http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...8/umform100.xml

Thought this might stimulate some 'civilised discussions' in the lead up to Melbourne

100. Brian Redman
99. Jochen Mass
98. Stefan Johansson
97 Piers Courage
96. Trevor Taylor
95. Eugenio Castellotti
94. Jacques Laffite
93. Stuart Lewis-Evans
92. Wolfgang Von Trips
91. Ralf Schumacher
90. Roy Salvadori

89. Mike Hailwood
88. Raymond Sommer
87. Luigi Musso
86. John Watson
85. Jarno Trulli
84. Innes Ireland
83. Tom Pryce
82. Tony Brise
81 René Arnoux
80. Thierry Boutsen

79. Johnny Servoz-Gavin
78. Jean-Pierre Beltoise
77. Richie Ginther
76. Eddie Irvine
75. Michele Alboreto
74. Bruce Mclaren
73. Peter Collins
72. Patrick Depailler
71. Dick Seaman
70. Derek Warwick

69. Martin Brundle
68. Rubens Barrichello
67. Jenson Button
66. Patrick Tambay
65. Riccardo Patrese
64. Lorenzo Bandini
63. Elio de Angelis
62. Stefan Bellof
61. Froilan Gonzalez
60. Felipe Massa

59. David Coulthard
58. Jo Siffert
57. Peter Revson
56. Louis Chiron
55. Carlos Pace
54. Juan-Pablo Montoya
53. Jean Alesi
52. Denny Hulme
51. Clay Regazzoni
50. Ricardo Rodriguez

49. Jacques Villeneuve
48. Jean Behra
47. Pedro Rodriguez
46. Gerhard Berger
45. François Cevert
44. Graham Hill
43. Jean-Pierre Wimille
42. Jody Scheckter
41. Giuseppe Farina
40. Mike Hawthorn

39. Damon Hill
38. Phil Hill
37. James Hunt
36. Alan Jones
35. Jacky Ickx
34. Didier Pironi
33. Rudolf Caracciola
32. Fernando Alonso
31. Nigel Mansell
30. Lewis Hamilton

29. Kimi Raikkonen
28. Keke Rosberg
27. Dan Gurney
26. Hermann Lang
25. Ronnie Peterson
24. John Surtees
23. Guy Moll
22. Nelson Piquet
21. Jochen Rindt
20. Niki Lauda

19. Mario Andretti
18. Jack Brabham
17. Emerson Fittipaldi
16. Achille Varzi
15. Carlos Reutemann
14. Tony Brooks
13. Chris Amon
12. Gilles Villeneuve
11. Michael Schumacher
10. Mika Hakkinen

9. Tazio Nuvolari
8. Jackie Stewart
7. Bernd Rosemeyer
6. Juan-Manuel Fangio
5. Alberto Ascari
4. Alain Prost
3. Ayrton Senna
2. Jim Clark
1. Stirling Moss

an english journo placing moss ahead of clark and senna? say it ain't so, joe!

that list could have been selected by a random generator plugged into the FIA mainframe...

Swap 10 and 12.

An amaterish list which seemingly ignored on track acheivments and instead focused on terrible personal bias and whatever else.
Alonso 32nd ?
Mika 10th?

Simply no argument could be made for that at all.
Mika ahead of Schumacher?
Moss no1 ahead of Fangio who always beat him?

What a joke and backs up what ive always thought about these crusty motorsport journalists. They are utterly clueless.

And when exactly did Bernd Rosemeyer and Tazio Nuvolari drive Formula 1 cars? Someone's misdescribed the list somewhere...

Heh, fun stuff.

I expected something a bit better from Alan Henry.

Michael Schumacher 11th? Mika Hakkinen AHEAD of both Schumacher and Gilles Villeneuve? Raikkonen AHEAD of Fernando Alonso. Hamilton already 30th and AHEAD of Nigel Mansell? Gerhard Berger AHEAD of Jacques Villeneuve? Chris Amon 13th? A bit high I think.....

I agree somewhat with the top 4 however. In any case, it seems when people do lists like this, they forget to look back properly at the past (in depth) and seem to go simply more on what the vibe is like on the day. I've read and seen a fair bit of Henry's work and he contradicts himself a fair bit with that current day list now.

Good thread however, interesting discussion this will be.

I actually agree with you. Opinions are too easily changed, mostly when its nothing to do with on track activity. Thing was, I thought Henry was better. I'd expect this from Matt Bishop or Mark Hughes.

One of the worst lists ever. I must say I am surprised they didn't put Hamilton 1st tho.

This list is ridiculous beyond imagination.

About 25 places too high, surely?

I did use about twenty seconds to scroll through the list. Based on that, I´d say that this is the most useless piece of motor-racing journalism on 2008.

I think this is the less biased ranking ever ... if you're British of course ...

Well, of the 3 Brits in the top ten, one has 3 world titles and retired whilst still at his peak, another had 2 and with a smidgeon of luck could have had about eight and the third is acknowledged to have been the best in the world for four years and set the fastest ever Mille Miglia time. I'm interested in seeing which of those you think are ranked too high. And there's one other Brit in the top 20, and two more in the top 30.

But Fangio is too low. He'd be 1 or 2, with Clark in the other position, for me.

Where is Sato?!

That´s exactly as it should be. Why do you think it should be otherway around

Mika ahead of Michael

and neither in the top 10



Massa ahead of Barrichello?! Are they having a right laugh? I love Massa, but Rubens at his peak is the vastly more accomplished driver.

Christ he went pretty far last year flushing his credibility down the toilet with his near maniacal (and obtuse) support of McLaren during spygate despite all of the revelations now he's justifying Schumacher at p11 for 'blotting his copybook' and yet putting Senna the progenitor of such behaviour at p3, AHEAD, of Prost.

Henry can join Saward in the senile hack box.

Well i thought Schumacher could be a bit higher, certainly higher than Mika. I am also suprised that Hamilton is in between alonso and kimi, actually im not suprised he is on top of alonso! But his ranking is a blend of predicting the future and what he did in a year.

My god.

Front cover has Lewis Hamilton. Probably a good indication of how cynical these rankings are. Henry had to remove Lew from his 2007 season review publicatoin (the original had Lew on the front) so I guess he wrote another book so he could get him on the cover...

What a piss take Alan Henry needs to be wheeled in to an institution immediately.

Something I have never understood.

Weren't Moss and Fangio team mates, and when they were Fangio almost always beat him?

Not in sports cars...

Your spot on there. Yet I don't see why they do that, you can't predict anything. It has to be based on now and purely now, where it stands. As an example, I clearly remember F1 Racing's top 100 drivers back in 1997 they did, half way through the year. IIRC they placed Jacques Villeneuve (with 1 and a half seasons under him) about 29th on the list.

Look where Henry rated him now. Mind you, I honestly think his peak as a driver warrants higher, especially considering some of the names in front of him. Could say that about a few drivers though.

I for one agree with Henry in that I wouldn't rank Schumacher above Hakkinen in a "overall" list like this. As driving ability goes, they were probably equalish, but Hakkinen was much more a sportsman and that's what it for me decides the ranking in favour of Hakkinen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Moss

Hes probably basing it on their career achievments. Minor thing to some people obviously.

Mika in front of Schumi, what an awesome list. I never thought I would say something nice about the Telegraph.

What about Schumis career achievements?! It seems like he kept using different criteria, instead of sticking to the same one.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a load of rubbish. Schumacher should be miles ahead of Hakkinen, he should not be out of the top 10 to start with and, using your criteria, Senna shouldn't be 3rd.

It's all bullshit. Being a sportsman hardly comes into it. Why he put Hakkinen ahead (and in the top 10!) is beyond comprehension given some of the names behind him.

Here's another point with that. Alan Henry does the Autocourse top 10's after each season right? (or he did anyway). I don't remember him ever placing Hakkinen number 1 for a season, nor do I ever remember him placing Hakkinen in front of Schumacher during the period 1998-2001, except for 1999 when MS was not included in the top 10 because of races missed.

Yet, now, Alan Henry thinks Mika Hakkinen was a better driver. Based on what exactly?

Lewis Hamilton P30
1 Season, 0 x WDC, 4x Wins, 2007 points: 109

Fernando Alonso P32
6 Seasons, 2 x WDC, 19 Wins, 2007 points: 109

Yeah, not biased

More of a sportman yes, but a less talented one as well.

And that criteria falls out of the window because Henry puts Senna P3 and ahead of Alain Prost. Prost was almost certainly the better racer, if not the outright most talented of the pair - and certainly the more sporting of the two.

So really this is a purely subjective list with almost randomised criteria.

Ah man, thats funny - his winner didnt win a single wdc and was roundly beaten by drivers behind him.

"
I say, surely the winner must be English and who's the most english of english racers.

what ho

dib dib bring back the empire
"

What the hell Schumi so far down? Lewis even in the list.

He placed Alonso behind guys like Hamilton and Kimi plus another 30 odd so he clearly used no criteria except bias and nostalgia. The disgusting this is that his list has some credibility and is actually on sale for money.

This is a completely arbitrary classification, I just fail to see the criteria upon which it was based.

If you check the telegraph website you will see that some people actually agree with him or they use the " he knows better than us " excuse.

Main problem I see is that a lot of "todays" F1 drivers are missing, surely their fitness and know&how is at another level compared to guys from way past.

Which leads into situation that it doesnt make sense to make such list at all.

I think Mika was the faster driver, but the Michael was better at leading his team (Ferrari) and pushing them to do better/provide him with a better car, errrr better team leader you might say.

Both Senna and Michael said Mika was mega fast.

I think Jim Clark sould really be first as he was in another league but sadly died before getting a chance to dominate the sport for many years.

Sure you think it's rubbish.

But putting the fanboy hysteria aside, we don't know where Schumacher in reality stands in driving ability regards the most of that crew. What I do KNOW is that the differences between top drivers are between insignificant and minimal. What I DON'T know, if MS in equal car and team with MH overall been front, been Hamiltonized, or been behind. So I have to look elsewhere to rank them, and that's how my ranking ends. Simple as that.

where is nicha cabral?!

This list is pretty dodgy they might as well had the Stig at No. 1

1998, much faster car, his teammate taking Schumacher out (belgium) and that gearbox+puncture gave Mika the title.

1999, barely beat Schumacher's lapdog.

2000, slightly faster car, his teammate acting as a mobile chicane half the time, in the end, not fast enough.

2001, whitewashed.

Mika was great driver, one of my favourites of all time. But he wasn't faster than Schumacher (and even if he was it was almost certainly in qualifying and a lot of that was down to him having a faster car for much of their time racing together, 1999 and 2001 excepted) and he certainly wasn't a 'greater' driver than Schumacher. The only thing he was markedly superior in was his demeanour.

That's the problem, you just think you know who was more talented. It can't be known though, as they were both highly talented and never paired. The same practically goes with the ranking of about the top 40 of that list. No reason to get jumpy, if someone has a different opinion.

Ok, forget what I said. Look at my post again and explain to me how Henry can possibly put Hakkinen in front of Schumacher.

Lets be honest. For me, Hakkinen would be somewhere between 18th and 25th if I did such a list. Putting him where he is there, in front of Schumacher, is just too much. Especially when David Coulthard is just inside the top 60, Eddie Irvine is even further back, Villeneuve is 49th and Damon Hill 39th.

Yet Hakkinen is 10th??? In front of Gilles Villeneuve aswell???? It's a load of shit. Blame what you want on fanboy hysteria, I think most would think the same. Henry has lost his marbles and forgotten some of his opinions of the past.

This is fair enough, but Schumacher almost certainly should have been in the top ten the only rationale for his not being so was his 'blotting of his copybook'.

A criteria it seems not applicable to Ayrton Senna and thus rendering the whole bleeding list a farce.

Can't see how it can be seen differently.

I just did.



Or maybe he put the fanboy hysteria aside and looked at the bigger picture.

In regards to the Autocourse top 10's? If he didn't see Hakkinen as the superior driver for any of the years MH was up against MS, how on earth can he now put Mika ahead? To me, that makes completely no sense whatsoever.

Not really because he put Senna p3, and he said the _only_ reason Schumacher was back where he was was because of his 'blotting of the copybook'. I.e. it is okay if you're Senna and run people off of the road or play chicken with your fellow racers. But if you're a German lad from Kerpen noo, noo, noo.

So fanbay hysteria aside? Maybe. Parochialism and partisanship? Nope. Witness the cover and the p1.