Indeed, and throughout the race others made similar moves on drivers and they did not squeeze their opponents out.... they left room. As much Tambay's fault as Keke's...

Great to see those cars slewing away from the start, btw - and what a catch by Keke....

Just take a look at this all too brief clip of Keke at Spa - real on the edge, balls to the wall driving, or Keke spins at Montréal for another great catch....

Ahh.. memories....

The thing is, given today's regulatory process, the first crime (Senna's) would likely have gone unpunished and the second (keke's) likely not. I know which I consider the worse of the two.....

It always amuses me to consider what must have gone through Senna's mind when he saw Keke emerge from the pits just ahead of him..... you can see that he is expecting some comeback from him, he knows that what he did was wrong and now he will face the consequences.....

Still upsets me to see Surer's splendid race come to an end in the way that it did (running second, as I recall) - a much, much underrated racer, imo...

Great driver, extraordinary notes on what he did, but not for F1 though.

You mean like....uuuhhh... almost as good as Jan Magnussen...uuuhhh, let me rephrase that, you mean like close to the level of Esteban Tuero?

Bartus(who doesn't wanna bring Lammers and/or Verstappen into this "discussion" in order to avoid a conflict of interests)

No, more like Ickx, or Rodriguez, or Siffert, or perhaps Andretti, or Barth, or Vacarella, or Gendebien, or Scarfiotti, or Donohue, or Mears, or Foyt. Drivers who excelled in other forms of racing but never quite (for a variety of reasons) did it in F1 (Andretti and Ickx excepted, of course).

this list full of flaws has only one good point for me : Chris Amon is number 13, that's sound a correct ranking in regard with his talent..

Who would deny his ranking.... Hey, after all, 13, if I understand right the holy bible, is the exact matching number for him, isn ' it ?



Michel

(today, I feel it add strength to my signature.. )

Looking at the comments on the Telegraph list, I hesitate to mention the latest AOL Motoring lists, 50 best ever and 20 worst ever racing drivers (not all Fl).

I would suggest anyone with either high blood pressure or a weak heart should give it a miss.

Silly List. You might as well call Kramer from Seinfeld and he can make a better list!

For me, #1 is Ayrton Senna. The man got closer to the limits of the car and human beings better than any driver in the history, yes that includes Michael Schumacher.

Moss ahead of Clark? Hakkinen ahead of Schumacher? Reutemann ahead of Lauda? I mean, REUTEMANN ahead of LAUDA?!

I've seen some weird lists in my lifetime, but this one is pretty good in the weird department...

If Schumacher is not at #1, then the author is drunk.

Or able to put context to statistics.

Whilst this list is inherently flawed, I doubt anyone who has followed F1 from the beginning would place Schumacher as number 1. Great he is, he also broke all the records, but he did so with never a decent team mate, (apart from Picquet who beat him). He did so largely with cars that were twice as fast as the opposition, and his team mates were always instructed to let him past. In addition, his period of glory came at the same time as F1 had its arguably weakest driver line up, (His opponents were Hill, Villeneuve, Mika, Kimi, and Fernando). He beat Hill by crashing into him, he tried the same with Jacques but failed, he lost twice to Mika, nearly lost to Kimi despite Kimi winning only 1 race in the season and lost twice to Fernando.

Look at Clark as a difference. I didn't get to watch the guy first hand, but he did generally win races more so than Schumacher. Schumacher was a great driver, but one that had the advantage of a dominant car throughout most of his career. If Schumacher spent most of his career driving a BAR for example, he wouldn't have won any more than Villeneuve. For me Alain Prost has to be number one, (since 1986 when I started watching). He beat Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill in the same car. That is 4 WDC team mates!!!

In addition, he also beat great drivers such as Arnoux, Cheever, Watson and Alesi in the same car.

Schumacher has managed to beat Brundle, Patrese, Verstappen, Lehto, Herbert, Irvine, Barichello and Massa in the same car. Sorry, but that just isn't as good. Prost's record is far better than Schumachers when you consider his team mates.

Without a doubt, Prost has the best record in F1 when all factors are considered.

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is what I like so much about Schumacher: His achievements force his detractors to go to such extreme lengthes that they have to put down 15 years of f1 just in order to put down a single man. Classless.

I don't put down 15 years of F1. The facts are that he was beaten by all of his main rivals apart from Kimi. Hill, Jacques, Mika, and Alonso were all his main opponents apart from Kimi. Every one of them beat him, apart from Kimi who is now being found out as being not that good. Hill beat him once, though it would have been twice if MS didn't cheat, (ie. drive into him). Jacques beat him despite him cheating by driving into him. Mika beat him twice fair and square, though MS did break his leg on the second go. Alonso beat him twice, the first time being unfair, (BS were crap), but the second time Ferrari were actually quicker than Renault, yet Alonso still beat him.

Ferrari enjoyed an unprecedented run of dominance, and Michael, Fellipe, Kimi, Fernando, Robert or Lewis could all have won a similar number of WDC's if they also had lapdog teammates and a far superior car.

IMHO, Michael will not lose his record for a very long time because a level of dominance of 1 team and a willingness to declare 1 driver the undisputed number 1 for so long will not happen again.

Don't get me wrong. Michael was VERY, VERY good. In fact, he probably could have still dominated without lapdog teammates, dominant teams and cheating because he was so good. Unfortunately, he didn't, so the likes of Prost have MUCH better records. Compare Prost to Schumacher in team mate comparisons and Schumacher looks like Sutil.

Prost will always carry the better record because he wasn't scared of opposition.

england england england...ohh dear

cars twice as fast? You sure it wasn't three? FYI-all great WDC drivers have had dominating cars. Any idiot would know that. As for his teammates being instructed to let him past, first they had to be in front and those races were few and far between. I'm tired of people suggesting his teammates were always in front. They weren't and were slower a large majority of the time. FACT.JV-no excuses, Michael was an ass and shouldn't have tried that move. No arguments there. He lost ONCE to Mika-hard to lose to someone when you have a broken leg and miss most of the races. I don't consider that losing. I consider it not being there. He also lost ONCE to Alonso because we all know the Ferrari was nowhere and he did all he could with what he had but hardly a match for Renault and he was one blown engine away from another championship the following year. Nothing wrong with that IMO. As for almost losing to Kimi that is true but Michael also didn't create the points system now, did he? It rewarded consistency, but 6 victories vs. 1 makes it pretty clear to me who the better driver was. I have no issues with the rest of your post as that has been the knock against Michael his entire career, but that first paragraph I think you just made shit up a bit, sorry.

You talk a lot about Schumachers teammates and their lack of quality.

What about Clarks teammates? Guys like Trevor Taylor, Mike Spence or Peter Arundell?

And what about Clarks cars - Lotus 25, Lotus 33, Lotus 49?

What kind of funny joke is that list?

"We all know""?... I think you are wrong here. To most, the Ferrari was as good as the Renault. Also, Renault"s performance dropped when they banned their mass damper. Alonso was a better driver and that is why he won. Also in 2003, I reckon both JPM and Kimi were only 2 and 1 blowns engines from beating Shumi to the WDC.

Dude, I was talking about the 2005 season. Please tell me how the Ferrari was as good as the Renault, because from where I was sitting, Renault won 8 races(Alonso 7, Fisi 1) and Mac won 10 (Kimi 7, Montoya 3) Explain where Ferrari had any say in the championships that year?? Refresher:Renault-191 points, Mac-182 points, Ferrari-100 points.

The one black mark against Schumachers career was his poor team mates and no1 team status. He was never eveer tested in an internal team environment and was content to have lackies like Rubens and Irvine partner him for 10 yearsm most of his career. Combined with a dominant car of course he was able to look good but how many other great drivers could have looked just as good under the same circumstances? Many. The most recent is Alonso with Fisichella but there have been others as well. Prosts record would have been twice as good if he had rubens and irvine next to him for so many years. You also must consider that for a large part of Michaels career the opposition was arguably the weakest in the history of the sport. Many past greats used to speak of this during the mid to late 90s.

How is choosing his opposition HIS fault? I mean he came into F1 and raced Senna hard enough for Ayrton to take notice and AS was actually concerned Michael would give him a good run in the coming years. Sadly, that was cut short. Then Michael fought with JV, Mika, and Alonso for titles-these guys aren't pushovers, you know? That's 5 WDC right there. OK, it's not as high caliber as Prost, Senna, Mansell, etc. I'll give you that, but let's have some perspective, yes?

Dale Earnhardt, Jr.
A.J. Foyt, Jr.
Al Unser, Jr.
Junior Hanley
Danny and the Juniors

Whether it was his fault is not imporant, the point is it happened although its been reported Michael did have a say in who his team mates were. Apparently he wanted Rubens, a guy he knew he could beat.


None of these guys were his team mates, and werent especially brilliant until he came to Alonso who effectively ended his WC career, but for most of his career he had it pretty easy.

My bad.. I was refering to 2006.

no worries. (I do agree about 2006, as the two cars were very evenly matched and Alonso deserved it). THAT was a straight fight and wonderful to watch.

You reckon he would have 66 pole positions, 102 wins and 8 titles?

Its possible, no need for 102 wins, 90s something maybe. He missed out on another 3 titles by only a few points anyway.

Complete tosh. WInning a world title should count for something. JV deserves a better placing than that.

Same thing counts for others as well, Schumacher, Mansell, Lauda.

Is that Robert Kubica centre-right?

Well, it ain't Brad Pitt!

(to misquote the cock)

The real top 10 should read.

1. Schumacher
2. Fangio
3. Prost
4. Stewart
5. Senna
6. Lauda
7. Gilles
8. Ascari
9. Brabham
10. Mansell.

People will blatantly say that Im biased towards schumacher but he took f1 to a whole new level and sets the standard of how a driver should prepare 'fitness etc' and treat fans. His ruthlessness is undoubted and its one of the reasons why he was so great.

Edit: Don't listen to Kers he's an idiot. The fact that Michael was able to stave off so many countless opposition over a period of 15 years speaks for itself. Hakinnen, Hill, Raikonen and Alonso are far from piss weak material and given the cars that Senna, Piquet, Mansel, and Prost had compared to his opposition probably would have acheived the same results.

You look at the cars that these greats won in and any idiot can see it. While at McLaren Senna had the best car. When he didn't he left McLaren for the best car. Its a flaw that many diminish exsists on 'the peoples hero' Senna. Schumacher took a team along with his partners in crime from joke to supremacy and he did it twice. Thats why I rate him above Senna and the likes.

Schumachers rivals during his years of success. When I say rivals I mean drivers in good comparable cars.

Barrichello
Herbert
Verstappen
Irvine
Coulthard
Hill
J Villeneuve.
Hakkinen
Kimi
Alonso

He only beat Kimi in 2003, all other years they didnt have comparable cars.
He never beat Alonso in comparable cars.

So as you can see his list or rivals that he beat is quite meager. No need to call me an idiot because I present facts you dont like.

Righto heres a little fact for you.


Coulthard
Hill
J Villeneuve.
Hakkinen
Kimi

all quality driver and all bar david have won championships.

Lets look at Alonso credentials
1. Kimi. Car that broke down. Blew Alonso away in terms of speed.
2. Michael. If not for a blown engine probably would have won the championship in 06.
3. Hamilton. Drawn with a rookie and was beaten by race wins.

Seem's like Alonso is more in lucky then what you'll have everybody believe.

Your so quick to call Schumachers team mates useless. How bout Fisichella? Not even close to the quality of driver that is Massa or Barrichello, and twice when Alonso had been pitted with a quality team mate 'Trulli and Hamilton' he's been beaten and had a sook till either the former was fired or Alonso himself was fired.

Hows thats for facts that you don't like?

Most of them were good drivers but nothing special except maybe Kimi pre Ferrari.



There is no luck in having to beat that level of talent to win a WC. Luck is only needing to beat Coulthard, Hill, Irvine, barrichello, Massa, Villeneuve verstappen. Im sure you notice the difference in talent. Alonso did it much much tougher.



You say Fisichella isnt close to the quality of driver as Massa, yet if you knew anything about F1 you would know they were actually team mates in 2004 and Fisichella beat him easily. You should study F1 a bit more before you start calling people idiots next time.

Oh Im sorry. I didn't know that Massa had only one season under him in 2004 and Fisi. What was it 7 or 8? Of course now that Massa has more experience under him he blows fisi away but lets sweep that one under the carpet.

If The 2005 McLaren was reliable Kimi would have cleaned up.
If Michael had not blown up at Suzuka he would have probably won the wdc. Alonso won both titles by mechanical failures on other teams and in 2006 by illegal information on the 2005 McLaren.

Alonso has only had to take on two drivers and won was a 37 '12 years his senior' year old and the other had a car that like to blow up every 2 miles.

Michael had to fight multiple world class champions. Many of whom given the car would be racing him hard day in an day out. The car never had to be the fastest at Ferrari. Michael made it the fastest. And thats coming from 'not me' a highly regarded former champion. -

Of course when being matched with somebody in the same car he was drawn and beaten on race wins by a rookie. Im sure that one sits well with his fans.

-
There is no luck winning in 1996 Ferrari. Just sublime talent that we will probably never see again.

Pure supposition. Just guessing how much he has improved if at all. All we know for sure if that when they were team mates Fisichella beat him easy. Thats fact. Your is guessing.

Considering the was at least 0.5 faster than the renault of course he should have cleaned up. I think Alonso still out drove him though.



If Alonso had not blown up at Monza and broken down at Hungary he would have won the WC easily, not ot mention the mass dampers suddenly becoming illegal after almost 2 years.




Dreaming. His rivals were nothing special except when they had great cars and even then they struggled to be consistently fast.


Alonso wasnt beaten on race wins he was beaten by an arbitrary dead heat rule.

So your saying that Alonso was nothing special just that he had a great car.

Pick your words more wisely next time.

No didnt say that , and we are talking about Alonso and michaels rivals not Alonso.

And Alonso is one of Michaels rivals............