Schumacher: is he nostalgia yet?

Originally posted by Twin Window
And it's N. G. Hill by the way...

I have no clue why I wrote it that way.... Poor multi-tasking I suppose since I have been also working about one other thing too many apparently.... :

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps

Gift, smifth, or whatever, it was Bandini's choice and, you know, so what? It was not an act to be equated with shooting the Archduke in 1914 as seems to be the implication. Perhaps it is nice to know that not everyone on the track is a heartless, selfish, self-centered bastard whose only only interest in life is himself and what is in it for him and screw averyone else..

An alternative viewpoint is that he screwed the rightful champion by not racing to his potential and giving up a place that the champion-to-be did not deserve on his talents. And by helping a team-mate rather than a random third party he was helping himself more that way.

Totally offtopic, and totally useless trivia, but: Did you know that the German word 'Gift' means 'poison'?

Apparently there are different sorts of team orders.

Some are okay and welcome: Bandini 1964, Peterson 1978, Villeneuve 1979, Coulthard 1998.
Many more.

Others are not okay and welcome, usually the team orders in connection with the name "Schumacher".


I am no Schumacher fan. But what I really dislike are double standards.

Originally posted by giacomo
Apparently there are different sorts of team orders.
Some are okay and welcome: Bandini 1964, Peterson 1978, Villeneuve 1979, Coulthard 1998.
Many more.
Others are not okay and welcome, usually the team orders in connection with the name "Schumacher".
I am no Schumacher fan. But what I really dislike are double standards.

I don't have a problem with "team orders" because I really don't care. Why? That is the team business, for better or worse. If I were a team order, I would happily tell the FIA to Great Australian Adjective off and mind their own damn business. Of all the things to snarl about regarding Herr Schumacher, this is the one I think is absolutely nonsense and merely whining.

Those who do have the problems with all this "team orders" business are generally those who either too much time on their hands, think in terms that The Blazers could relate to, or simply the types who would bitch about something anyway.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I don't have a problem with "team orders" because I really don't care. Why? That is the team business, for better or worse. If I were a team order, I would happily tell the FIA to Great Australian Adjective off and mind their own damn business. Of all the things to snarl about regarding Herr Schumacher, this is the one I think is absolutely nonsense and merely whining.

Those who do have the problems with all this "team orders" business are generally those who either too much time on their hands, think in terms that The Blazers could relate, or simply the types who would bitch about something anyway.

Great post.

An alternative viewpoint is that he screwed the rightful champion by not racing to his potential and giving up a place that the champion-to-be did not deserve on his talents. And by helping a team-mate rather than a random third party he was helping himself more that way.

Another alternative viewpoint is that he was a knucklehead and this all this psychobabble is retrospective bullshit. You seem to be making a huge assumption that he was "thinking" and "calculating" during all this when he was most likely just driving and reacting.

Not that I would wish to express a personal opinion on this, of course.

But if you're going to have team orders why then lie about it to the world at large? That's exactly what Ferrari did with Barrichello.

With Irvine it was clear there were team orders to Michael Schumacher.

With Barrichello, the team orders are that you follow what the team tells you to do, and that the team will support whoever has the best chance at the WC (no matter how ruthlessly they carry it out).

So in theory, Austria 2002 could have been reversed.

Originally posted by ensign14
But if you're going to have team orders why then lie about it to the world at large? That's exactly what Ferrari did with Barrichello.

So you know about Barrichellos contract?

Give us more details, please.

But if you're going to have team orders why then lie about it to the world at large? That's exactly what Ferrari did with Barrichello.

So? Did the tides stop? The earth cease to rotate? The sun extinguish itself? The stars vanish? It really didn't matter. If a team wishes to lie like a rug, why change what they have done since teams were formed? If everyone knows they lied and were shocked that they were lying, well, come with me at low tide since I have prime real estate for you to consider purchasing....

At some time in the last twenty or so years, the phrase "your greatest rival is your team mate" became a cliche. I think that the first time I heard it was from James Hunt in his commentating days. I don't remember Fangio, Moss, Clark or Stewart regarding their team mates as a rival, nor did the 1976 World Champion. In those days every team had an acknowledged leader, everybody recognised it and did what the could to support the team. Lorenzo Bandini was devoted to Ferrari and did what he could to help them. Nowadays every driver has a public relations team to convince him that he is a potential world champion. Of course, they may be right, if only the software could be tuned more effectively.

Roger, interesting point- but even in days of Fangio, Moss and Clark (I presume) one's teammate was a benchmark to measure oneself against (like another version of the same saying- your teammate is the first person you want to beat). There was definitely a pecking order inside the team, esp. in case of acknowledged 'stars' like the ones You mention, but not to the extent it is used in modern F1.

Do You think it would be normal in the days of yore to apply modern 'team orders'- it's 1st race of the season, his and your car are going OK, but there's no way you should finish ahead of Fangio/Moss/Clark? Sometimes circumstances neccessitated car swapping- but in normal circumstances I'd say pecking order inside the team consisted of choice of equipment (even cases of junior member of the team driving 1st driver's back-up car were seldom), and similar.

I would guess that one should go back before WWII to find examples of team deciding on finishing order of their drivers, as a sort of common (not exceptional) practice.

Originally posted by Roger Clark
.....I don't remember Fangio, Moss, Clark or Stewart regarding their team mates as a rival, nor did the 1976 World Champion. In those days every team had an acknowledged leader, everybody recognised it and did what the could to support the team.....

I believe that both Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart recognised each other as rivals at BRM... especially after wee Jackie notched up his first win. They were definitely intense rivals during the Tasman Cup series of 1966.

The first team I recall having 'two Number Ones' was Lotus in 1967...

Wolf: the issue of modern-style team orders rarely arose because there was a greater difference in the performance of different drivers. The team leader lead the team by ability and achievement or he didn't remain team leader for very long. Contracts rarely entered into it. Even though Moss's Vanwall contract guaranteed him number one status, he still had to justify it on the track. Nowadays there is less difference between the performance of drivers in a team and team orders are more relevant.

Whether the similarity in performance is a result of similarity in ability or of tracks and machinery is another matter.

Ray: when Stewart first joined BRM he clearly recognised BRM as the number one. As he added experience to his natural ability he began to challenge Hill's position. It seems that the team realised this; at the 1966 Italian Grand Prix DSJ remarked that the Scot seemed to be the favourite of the team despite Hill's achievements of the previous five years.

Whether Hill left BRM because he thought he could better challenge his new team's existing number one, or because he thought that team were more able to prepare two equal cars is difficult to say.

Yes, Roger, that would be pretty right... though I'd have thought that it was more like Monza 1965?

Certainly by the time he came out here he was getting equal equpment and there was very hot rivalry between them. I know how Graham Hill felt as it was expressed to me in a conversation at Lakeside.

He is now! Many will come to realise later I guess. Indeed he set a precedent for stretching the rules as he already did in karting. High pressure from sponsors and car producers has led to even more shrewed racing driver off and on-track behaviour.

Finished 4th just like Fangio did in his last race in 1958. Sorry couldnt find a pic for this post.....

Undoubtedly, he will be nostalgia for many, and something they want to forget ASAP for many...

*SPOILER ALERT * *SPOILER ALERT * *SPOILER ALERT *
For me, the drives like today's where he tigered from dead last to 4th, brushing aside likes of Fisichela and Raikkonen who went out of their way to block him (latter one, unsportingly, even- swerving all over the track) make unsporting makeup of his physche all the more lamentable. A flawed genius indeed- too bad most of his supporters, as well as detractors, do not care much to see the whole picture.

I keep thinking of where Ferrari were before 1996...

Prost "almost" made it in 1990, then (ahem), left the team a year later...

Alesi and Berger did exactly what for the team?

Since 1996, how have Ferrari done? Any names come to mind?

Originally posted by Wolf
Undoubtedly, he will be nostalgia for many, and something they want to forget ASAP for many...

*SPOILER ALERT * *SPOILER ALERT * *SPOILER ALERT *
For me, the drives like today's where he tigered from dead last to 4th, brushing aside likes of Fisichela and Raikkonen who went out of their way to block him (latter one, unsportingly, even- swerving all over the track) make unsporting makeup of his physche all the more lamentable. A flawed genius indeed- too bad most of his supporters, as well as detractors, do not care much to see the whole picture.

Before the race Alonso is quoted calling Schumacher "the most unsporting driver in history" before reverting back to the party line of it was still a pleasure to race against such a competitive driver, etc, etc.

Is this allegation fair or deseved?

Have there been other drivers in the annals of history who could lay claim to the title "Most Unsporting"?

I have read Harry Schell's fast starts described as 'notorious'- is he a contender?

Well, mctshirt, I was supporting Schumacher when he came to F1, but his ethics (lack thereof, to be more precise) that turned me away from him.

IMHO, he has amalgamated the unsporting behaviour that may have been there before he did it (Senna punting off opponents, Villeneuve the lesser (re)introducing the infamous chop, Prost's pre-season #1 driver contract with Williams, &c) into unbeatable combination on the track. Personally, the venomous nature of Senna-Prost rivalry has made me almost lose interest in F1 too...

As for fairness of that statement- Alonso is one of the drivers that I'm unaware that has acted unsportingly, so I have no problem with him expressing his vew on the subject (right or wrong, but IMHO he's just about hit the nail on the head). E.g. Damon Hill punted MS off, but had only lost from it not profited, Hakkinen (the way I see it) at least profited from illegal cars not to mention was involved in highly unsporting result fixing btween two teams, and for Villeneuve see above- so, I'd take their (and Ron Dennis', Frank Williams', and esp. Flavio Briatore's) vews on the subject with grain of salt.

For what is worth there were many true greats, like Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart (to name a few) about whom that you won't hear a bad word spoken, and I perfer things that way. As for truly and deeply unsporting drivers, I would say only Senna and Schumacher, the rest pale in comparison.

'Arry Schell, a contender? I'd say You're joking.

Originally posted by Wolf
Undoubtedly, he will be nostalgia for many, and something they want to forget ASAP for many...

*SPOILER ALERT * *SPOILER ALERT * *SPOILER ALERT *
For me, the drives like today's where he tigered from dead last to 4th, brushing aside likes of Fisichela and Raikkonen who went out of their way to block him (latter one, unsportingly, even- swerving all over the track) make unsporting makeup of his physche all the more lamentable. A flawed genius indeed- too bad most of his supporters, as well as detractors, do not care much to see the whole picture.

Indeed. As I posted a few months ago on that other forum I see him as an essentially tragic figure. No matter how many races he won, what you'll remember most is Adelaide 94/Jerez97 and just as you think: OK, that was the past - there is Rascasse 06. Those uncontrollable flashes of the dark side of somebody who tried so hard to be admired by the whole world and who is renowned as much for his determination and discipline as for his talent.

Intriguing that he lost his chance for a win in his last race because of somebody else slicing into him. And it's intriguing as well that he finishes his career by 'losing beautifully'.

'arry's' fast starts. I think it was Horace Gould who contended that the only reason that grids formed up as they did was because the track was not wide enough to accomodate every body in line abreast. So he always tried to rectify matters by starting before the flag dropped so that he got to the start line as the flag actually DID drop

Whilst I applaud Wolf's defence of MS, I have to disagree over his lack of culpability in the Damon Hill/Jaques Villeneuve incidents. In my opinion, the thing we'll look back on most fondly is the unpredictability when he was well back on the grid. Without that puncture, he would have won the race today - and who knows what other cars might have ended up in the gravel.....

Fernando Alonso shares Michael Schumachers "never say die" attitude, and let's hope that the future Fernando/Kimi (and maybe Felipe) battles in years to come are attractive enough to get us out of bed in the small hours. I'm looking forward to next season already.

ITV showed a few snippets from the MS tribute programme, due to be shown tomorrow night. His silky smooth 100cc karting syle was so clear. I'd love to be able to make a kart dance like that, and I am in awe of those that can, or could. Francois Goldstein, Carlheinz Peters, Terry Fullerton, Mike Wilson (maybe the best of the lot), Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, Giorgio Pantano...... etc

Cirrus, I'm in no way exhonerating him, but e.g. I recently cringed when Flavio Briatore accused Ferrari and Schumacher of cheating. C'mon who was Benetton's boss when all those shennanegans went on (illegal traction control, illegal fuel rigs, &c)?!? In that issue he should be taken to be more accountable- MS was driving for the team and Briatore was in charge of that team.

IMHO nothing can excuse Schumacher for Adelaide/Jerez incidents and as far as I'm concerned those are defining moments of his career. But I do not like the fact that he seems to be 'scape-goat' by a number of people who have done quite bad things too, and that many followers and supporters of F1 do not see the irony and take it 'as gospel'. How many times have we heard over past decade or so that 'cheating Ferrari' have team orders, and MS is where he is now only because of team orders and cheating, while McLaren lets their drivers race each other and that Williams is the team that never had team orders? And how much of that statement is exactly true, and how often in those times were McLaren, Williams or even Renault (last one with illegal tyres- their only transgression I'm aware of) cheated and employed team orders?

If J Villeneuve went to Ferrari 9 years ago, and M. Schumacher went to BAR, do you think JV would be a 6 time champion? I don't .

He is NOSTALGIA now............

Finished 4th just like Fangio did in his last race in 1957.

Try 1958.....

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Try 1958.....

But Fangio did finish fourth in his last Grand Prix in 1957.

I'm 23, probably younger than most here, and started following the sport in 1991. In many ways I still see Schumacher as a young Benetton driver, Nigel Mansell as some sort of god, and so on. I've always been interested in the history of the sport for almost as long as I have been interested in the sport itself. I class the 80's very much as history, simply because I didnt not witness it first-hand, only through reading about it, watching tapes etc. I'm sure many here would disagree, and remember the 80's as if they were yesterday, as I do the 90's. I posted a couple of topics recently about the early 90s because I wanted to know more about them, since I was too young to comprehend much more than Mansell's Red 5 going round the track at the time, and this felt like the right forum to do it in.

Some may even say that the late 1970s/early 1980s don't quite pass as 'nostalgia', and I wasn't even alive then. I guess, like anything, it comes down to personal perception, but I have no doubt people younger than me, maybe some who aren't even born yet, will come here in the future to find more about the exploits of one M.Schumacher.

Originally posted by cosworth bdg
He is NOSTALGIA now............

We can now expect a deluge of Schumacher books, none of which will ever grace my book shelves...

Originally posted by roger ellis


We can now expect a deluge of Schumacher books, none of which will ever grace my book shelves...

Like Senna and Prost, we need the definitive warts & all biography...there's a big seller there for someone if they can be arsed. And not the usual Alan Henry/Christopher Hilton piece-together-old-articles hackwork. Richard Williams, get off the Guardian blog and do some proper work...

As if people havent taken enough potshots at Schumacher.

A fair analysis would be welcome, whatever the outcome.

The masterful drives are patent to everyone. Exactly what happened in the various hearings in 1994...well, has anyone ever got a handle on all that? As you say, a fair analysis is needed. If only to assuage any doubts over the Benetton's legality.

Originally posted by roger ellis


We can now expect a deluge of Schumacher books, none of which will ever grace my book shelves...

Roger you put my feelings into words !!!

MonzaDriver.

Originally posted by ensign14

if only to assuage any doubts over the Benetton's legality.

[/B]

And if posts are to be believed that of Ferrari too

Originally posted by Roger Clark

But Fangio did finish fourth in his last Grand Prix in 1957.

After Fango won the 1957 German GP, he finished 2nd at Pescara and at Monza. He finished 4th in his last race at Reims, in 1958.

You've overlooked his last Grand Prix of 1957, Arturo - at Casablanca where, yes, he finished fourth
He then finished fourth again in his first Grand Prix of 1958 (the Argentine), won his next (Buenos Aires), missed his next because he'd been kidnapped (Cuban) and was fourth in his next (French)

Anyone (in UK) see this morning's Daily Telegraph on the Schumi subject, and SCM's column therein? SCM rated him fourth (probably to the irriation of all those present-day writers who want to say he's the greatest ever, etc) after Fangio, Senna and Clark, and alongside Nuvolari. I was prompted to write a Letter to the Editor (and me not even a Colonel, never mind never having been to Tunbridge Wells!).

In the confident expectation that they won't publish it - may I do so here?

'Motivated no doubt by personal modesty, Stirling Moss surely makes an uncharacteristic error in ranking Schumaker fourth in greatness behind Fangio, Senna and Clark. None would know better than Moss where to rank Fangio, but if universal respect, admiration and affection from the public – international as well as national - are any criteria for measuring the greatness of a sportsman, the list should surely read Fangio, Moss, Senna, Clark, Schumaker.'

Thank you for your indulgence, fellow TNFers.

I'd gladly co-sign Your letter, Mal, but I'd put Clark right behind Moss, and maybe even squeeze another wee Scot before Senna.;) If we should allow Senna and Scumacher on the list at all (meaning, we are making the list based on driving talent and capability alone).

Edit. and I'd spell MS's name correctly- he's had to put up with everybody mispronouncing it (esp Michael) the entire career: one would think ppl (interviewers, not You) would've learned to pronounce it right, if for courtesy alone. And, 'tis Sir Stirling Moss.

That Senna is on that list at all, and that he's ahead of Schumacher, words fail me.

Ross, I didn't worry about their ranking as I wouldn't put either on my list. But seriously, it's a matter of personal opinion- one can only speculate how many titles would Senna (or any other great) win if he faced the opponents MS had, and vice versa (if MS had Prost for nearly his entire career as a rival).

Its not about titles or who they were won against. Its about the opening lap of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. Why he wasnt banned from motorsport for life confounds me.

Originally posted by David McKinney
You've overlooked his last Grand Prix of 1957, Arturo - at Casablanca where, yes, he finished fourth
He then finished fourth again in his first Grand Prix of 1958 (the Argentine), won his next (Buenos Aires), missed his next because he'd been kidnapped (Cuban) and was fourth in his next (French)

I was talking about races for the points Np anyway

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Its not about titles or who they were won against. Its about the opening lap of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. Why he wasnt banned from motorsport for life confounds me.

Because FIA is coherent in its complete lack of shame, as they showed when they did not penalize MS accordingly after the 1994 and 1997 sad events.

I agree that, based on their attitudes against other drivers, both Senna and Schumacher should not be included in any list that pretends to include the greatest drivers in motorsports history.

Originally posted by Wolf
I'd gladly co-sign Your letter, Mal, but I'd put Clark right behind Moss, and maybe even squeeze another wee Scot before Senna.;) If we should allow Senna and Scumacher on the list at all (meaning, we are making the list based on driving talent and capability alone).

Edit. and I'd spell MS's name correctly- he's had to put up with everybody mispronouncing it (esp Michael) the entire career: one would think ppl (interviewers, not You) would've learned to pronounce it right, if for courtesy alone. And, 'tis Sir Stirling Moss.

Wolf - thank you for your support. My apologies to all Schumi fans (both of you, if I read the tenor of this thread correctly) for mis-spelling his name. And Wolf - you know that I know that it's Sir Stirling Moss - but in the Telegraph this morning, and usually when he writes, he calls himself plain Stirling.

I too was fascinated by the elevation in SCM's eyes of Senna. Usually he rates Clark more highly. I have heard him speak almost wistfully about Clark, and even confess that had he not had his crash he is not sure how long he could have held off the challenge from Jim Clark.

Ross - why do you dismiss Senna so roundly?

And since I'm in the confessional, I must confess to having watched the WHOLE of ITV's coverage of the Brazilian GP yesterday. That's the first GP I've been bothered to watch for the Lord know's how long. Surely the real winner out of all that was Bernie? Local lad wins the home race; popular gentleman racer clinches second title; and the legend everyone loves to hate goes out in a blaze of sparkling but futile glory. If you were a scriptwriter you'd probably be paid quite a lot for that one, surely?

Heavens, people I know who can't even spell Schumacher were talking about it today as if they'd been following the sport all their lives.

And interesting too that SCM ranks Scumacher and Nuvolari equal - for it is well on record that the GMH has reservations about the sportsmanship of both, especially having raced against him. Indeed, isn't there a story about Moss in his HWM overtaking Tazio, and the latter openely trying to run him off the track in re-passing? And did not Tazio do that to another young driver who had the temerity to challenge him? And was not that other young driver killed?

Originally posted by Arturo Pereira


Because FIA is coherent in its complete lack of shame, as they showed when they did not penalize MS accordingly after the 1994 and 1997 sad events.

I agree that, based on their attitudes against other drivers, both Senna and Schumacher should not be included in any list that pretends to include the greatest drivers in motorsports history.

I can argue off the 1994 and 1997 incidents as racing incidents, or even the other guy's fault. There is no excusing Senna's mindset and actions in any circumstances. Yet he seems to get away with it because of the weakness in people's hearts.

The biggest thing wrong about Schumacher is people didn't like him.

I had a colleague who ended up quite high in karting and met commendatore Schumacher in several karting events. He drove against him. He recalled that this young german guy was very busy with the rules when off track. He adopted changes to his kart claiming they were inside the rules, but also did not hide away from claiming that his opponents had changed their karts outside the rules, walking up and down to the table of the organisers. Not the way to make yourself liked, still possibly a way to reach success.

Originally posted by Mal9444
Indeed, isn't there a story about Moss in his HWM overtaking Tazio, and the latter openely trying to run him off the track in re-passing? And did not Tazio do that to another young driver who had the temerity to challenge him? And was not that other young driver killed?

Nuvolari and Moss never raced each other.

Perhaps you're confusing Nuvolari with Giuseppe Farina and the two fatal accidents in which he was involved in the 30s?

Mal, I don't think SCM raced against Nuvolari- although there is a 'positive' link between the two*. You're probably confusing him with dr. Giuseppe Farina- who was quite notorious, as I understand... And Your description fits ISTR a Modena race early in F2 period ('52?- I should probably check it).

* that would be Lake Garda hillclimb, Moss' first continental event- it's in one of the books that Tazio, who was with a journalist, pointed at him and said- 'Look out for that one, he'll be one of the greats'.

Tazio's only 'unsportmanly' act, I think was in the sunset of his career, when he may have punted someone off the track, and then proceeded to race ignoring black flags waived at him, until marshalls gave up...