after Ferrari had confirmed that team orders will only take place so early if it is not about race win. Poor Rubens drove 2/3 of the race believing he is on his way to win GP untill the voice from his radio started to repeat "Please Rubens, for the championship, let Michael through, please Rubens, let him through". In Kimis case, it was a race plan for the team before the race. This means Massa knew before the start that he wont win even if he leads the race if Kimi is 2nd and Lewis or Alonso is in a position to grab title. Those 02 and 07 situations were totally different, and for your own good, dont pressure the issue anymore, because it isnt in the favoure of MS.

Actually those 2 cases are in the disfavour of you and Kimi Raikkonen: Raikkonen only won the 07 title thanks to Massa letting him pass AND thanks to Massa beating Alonso in Brazil
A clear case of a title win thanks to teammate support; a title thanks to the team and the teammate.


Schumacher never drove himself into such a weak position; and Austria 02 was meaningless for the championship. Schumacher was able to give candy wins to poor lil Ruby later in the season without any problems: Such was the extent of his superiority.


There are 2 main differences between Austria 02 and Brazil 07:
1. Massa is ten times the man Barrichello is. It was Barrichellos childish behaviour that made Austria 02 the scandal it was.
2. Austria 02 was meaningless for the championship and had no effect into Schumacher winning the WDC. On the other hand without Brazil 07 Raikkonen would not be a WDC now.

Originally posted by giacomo
Actually those 2 cases are in the disfavour of you and Kimi Raikkonen: Raikkonen only won the 07 title thanks to Massa letting him pass AND thanks to Massa beating Alonso in Brazil
A clear case of a title win thanks to teammate support; a title thanks to the team and the teammate.


Schumacher never drove himself into such a weak position; and Austria 02 was meaningless for the championship. Schumacher was able to give candy wins to poor lil Ruby later in the season without any problems: Such was the extent of his superiority.


There are 2 main differences between Austria 02 and Brazil 07:
1. Massa is ten times the man Barrichello is. It was Barrichellos childish behaviour that made Austria 02 the scandal it was.
2. Austria 02 was meaningless for the championship and had no effect into Schumacher winning the WDC. On the other hand without Brazil 07 Raikkonen would not be a WDC now.

Austria was meaningless for championship in hindsight, the reason why it was execuded and why MS took it, was because MS hadnt won the WDC yet. We now know he didnt need those points but thats hardly relevant, is it? Those points were handed to him in order to make him WDC. He gave them back, because he didnt need those, that wasnt because he drove so much better than Kimi, but because 02 Ferrari was a dominant car while 07 Ferrari was about equal car with closest competitor.

About your 2 main differances between02 and 07:
1. Massa needed to give his position when he was already out of WDC and he knew it before the race. Barrichello was fooled by team that he can fight for WDC and that he doesnt need to gave away win, at least not before he is out of WDC mathematically. A Huge difference.
2. 02 was meaningless in hindsight, you think they gave that win for Schumi just to increase his wins tally, or just to piss RB off? No, they gave it, and MS accepted it, for maximise his WDC chances. We know now he didnt need those points in the end, but thats not hardly a point. Again, Had Massa gave win in Turkey to Kimi, then Kimi didnt need those points in Brazil and ignorants couldnt insist he was gifted the WDC. Instead he could have returned the favour in Brazil.

As always there are some sparks of truth in all that sermon. Still I have no idea about the point you are trying to make.


Are you still trying to prove that Kimis Brazil 07 was one of the mentioned title-deciding, final races where the title winning driver shone and put others in shame and left them wondering why they even bothered at all?

By defaming Ferraris team strategy back in 2002?!?

Originally posted by yr


I will give you an example of not cracking under pressure. Last year Kimi was 17 points behind Hamilton with two races to go, he needed practically won last two races to become WDC. Did he stall on grid or crash with Hamilton or cruised in 8th place or something like that? No he didnt, he did what was needed, which was win the last two (notice 2 not 1 race) GPs. Thumbs up for a guy He has a nerves of steel ;) , he doesnt start to crash or stall as soon as he founds out he needs to perform now, not in some unseeable future, but right now, so he performs instead of choking.

You will surely now give me the "Massa gave him that win" - card, but as you know there wasnt a race between those two so nobody knows which one had won it, and for more importantly, watch again Kimis faultless driving from your tape or dvd and then compare it to any title-decider of MS´s and you´ll understand my point.

That's not a case of "not cracking under pressure" , that's a case of "nothing to lose", at least in China.

Kimi won the last two races to his credit and IMO his China drive was the drive of the year, but Lewis could have sealed Kimi's fate if he didn't go too hot into the pits. Did Kimi drive a lot differently in China knowing that Lewis had retired than prior to him retiring ? I don't think so. The guy went out there and drove as fast as he could.

I am not going to argue about 94/97 , but MS drove brilliantly after his early race setbacks in the final races of 98 and 06. I believe it was the same "nothing to lose" attitude Kimi showed during the China race of last season. In Suzuka 2003 MS was heavily disadvantaged due to rain during his qualifying run and ruined his strategy after a collision with Sato. Both these incidents were hardly in his scheme of things and might have changed his approach to remainder of the race.

BTW Kimi's two title deciding final races i.e Suzuka 2003 and Interlagos 2007 are hardly classics by any standard. In both those races he needed his teammate's help and it is likely he was slower than his teammate in both those races. So does Kimi take it slow and carefully in title deciders ?

One guy who was pretty good in title deciders was Mika. He has a 100% record and his 99 Suzuka drive was pure class.

Originally posted by Menace
Until Lewis wins his first WDC he is far from a great. Isn't this the same way Kimi and all the other "could have beens" were judged? Do the rules change now suddenly???

Until Hamilton can actually clinch the title atleast once, he is FAR from the greats of all time. Everything else is hype, surely?

Does this only apply to Lewis, or is this your general view of drivers competing in F1? What about Ronnie then, was he not one of the greats? When I come to think about it, I think you wouldn't have made this post if not Kimi had won the WDC last year. Actually, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't.

Originally posted by HSJ


There are great drivers who never won WDC, and average drivers who did win it. I don't think you're making much sense there.

no average driver wins a World Championship. Get a grip.

Originally posted by giacomo
Right. To deserve the "great" label he has to prove himself over a number of years.

Compare: Villeneuve, Jacques.

yet Villeneuve, Jacques was a great driver, wasn't he? All time Formula 1 great, no he wasn't. In his prime though was he a great driver? Yes, he was.

His statistics and achievements show he was a great driver, how anyone can question that is beyond me. In Formula 1 look more towards 1996-02 rather than 03-06.

Originally posted by Durant


Youe speaking about Kimi and Mika right?

nah of course he isn't. They are finnish and he likes/loves them so it does not count.

Originally posted by GTA


One guy who was pretty good in title deciders was Mika. He has a 100% record and his 99 Suzuka drive was pure class.

True

Originally posted by yr


IIRC Hamilton did have some not-so-great races towards the end of the season in GP2. He had good season there, but most of all he had some extremely great races where he drove like he had F1 car and others something like undertuned GP2 cars or something. But if memory serves, LH didnt increase his superiority over others towards the end of the season, quite a contrary.

Yes, I agree. To me maybe LH can be a great driver, but what he has proven so far in the last two years (GP2 + Rookie season) is that once he starts to think about becoming champion he starts to fail. In GP2 he had enough advantage to deal with it while in F1 they misunderstood who the rival was.

So, as far as I am concerned, a championship is won by who is the most regular and what LH has proven to me is that he is really unconsistent towards the end of the season. Maybe he is good, maybe he is fast, but he stills needs to show that he is #1.

And for what I expect from this season, he will have to deal with the preasure straight from the beginning: He is #1 at McLaren now, he is the best F1 driver according to British media, KR won the title by luck according to LH fans...So we will see how he handles all this

1) "Not so great drives" for Hamilton in GP2 means "he didn't do anything that looks like it should be in a CG-graphics movie";

2) Kimi is the penultimate "I am a Cyberdyne Computers Model T-800. My CPU is a neuro net processor" driver - he's not going to crack, and that makes him great - *but that's not the only way great drivers have succeeded in F1*;

3) Despite the most amazing rookie season ever in F1 - and despite basically everyone being completely wrong by underestimating what he was going to do in F1 - *people are still trying to find angles to deride him*;

4) Comparisons to the past gets old. Stewart was not like Fangio, Senna was not like Stewart, Schumacher was not like Senna, Hamilton does not have to be like anyone previous, either.

Isn't it interesting/stimulating to perhaps be seeing a *new* superstar? Isn't that a great thing...? Particularly timed with Schumacher's exit? No?

Oh well.

Talk about posing: LH

Which other F1 driver poses like that? It is like from some cheap book cover, or something. He's not a driver, he's a model. Oh well, at least Boy Band Button is still better.

Originally posted by HSJ
Talk about posing: LH

Which other F1 driver poses like that? It is like from some cheap book cover, or something. He's not a driver, he's a model. Oh well, at least Boy Band Button is still better.

Obviously a promo shot for a sponsor. Don't you know anything?