Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20789 replies to this topic

#6251 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:41

Re M Schumacher taking Ferrari to the top.

Plenty of drivel is written on this subject, helped no doubt by the tendency of the mass media to sensationalize and their need to fabricate superheroes to keep the simpletons fascinated.

When LdM took control he took a series of steps that got the ball rolling way before M Schumacher even won a GP. Prior to the Belgian GP of 1992 Ferrari announced Capelli would not be driving for the Scuderia in 1993 and that Gerhard Berger would replace the Italian. Ferrari made Berger the best paid driver of 1993 (more than Senna and Prost) and the signing was encouraged by LdM's old pal Niki Lauda who knew that Berger had learned a lot from Senna and McLaren. Alesi was quick and spectacular but wasnt adding to anything behind the scenes. Ferrari also took Osama Goto from Honda to work on their engine programe. Ferrari's 1992 V12 engine was overweight and underpowered and Harvey Posthelwaite got into a right mess with his F92A twin floor concept. So Ferrari made the further steps of recruiting John Barnard again and Gustav Brunner. A reminder. Alesi was nearly 4 seconds slower than the pace for qualifying at the 1992 Portugese GP, slower than Alboreto's Footwork, and the 2 Lotus cars. At the 1992 Japanese GP the fastest Ferrari was 5 seconds off the pace in qualifying and Alesi driving his heart out managed to be "only" 2.4 seconds of the pace at Adeliade, a point and squirt circuit where the flaws of the car are concealed to an extent.

In pre-season testing for 1993 Ferrari were 5 (five) seconds off the pace at Estoril compared to Prost and Hill in the Williams. And yet the common nonsense that is spewed around is M Schumacher had to drive that "horrible horrible" Ferrari in 1996. ;-) Perspective is neded here.

So from the low point of the tailend of 1992 and early 1993 we see a clear step by step improvement leading up to the championship for Ferrari in 2000. Have a look at the qualifying differences between the fastest Ferrari and pole from the end of 1992 onwards. Their is a blatent upwards trend. From being a lost cause they begin to pick up points, and even the odd podium. Todt's first race for Ferrari was at Magny Cours 1993. In 1994 they begin notching up regular podiums and even 3 pole positions and a win. In 1995 they managed another win and they were very unfortunate not to win two or three more. Which is where M Schumacher took over. Clearly the likes of Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne added to the team and M Schumacher was just another ingredient.



Advertisement

#6252 Polle

Polle
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:46

The Todt, Byrne, Brawn, Schumacher group was indeed a combo breaker. Took them a few years but was indeed worth it in the end.

#6253 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:49

Todt, Byrne, Brawn "confused"? :drunk:




Michael knows what is a ace in a team, he sponsors people, and pushes areas he thinks needs pushing behind the scenes, we don't see on camera, as it's behind doors as it's meant to be.

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.

There was no Brawn in 1996, but it takes a driver of a reputation to work with the best, and form professionals partnerships, Schumacher had put himself in a position to win titles at Benetton, he did, he could of stayed, the power he had at a young age was there, you are a magnet for others, Michael just knows who's aming for tbe same goal in the professional manner he is. MS did make outpspoken comments after 2005, the year ferrari didn't win after alot of years of wiinning, certain staff had left, and when the winter was over, new staff had came in, and when other drivers were taking holidays, MS stayed behind and worked with ferrari to help make 2006 back to fighting for the title, and iwthout that effort, his retirement year with ferrari, I don't think they would of challenged renault who were winners going into the year and they started it off strong as well. If Schumacher wants to fight for wins and titles, he doesn't take time off, this goes back to his championship title fights at Suzuka. Schumacher had millions, he had the reputaiton to rest at home and let other test drivers do work, but he didn't ask for it later on, ferrari did it for him, with MS he set exampls of extreme work ethic, and that mentality rubbed off on everyone, Schumacher was intence, especially leading up to his first ferrari title in 2000, after that, then ferrari got some extra test drivers, he had helped built a strong team, then reaped the rewards, concentrated more on fitness and being fresh for 2001/2002/2003/2004, some people wondered why he kept on doing it, but motvation and energy levels were enough in something you enjoy doing, so why stop, 1996-2006, a long time of schuey work ethic in a team-result, most successful period in ferrari history. He played a important role among other important roles, yence a dream team. It all came together, and with Michael it's always "we" and never "I". And another record he holds, he must be the only driver who has had major fia rules in f1 history changed to slow him and his team down-2003-one lap quali cough, 2 qualifying sessions, championship leader out in first session first-effectively the track sweeper, hinder his overall time and grid position for Sunday, FIA were so desperate and worried after 2002, that no one would challenge MS and Ferrari, they put in rules themselfs to trip them up, and in 2003 it almost worked, but MS beat the rules then as well, and came back in 2004 to do it quicker with his team, the tyre rule cost him the 2005 title, somethings you can't can't prepare for, even the most prepared man and team in f1 history!








Edited by SeanValen, 04 October 2010 - 11:59.


#6254 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:04

Michael knows what is a ace in a team, he sponsors people, and pushes areas he thinks needs pushing behind the scenes, we don't see on camera, as it's behind doors as it's meant to be.

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.


Finally the truth is out: it was Michael who "made" Jean Todt! :up:


#6255 lafitek

lafitek
  • Member

  • 325 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:05

Michael knows what is a ace in a team, he sponsors people, and pushes areas he thinks needs pushing behind the scenes, we don't see on camera, as it's behind doors as it's meant to be.

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.

There was no Brawn in 1996, but it takes a driver of a reputation to work with the best, and form professionals partnerships, Schumacher had put himself in a position to win titles at Benetton, he did, he could of stayed, the power he had at a young age was there, you are a magnet for others, Michael just knows who's aming for tbe same goal in the professional manner he is. MS did make outpspoken comments after 2005, the year ferrari didn't win after alot of years of wiinning, certain staff had left, and when the winter was over, new staff had came in, and when other drivers were taking holidays, MS stayed behind and worked with ferrari to help make 2006 back to fighting for the title, and iwthout that effort, his retirement year with ferrari, I don't think they would of challenged renault who were winners going into the year and they started it off strong as well. If Schumacher wants to fight for wins and titles, he doesn't take time off, this goes back to his championship title fights at Suzuka. Schumacher had millions, he had the reputaiton to rest at home and let other test drivers do work, but he didn't ask for it later on, ferrari did it for him, with MS he set exampls of extreme work ethic, and that mentality rubbed off on everyone, Schumacher was intence, especially leading up to his first ferrari title in 2000, after that, then ferrari got some extra test drivers, he had helped built a strong team, then reaped the rewards, concentrated more on fitness and being fresh for 2001/2002/2003/2004, some people wondered why he kept on doing it, but motvation and energy levels were enough in something you enjoy doing, so why stop, 1996-2006, a long time of schuey work ethic in a team-result, most successful period in ferrari history. He played a important role among other important roles, yence a dream team. It all came together, and with Michael it's always "we" and never "I". And another record he holds, he must be the only driver who has had major fia rules in f1 history changed to slow him and his team down-2003-one lap quali cough, 2 qualifying sessions, championship leader out in first session first-effectively the track sweeper, hinder his overall time and grid position for Sunday, FIA were so desperate and worried after 2002, that no one would challenge MS and Ferrari, they put in rules themselfs to trip them up, and in 2003 it almost worked, but MS beat the rules then as well, and came back in 2004 to do it quicker with his team, the tyre rule cost him the 2005 title, somethings you can't can't prepare for, even the most prepared man and team in f1 history!


ok he is good but is he better than rosberg in the same car?

#6256 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:14

Finally the truth is out: it was Michael who "made" Jean Todt! :up:


Indeed. Are you always this slow? Next, you'll tell me you didn't know that it was M Schumacher who was responsible for recruiting Todt at Ferrari in 1993 when M Schumacher was still at Benetton.

#6257 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:18

ok he is good but is he better than rosberg in the same car?



Thats not the point....he is better than Rosberg, but its just that he hasn't had testing, and he has't driven a car for three years and he doesnt like the tyres and Ross Braw favours Rosberg and M Schumacher is saving himself for the second half the season, I mean 2011 and BAR/Honda are rubbish and well...how many hats can Rosberg sell then if he is so good? Answer me that if you are so clever.

#6258 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:34

What you like to present as fact is anything but.


It's based on having watched F1 at the time and actively read everything I possibly could - in period - much of which I still have on a stack of shelves today. As i said, whether it was right or not is a different matter, but for a very wide selection of the motor racing fraternity Rosberg was considered the fastest man in the business from 83 to 85. I didn't say, by the way, that I believed it.



#6259 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:53

Todt, Byrne, Brawn "confused"? :drunk:


I'm not sure you understand - as far as I remember it, and correct me please if i'm wrong, but Brawn and Byrne followed Michael to Ferrari, not the other way around. The confused team I was referring to was, quite clearly, the Ferrari preceding the post 86 revival.


Advertisement

#6260 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 2,790 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:58

its clear that coulthard is the genius behind redbull



:rotfl: as soon as he left, they started winning :D

#6261 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:07

Ferrari also took Osama Goto from Honda to work on their engine programe.


Forgive the pedantry, but surely that was several years later? memory could be failing with old age, but....

#6262 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,228 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:13

I've read quite alot into Schumacher over the years and his arrival at Ferrari is not quite the grand judgement alot of his fans wish you to believe. At the beginning of 1995 Schumacher was convinced he wanted to drive for Williams as he saw them as the team going forward and the idea to join Ferrari was actually at the feet of Willi Weber. Infact according to Weber it took him 5 weeks to convince Michael that Ferrari was worth his interest as Weber was on friendly terms with Jean Todt and was impressed by the pitch Todt had laid out to get Michael onboard. The team was in a mess and it was a huge gamble, but Michael seized the challenge with alot of persuasion.

Ross Brawn also takes credit for managing Michael into the team player he became, and it was the people around Michael who made the dream team complete. Michael was a major part, but he wouldn't have enjoyed the sucess at Ferrari without the right guidance.

Ross Brawn has admitted that back in 1992 Michael found testing sessions dull and if he could, would get out of as much of it as possible. Ross taught him to understand the car, and appreciate the value of development with a drivers understanding, and thats the Michael who became so successful in later years. :)

Edited by tifosiMac, 04 October 2010 - 13:15.


#6263 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:21

Forgive the pedantry, but surely that was several years later? memory could be failing with old age, but....


Honda quit in 1992, Goto was at Ferrari for 1994. The V12 Ferrari turned from being a laughing stock where it would be out-powered by Ford V8's to an engine to be reckoned with on fast circuits at least though the lack of torque hurt them badly on other layouts right until the end of the V12 in 1995.

Edited by man, 04 October 2010 - 13:23.


#6264 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:28

Honda quit in 1992, Goto was at Ferrari for 1994.


You're right - my memory playing tricks; i'm thinking of when he went to sauber later on.


#6265 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:29

The team was in a mess


There it is again. Exactly how was Ferrari in a mess in mid-late 1995?

If Ferrari were a mess then, how would you define their state in 1992? Or 1986?

:rolleyes:


#6266 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:51

But that's not a claim that can be made, is it? I read your posts - often with amusement - and you do tend to seek every opportunity to hit below the belt where Schumacher is concerned. I agree with a lot of your posts, to be fair, but to claim that Michael played little part in the Ferrari revival is quite ridiculous (and to attempt, rather limply, to compare that situation to Webber and Red Bull is not even worth trying).

I understand that you don't like Schumacher - as I said, I'm not a particular fan either - but if you are someone who watches and enjoys F1, and motor racing, and you have a modicum of intelligence you have to accept the bloke was bloody good in his prime - better, without any argument, than most of his peers. You also cannot possibly look at the Ferrari situation and say 'well, of course, it would all have happened without Schumacher' as that's not only supposition but on very dodgy ground; I'm not after an argument - more an enlightening discussion - but who else do you see as having been a potential alternative to Schumacher when he moved to Ferrari? Who else do you see as a driver who - as we all known Schumacher did - motivated that team to such a level? I have to be honest and say i can't think of anyone.


I know that the claim cannot be made that it is Mark Webber who "made" Red Bull what it is now. Of course it was Sebastian Vettel!

Besides that, you are right in feeling the undercurrent of many of my posts - there is humour involved and also a dig at the sometimes formidable claims that are being made concerning Schumacher. As I said months ago, and SparkPlug has me on record for it, to me MS is the second best driver of all time after Senna (and I may do injustice to Jim Clark here), and also, that I don´t like particular aspects of Michael´s career (e.g. having just rewatched Jerez 1997 and the subsequent lies, until finally Schumacher confessed to what he did - very well portraited on a documentary from Italian television).

That Michael Schumacher is THE ingredient in the resurgence of Ferrari is a fairy tale that has been made up somewhat successfully by Schumacheristi, but I still don´t buy it and will never buy it. It was Luca di Montezemolo who led Ferrari´s renaissance and Schumacher was just another ingredient il Presidente put in successfully. Again, Schumacher was AN ingredient, but not THE ingredient, it would mean to devalue what Todt, Brawn and Byrne brought to the team.

The fairy-tale that only Schumacher could have won three races in 1996 is especially gripping and moving - as man has pointed out with his analysis, Ferrari had a clear upward trend all the way from beginning of the 1993 season. The full success was foreboding in 1996, but started to blossom only in 1997, when finally Brawn and Byrne joined the fray.

As is well known, Senna was the man who was planned to take over at Ferrari and of course, fate intervened. In my mind, Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Mika Hakkinen would have been equally qualified to become a very successful lead driver at Ferrari, although they may not have become a superstar in the Senna/Schumacher vein. This can be disputed forever - I am sure you agree that at least Mika Hakkinen would have become a similar superstar like Schumacher, if you look at the 1998/1999/2000 season.

Concerning the motivational factor, it would have been Jacques, the son of Gilles, who would have inspired similar veneration like his father among the Reds and the tifosi alike - as we have seen, Mika, like Kimi, may not have been hot-blooded enough to fully gel with the Italian mentality. Yet a Canadian with the famous surname and dare-devil driving skills (e.g. his overtake on Schumi in Estoril 1996 on the outside) would have made him a god in red. Trust me, I have lived in Italy for long enough and had a number of discussions with tifosi concerning that matter.

Also take into consideration the fact that it took quite a while for Schumacher to gain the sympathies of the Italians ("il Tedesco"!) and that right now according to Italian media claim that Alonso is already more popular at Ferrari than Michael ever was. Also be aware of the fact that Ferrari had become an international supergroup in the Schumacher days and Schumacher´s interface with Italians was limited, whereas nowadays Ferrari is again more Italian than for the last 20 years.

So whichever way you look at it, Schumacher was not the only possible driver, he was not THE ingredient without which the success would not have happened nor was he outrageously popular, even in view of the tremendous success he gained thanks to this supergroup constellation in the years 1997 - 2006.

#6267 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,228 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:55

There it is again. Exactly how was Ferrari in a mess in mid-late 1995?

If Ferrari were a mess then, how would you define their state in 1992? Or 1986?

:rolleyes:

Embarrassing, appalling are good words for the other years. 1995 was a vast improvement, but far from great. It was clear at the beginning of 1996 that Ferrari had gone down the wrong route of development, and their car looked drastically different from the other teams interpreting the regulation's. To win races that year was a massive achievement and the credit goes to Schuey and the team for that.

"It was pretty clear from the first test that we'd ****ed things up over the winter".. Eddie Irvine.

#6268 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:58

I'm not sure you understand - as far as I remember it, and correct me please if i'm wrong, but Brawn and Byrne followed Michael to Ferrari, not the other way around. The confused team I was referring to was, quite clearly, the Ferrari preceding the post 86 revival.


I am sure you understand - Michael´s contract with Benetton expired end of 1995 and Brawn´s and Byrne´s end of 1996 - that is in part a reason for the time sequence of events. Also, it was not Schumacher who offered them well paid contracts but Luca di Montezemolo (Jean Todt being his executive) so they would not have joined Ferrari without di Montezemolo employing them.

#6269 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:11

Again, could be my memory playing tricks, but I thought Byrne retired after 95.


Again, my memory could be playing me tricks, but I thought that Byrne was paid a royal salary to retire from retirement - I am sure Michael paid it out of his pocket. Luca and Jean had nothing to do with it... ;)


#6270 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:13

I am sure you understand - Michael´s contract with Benetton expired end of 1995 and Brawn´s and Byrne´s end of 1996 -


Again, could be my memory playing tricks, but I thought Byrne retired after 95.

As for your previous post, it's one of my pet hates that peope assume - because you disagree with them on one point - that you disagree with them on all. I never said, anywhere, that Michael was 'the only driver who could have won in the 96 Ferrari' - indeed, I don't believe that to be the case; there are also aspects of Michael's career that i don't like; I doubt Jacques Villeneuve ' could have done anything like what Michael did at Ferrari, and I doubt Hill could either. Hakkinen could just be the one. The claim that Alonso is 'more popular at Ferrari than Michael ever was' is - quite honestly - laughable, no matter how many Italians you've known (and my Italian journalist friends would certainly have a good giggle at it).

I note your belief that Senna is the best ever, Michael next, and that it may do Jim Clark an injustice. For anyone who knows that f1 began prior to the 1980's, or even the 1960's, it does quite a number of others an injustice too, but that's something that comes with opinion.

I have no problem with your posts - most of them anyway - but sometimes you seem desperate to prove that Michael Schumacher was not quite all he was made up to be; despite my beliefe that he ranks in the top ten of all time, and no more, seven world titles and 91 wins is one hell of an achievment in anyone's book.




#6271 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:14

Again, my memory could be playing me tricks, but I thought that Byrne was paid a royal salary to retire from retirement - I am sure Michael paid it out of his pocket. Luca and Jean had nothing to do with it...;)


he was, but what has that got to do with anything? Where did I say anything about Michael hiring the team?


#6272 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:28

Embarrassing, appalling are good words for the other years. 1995 was a vast improvement, but far from great. It was clear at the beginning of 1996 that Ferrari had gone down the wrong route of development, and their car looked drastically different from the other teams interpreting the regulation's. To win races that year was a massive achievement and the credit goes to Schuey and the team for that.

"It was pretty clear from the first test that we'd ****ed things up over the winter".. Eddie Irvine.



1995
11 podiums
73 points
Wins 1
Poles 1

1992
2 podiums
21 points
Wins 0
Poles 0

But for freak events in 1995, Ferrari should have won Monza, possibly San Marino, Suzuka, and retired from the lead at Spa. 1995 was anything but a mess. Ferrari was a progressive team which already had a V10 engine programe running. M Schumacher signed for a team that was on the up from its low point in 1992. LdM, Todt, Barnard and Goto got the ball rolling.

I would also recommend you do a little deeper research into Ferrari from the mid-1970's onwards rather than 1996 onwards. Not many teams have developed from being five seconds off the pace to winning poles and a race the following season. i.e. 1993-1994.

#6273 Johnrambo

Johnrambo
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:37

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.


Schumacher can thank his success on Jean Todt.

And another record he holds, he must be the only driver who has had major fia rules in f1 history changed to slow him and his team down-2003-one lap quali cough, 2 qualifying sessions, championship leader out in first session first-effectively the track sweeper, hinder his overall time and grid position for Sunday, FIA were so desperate and worried after 2002, that no one would challenge MS and Ferrari, they put in rules themselfs to trip them up, and in 2003 it almost worked, but MS beat the rules then as well, and came back in 2004 to do it quicker with his team, the tyre rule cost him the 2005 title, somethings you can't can't prepare for, even the most prepared man and team in f1 history!


The rules were different for Schumacher then than the rest? Oh no they weren't. :rolleyes: The limitless arrogance some MS fanboys display is quite amazing and also hilarious now seeing how totally crap MS has been on his comeback.


#6274 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 15:41

I doubt Jacques Villeneuve ' could have done anything like what Michael did at Ferrari, and I doubt Hill could either. Hakkinen could just be the one. The claim that Alonso is 'more popular at Ferrari than Michael ever was' is - quite honestly - laughable, no matter how many Italians you've known (and my Italian journalist friends would certainly have a good giggle at it).


Please be so kind to ask your Italian journalist friends what according to them the general feeling is regarding the issue. I am curious to hear what they think or know.


I note your belief that Senna is the best ever, Michael next, and that it may do Jim Clark an injustice. For anyone who knows that f1 began prior to the 1980's, or even the 1960's, it does quite a number of others an injustice too, but that's something that comes with opinion.


Indeed I was tempted to also mention Juan Manuel Fangio, but didn´t want to expand the matter in a Schumacher thread.


I have no problem with your posts - most of them anyway - but sometimes you seem desperate to prove that Michael Schumacher was not quite all he was made up to be; despite my beliefe that he ranks in the top ten of all time, and no more, seven world titles and 91 wins is one hell of an achievment in anyone's book.


His achievement of 91 victories is momentous - nearly as much as Senna and Prost together, so no argument there. I am not "desperate" to prove that Michael Schumacher was not quite all he was made up to be - the point here is well worked out by you: "all he was made up to be". He is what he is and his record speaks for itself, but some legends have been made up - this does not cause me any desperation but I will always put things into perspective when I see unreasonable myths. And there are many regarding MS.

#6275 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 15:45

he was, but what has that got to do with anything? Where did I say anything about Michael hiring the team?


It has to do with the fact that according to you they "followed" Schumacher to Ferrari. "Followed" in the temporal sense may be correct, but in another sense I am sure it was rather the offer that made them "follow" Schumacher to Ferrari.

#6276 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 17:05

I am sure you understand - Michael´s contract with Benetton expired end of 1995 and Brawn´s and Byrne´s end of 1996 - that is in part a reason for the time sequence of events. Also, it was not Schumacher who offered them well paid contracts but Luca di Montezemolo (Jean Todt being his executive) so they would not have joined Ferrari without di Montezemolo employing them.


Brawn and Byrne DID follow Schumacher. I dont know what is your argument against that. Do you really think Brawn and Byrne would have joined Ferrari if Alesi or even Hill was their lead driver ? C'mon ! I certainly believe Schumacher had quite a role to play in getting those two into Ferrari. I am sure the 1996 season in Benetton without a driver of Schumacher's caliber behind the wheel must have opened their eyes. The same team that was in an upswing for nearly 4 years suddenly became the 3rd and often 4th best team after Schumacher left. And yes, Schumacher does have a role to play even in Jean Todt's career. He showed loyalty and stood up for him when Todt was about to get fired, and Todt repayed that loyalty towards Schumacher.

Whatever way you may want to twist it, Schumacher did have a pivotal role, other than that of just a racing driver, in turning the fortunes of Ferrari around.


#6277 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,373 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 October 2010 - 18:17

not bad for an irrelevant driver to have a thread now 155 pages. the biggest thread still alive. hah. must burn with the likes of muzza.


"jenson and lewis scorecard" 469 pages
"lewis hamilton" 245 pages
"renault 2010" 204 pages
"f10 ferrari" 192 pages

on the front page alone.......


#6278 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 19:27

Brawn and Byrne DID follow Schumacher. I dont know what is your argument against that. Do you really think Brawn and Byrne would have joined Ferrari if Alesi or even Hill was their lead driver ?


No, they wouldn't, and that's part of my point. As I've said I'm no Schumacher fan - in fact, i'm no one driver fan I just love the sport - but it does concern me that there are apprently intelligent people who believe Schumacher was in no way influetial on who joined Ferrari in the 96 and on era. i know he was, and anyone who has no agenda in proving that everyone other than Michael was also knows (in fact, they probably do, too).

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.

#6279 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 19:31

:rotfl: as soon as he left, they started winning :D

yea because couthard did all the hard work helping design the cars , pointing the designers in the right areas , showing them how mclaren would do it etc.

he left because he knew his time had come so he passed his legacy if you like to webber

Advertisement

#6280 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:03

No, they wouldn't, and that's part of my point. As I've said I'm no Schumacher fan - in fact, i'm no one driver fan I just love the sport - but it does concern me that there are apprently intelligent people who believe Schumacher was in no way influetial on who joined Ferrari in the 96 and on era. i know he was, and anyone who has no agenda in proving that everyone other than Michael was also knows (in fact, they probably do, too).

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.


There are quotes from Irvine Roebuck and Berger that claim M Schumacher was respected in Italy but never loved in the same way as Gilles, Alesi and even Nige. Again this is all very subjective yet you aggressively insist upon your views being facts. Not cricket I'm afraid. ;-)

Edited by man, 04 October 2010 - 22:08.


#6281 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:11

yea because couthard did all the hard work helping design the cars , pointing the designers in the right areas , showing them how mclaren would do it etc.

he left because he knew his time had come so he passed his legacy if you like to webber


Any work he did was on the cars he drove, he can take no credit for the cars once he left. As far as info about Mac, I'm sure Newey brought more than enough of that to the table.

#6282 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,854 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:15

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.


I have np idea which driver is actually preferred, but Brundle did say that his contacts within the Italian press said Alonso was more popular (in Italy). I don't think he would lie about it, so where is the Italian press getting it's numbers from?


#6283 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 23:02

No, they wouldn't, and that's part of my point. As I've said I'm no Schumacher fan - in fact, i'm no one driver fan I just love the sport - but it does concern me that there are apprently intelligent people who believe Schumacher was in no way influetial on who joined Ferrari in the 96 and on era. i know he was, and anyone who has no agenda in proving that everyone other than Michael was also knows (in fact, they probably do, too).

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.


You still failed to answer my question concering your Italian journalist friends, Lifew12.

For the record, I lived in Milano from September 2000 till May 2001 and in Rome from May 2001 till October 2001. Other than that, I have been an invited lecturer to Italy from 1990 onwards until today, covering Torino, Milano, Parma, Vicenza, Verona, Padova, Udine, Genova, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Catania. So please be careful with your assertment that "people claim to know Italians and so on". I have been to Monza, Imola and Maranello several times - if this smacks like invention to you, fine - what shall I think of your Italian journalist friends?

This line of argument still does in no way prove that Schumacher was THE influence in the renaissance of Ferrari. As stated above, he was one of the factors.

You will still have to eat midnight pasta or midnight pizza with tifosi for quite a while till you really understand how they feel about Michael Schumacher.

#6284 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,525 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 October 2010 - 01:02

Maybe the whole argument here about Michael's part in the Scuderia's success, and Todt, Brawn, Byrne et al joining can be condensed into a simple "Ferrari managed to assemble a superteam of some of the great talents and minds of modern F1". I have little doubt that Michael's move/presence there would have been an attracting force just as Ferrari itself are a magnet - despite all the pressures and negatives associated with them.

Chris Amon in a recent interview openly confessed his move to Ferrari from the early entity of McLaren was something he couldn't resist, even though at the time he knew he would have to fight Bandini, Parkes and Scarfiotti for one of the F1 seats - my point is the aura of being a works Ferrari driver often overrides reason. So Luca would have simply needed to exercise the generous chequebooks of Fiat and Phillip Morris to a few key players and people, good people, would come.

This in no way derides the achievements of Michael but to say Michael was somehow greater than the combined talents of T, B and B (and many other key people) is nonsense. The years of Hakkinen v Schumacher (1998 - 2001) were arguably the height of Michael's career, what followed was the icing on the cake in terms of raw statistics. By 2005 Michael was already considered beatable in a Ferrari which was merely a competitive, not dominant car - (OK the 2005 Bridgestones were rubbish). In between these years Ferrari simply had a serious advantage over their competition that wasn't just about Michael.

Fans of MS will see the contextual explanation of his success as a put-down. That's relative, because Michael's record can't be used to show he was twice as good as Senna. As much as I hate to admit it I would lean towards Senna being the fastest of all time. Michael in my book has to be in the top 10 and probably in the top 4 (with Clark and Fangio), any conclusion bigger than that is unrealistic due to the different requirements of the eras 1950 - 2010. Would Michael have had the bravery of a Juan Manuel? Would Clark have had the technical and motivating gifts to rival MS? Even Prost can't be ruled out with his 4xWDCs or Stewart with his enormously well-rounded talents.

It is inevitable that if the curtain came down on Michael at the end of 2010, his career would be slightly dimmed by his inability to live up to the miracle man tag some believe(d) him to be.

Edited by Muz Bee, 05 October 2010 - 01:13.


#6285 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 03:21

Maybe the whole argument here about Michael's part in the Scuderia's success, and Todt, Brawn, Byrne et al joining can be condensed into a simple "Ferrari managed to assemble a superteam of some of the great talents and minds of modern F1". I have little doubt that Michael's move/presence there would have been an attracting force just as Ferrari itself are a magnet - despite all the pressures and negatives associated with them.

Chris Amon in a recent interview openly confessed his move to Ferrari from the early entity of McLaren was something he couldn't resist, even though at the time he knew he would have to fight Bandini, Parkes and Scarfiotti for one of the F1 seats - my point is the aura of being a works Ferrari driver often overrides reason. So Luca would have simply needed to exercise the generous chequebooks of Fiat and Phillip Morris to a few key players and people, good people, would come.

This in no way derides the achievements of Michael but to say Michael was somehow greater than the combined talents of T, B and B (and many other key people) is nonsense. The years of Hakkinen v Schumacher (1998 - 2001) were arguably the height of Michael's career, what followed was the icing on the cake in terms of raw statistics. By 2005 Michael was already considered beatable in a Ferrari which was merely a competitive, not dominant car - (OK the 2005 Bridgestones were rubbish). In between these years Ferrari simply had a serious advantage over their competition that wasn't just about Michael.

Fans of MS will see the contextual explanation of his success as a put-down. That's relative, because Michael's record can't be used to show he was twice as good as Senna. As much as I hate to admit it I would lean towards Senna being the fastest of all time. Michael in my book has to be in the top 10 and probably in the top 4 (with Clark and Fangio), any conclusion bigger than that is unrealistic due to the different requirements of the eras 1950 - 2010. Would Michael have had the bravery of a Juan Manuel? Would Clark have had the technical and motivating gifts to rival MS? Even Prost can't be ruled out with his 4xWDCs or Stewart with his enormously well-rounded talents.

It is inevitable that if the curtain came down on Michael at the end of 2010, his career would be slightly dimmed by his inability to live up to the miracle man tag some believe(d) him to be.


Good post.

To somehow distort history into a case of "Ferrari were hopeless and M Schumacher sorted it all out and without him they wuold be nothing" is nothing short of sensationalized tabloid ill-informed drivel. It reflects the sad individualistic society we live in today to artifically raise an individual/celebrity onto a pedestal and transform him/ her into a supernatural being. :-)

Jean Todt was a massive success for Peugeot in rallying and sportscars. Within a year of his arrival at Ferrari he got them back to winning ways, Ferrari having previously not won anything since 1990 - a gap of four years.

LdM has been a success in everything he has done especially with Ferrari in the 1970's. And as I have stated before, it was in fact LdM that got the ball rolling in late 1991 when he returned to Ferrari. From then on things just got better and better behind the scenes and on the track

Sadly, it seems for many people Plato's Allegory of the cave is gobbledygook. History of Ferrari for them starts in 1996. :-) I wonder how many of those who write on the subject here were actually even born or even old enough to see Ferrari during the early 1990's let alone 1980's and 1970's. :)

#6286 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,795 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 05 October 2010 - 04:11

most sensible michael fans would accept a top 4 assessment as the rest is not and could never be definitive.

most would also accept that michael was not the only factor at ferrari. yes he clearly was the initial attraction for the benetton guys who had developed such faith in his abilities and he in them

for all his faults he does appear to be genuinely selfless within a team, something that alonso has not demonstrated.

I struggle to believe the tifosi love alonso more - fe drives with no more passion or more exciting style than michael. he's not itialian either - maybe italians instinctively dislike germans but watching monza yr after yr the tifosi didnt seem to be grudge his wins and the team themselves have always been largely italian and have simply adored michael. I suspect todt was never "loved"

the idea that the "old man" would not have liked michael has also been tossed around. complete nonesense. who couldnt love the guy based on 98 for example when he drove testing mile after mile and into the dusk day after day. the guy had an office afterall inside fiorano. nobody can deny dedication and the fact that within the team he has a reputation for being down to earth and engaged. to suggest that someone winning so relentlessly driving your car would not have been liked just seems silly. jealous maybe.

#6287 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,042 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 05 October 2010 - 04:41

Gods its like a rerun of the wizard of oz in here.. everywhere I look there's a strawman or someone with no brain.

Sorry couldnt resist, Im sure you are all very bright but the strawman part is true. When did ANYONE claim Ferrari were nothing and that Rory Byrne, Ross Brawn and Jean Todt (And please lets not forget Martinelli!') had nothing to do with their success?? I mean they were referred to as the Dream Team for a reason people.. but sensible people acknowledged Michael's vital role in providing the sharp end of the weapon. Maybe we could do with a few more sensible people here..

#6288 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 07:59

There are quotes from Irvine Roebuck and Berger that claim M Schumacher was respected in Italy but never loved in the same way as Gilles, Alesi and even Nige. Again this is all very subjective yet you aggressively insist upon your views being facts. Not cricket I'm afraid. ;-)


Your over-fondness for telling people their views are not facts is rather tiresome; assuming that what someone professes is their outright belief - as in the previous response you made about my post regarding Rosberg where you assumed, wrongly as I pointed out, that what I stated was my view, and in this one, where I am simply stating the obvious, i.e. that Michael was worshipped by the tifosi however you try and spin it - is a problem with internet forums that carries over into the 'fanboy' and 'haters' aspect that really shoyuld have remained in the school playground. Subjective it may be, as you say, yet it can't be anything other that fact that Michael Schumacher was widely adored by the tifosi. he certainly was by those i knew. For the record, he wasn't by me.


#6289 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 08:05

You still failed to answer my question concering your Italian journalist friends, Lifew12.


Until I ask them, I can't. Unless you want me to make something up to fit what you clearly see as my agenda.

For the record, I lived in Milano from September 2000 till May 2001 and in Rome from May 2001 till October 2001. Other than that, I have been an invited lecturer to Italy from 1990 onwards until today, covering Torino, Milano, Parma, Vicenza, Verona, Padova, Udine, Genova, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Catania. So please be careful with your assertment that "people claim to know Italians and so on".


good for you. You must have met a lot of Michael Schumacher fans then.

I have been to Monza, Imola and Maranello several times


So have I. Mostly on a professional basis, others on a jolly.

This line of argument still does in no way prove that Schumacher was THE influence in the renaissance of Ferrari. As stated above, he was one of the factors.


That's right, but you have this innate desire to diminish his role in the saga, and it is clearly influenced by the fact you're not - for want of a better word - a fan. Your continued posts on here highlight that without any doubt at all. To state that Michael was anything other than an absolutely pivotal figure in the revivial of Ferrari n the mid 90's is really to look at things with one eye closed. It's no secret at all that he had a say in who he wanted at the team, and so on, so what is your obsession with trying to belittle the man's achievments there? I mean, just because you are on an internet forum does not mean you have to 'take sides' - you can accept that, despite your dislike of the bloke, he was the keystone in the whole thing - it doesn't hurt, trust me.

You will still have to eat midnight pasta or midnight pizza with tifosi for quite a while till you really understand how they feel about Michael Schumacher.


You assume I haven't.


#6290 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 2,790 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:15

You still failed to answer my question concering your Italian journalist friends, Lifew12.

For the record, I lived in Milano from September 2000 till May 2001 and in Rome from May 2001 till October 2001. Other than that, I have been an invited lecturer to Italy from 1990 onwards until today, covering Torino, Milano, Parma, Vicenza, Verona, Padova, Udine, Genova, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Catania. So please be careful with your assertment that "people claim to know Italians and so on". I have been to Monza, Imola and Maranello several times - if this smacks like invention to you, fine - what shall I think of your Italian journalist friends?

This line of argument still does in no way prove that Schumacher was THE influence in the renaissance of Ferrari. As stated above, he was one of the factors.

You will still have to eat midnight pasta or midnight pizza with tifosi for quite a while till you really understand how they feel about Michael Schumacher.


I wonder if the Tifosi's attitude towards Schumacher has changed somewhat now he's with Mercedes? IIRC, some even wanted him to stop wearing the red helmet when he started testing with Mercedes because red symbolised Ferrari.....

There is no doubt he was highly respected by them, but not loved in the same way Irvine was (who claims he could live with the #2 status because it still brought him so many priveleges, women, free food and wine etc :rotfl: )

I also remember some Italian politician getting rather upset some years ago that Schumacher was 'conducting' the Italian national anthem whenever he won a Grand Prix. I didn't hear the Tifosi kick up too much of a fuss on that issue however.


#6291 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:16

Until I ask them, I can't. Unless you want me to make something up to fit what you clearly see as my agenda.


No, it's fine - please be considerate enough to still post your findings in this thread, even if it takes a few months.


good for you. You must have met a lot of Michael Schumacher fans then.



No doubt, and I have met many as well who call him "il tedesco".


So have I. Mostly on a professional basis, others on a jolly.


So we are both lucky - what was that about people making up things you mentioned earlier?



That's right, but you have this innate desire to diminish his role in the saga, and it is clearly influenced by the fact you're not - for want of a better word - a fan. Your continued posts on here highlight that without any doubt at all. To state that Michael was anything other than an absolutely pivotal figure in the revivial of Ferrari n the mid 90's is really to look at things with one eye closed. It's no secret at all that he had a say in who he wanted at the team, and so on, so what is your obsession with trying to belittle the man's achievments there? I mean, just because you are on an internet forum does not mean you have to 'take sides' - you can accept that, despite your dislike of the bloke, he was the keystone in the whole thing - it doesn't hurt, trust me.


I do have "the innate desire" to puts things into perspective that Schumacheristas have been making up for years and that are simply exaggerations or even flatly untrue. Reading your wording (you are a journalist, after all) "Schumacher, an absolutely pivotal figure" I must say that very obviously you are a fan - your professional experience surely has shown you that there are relatively few "absolutes" in life, in fact, there is only one, and that is death. Schumacher is absolutely no absolutum! :lol:

You assume I haven't.


If you had the traditional midnight pasta with vino (in vino veritas!) in which an Italian opens his heart, then you will have seen that the Italians admired Schumacher, were grateful to him for bringing so many victories to their marquee, but deep in their hearts they have never seen him as one of their own - Gilles, Jean and Nigel (Il leone) were and are indeed more beloved than Schumacher ever was among the tifosi. Fernando now is. Don't forget that Schumacher also brought a lot of pain and shame to them with his "other side". They are an emotional people, but they can still differentiate between crooked people and sincere people - they have enough examples of the two kinds in their own society and among their politicians.

Again, it could be that in your professional capacity as a journalist and in the visits you spent to Italy that were probably shorter and did not allow you to develop deeper friendships with Italians, you may not have touched base with them in a way someone who has lived with them. If you have, good for you, but then we would not have the whole argument.

I like your posts, Lifew12, except this last crusade of yours which is a bit personal, but no worries, mate. If you don't like my posts, fine, don't read them or simply put me on ignore. Accept the fact that there are no absolutes in life safe death, and let us agree to disagree.

#6292 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:29

I wonder if the Tifosi's attitude towards Schumacher has changed somewhat now he's with Mercedes? IIRC, some even wanted him to stop wearing the red helmet when he started testing with Mercedes because red symbolised Ferrari.....

There is no doubt he was highly respected by them, but not loved in the same way Irvine was (who claims he could live with the #2 status because it still brought him so many priveleges, women, free food and wine etc :rotfl: )

I also remember some Italian politician getting rather upset some years ago that Schumacher was 'conducting' the Italian national anthem whenever he won a Grand Prix. I didn't hear the Tifosi kick up too much of a fuss on that issue however.


Note that I have lived in Italy during 2000 and 2001, definitely the heyday of Michael Schumacher at Ferrari, so my observations stem largely from that period. I am still visiting Italy several times every year and have kept the connection with my friends there.

The disappointments Schumacher brought to the tifosi - Jerez 1997 and the lies thereafter, Austria 2002 and his podium behaviour (team strategy was fine with the Italians, but not the behaviour afterwards, which even disgraced Rubens Barrichello more) as well as Monaco 2006 and the lies thereafter did not sit well with the Italian tifosi. A cheater is only somewhat respected if he does it well and with style.

What you say is true, since Michael has joined the other team, he is less accepted in Italy, no doubt this has been in part instigated by Luca di Montezemolo with his "Michael's twin brother" saga.

#6293 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:49

Reading your wording (you are a journalist, after all) "Schumacher, an absolutely pivotal figure" I must say that very obviously you are a fan


I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact, and one that can be recognised even by the likes of me who remain disgusted by some of Michael's on track antics. Don't make the oft repeated mistake of assuming that someone who dares to give someone credit is a support of that person - it's simply a case of having a balanced view.

....you may not have touched base with them in a way someone who has lived with them.


Very possibly.

I like your posts, Lifew12, except this last crusade of yours which is a bit personal, but no worries, mate. If you don't like my posts, fine, don't read them or simply put me on ignore. Accept the fact that there are no absolutes in life safe death, and let us agree to disagree.


The thing is, often I do like your posts, and while not intending this latest discussion to be in any way personal I have to admit it has looked that way; what does grate on me in a major way is that you are permanently set on attempting to discredit Michael Schumacher in avery possible way; it's as if the man has done you some personal harm in the past, and that you now have a duty to put him down, to exact revenge. Some - many - of your posts are so determined to put across the darker picture that it's a bit like listening to the same record, over and over again, and nort a very good one at that. It shows up when you respond to someone - in this case myself - that Michael Schumacher was one of the biggest parts of the resurgence of Ferrari in the mid 90's; the thing is, he was, and there's no getting away from that. Why you can't just say 'yes, he was, but I still think he's a wanker' is beyond me.

#6294 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 10:28

I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact, and one that can be recognised even by the likes of me who remain disgusted by some of Michael's on track antics. Don't make the oft repeated mistake of assuming that someone who dares to give someone credit is a support of that person - it's simply a case of having a balanced view.



Very possibly.



The thing is, often I do like your posts, and while not intending this latest discussion to be in any way personal I have to admit it has looked that way; what does grate on me in a major way is that you are permanently set on attempting to discredit Michael Schumacher in avery possible way; it's as if the man has done you some personal harm in the past, and that you now have a duty to put him down, to exact revenge. Some - many - of your posts are so determined to put across the darker picture that it's a bit like listening to the same record, over and over again, and nort a very good one at that. It shows up when you respond to someone - in this case myself - that Michael Schumacher was one of the biggest parts of the resurgence of Ferrari in the mid 90's; the thing is, he was, and there's no getting away from that. Why you can't just say 'yes, he was, but I still think he's a wanker' is beyond me.


So again, what it boils down to is that you can't handle aditya having a different opinion to your own and for having the audacity of posting them on here. Your recent posts that I have noticed appear to be pretty humourless and aggressive and unable to see irony if it shakes you by the hand in approach which is just the opposite of aditya. I would say lighten up ;-)

Aditya has already stated he doesn't have a personal issue with the man in question and is more interested in the myths that surround the man. I think the smart thing for you to do would be to accept adityas explanation and address the points he makes on the subject (M Schumacher) rather than attempting to be the forum shrink by second guessing adityas motives - that is what gets tiring ;-) And in what way is Aditya putting M Schumacher down exactly? By making comments/ observations you don't like? It seems so. And you do appear to balanced yes, with the chip on each shoulder ;-)



#6295 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 10:39

So again, what it boils down to is that you can't handle aditya having a different opinion to your own and for having the audacity of posting them on here.


No, not at all. I don't see how you can possibly read that into my posts without wanting to do so beforehand. In fact, we hold many of the same views - we both agree that the tifosi worshipped the likes of Villeneuve and Alesi more so than Schumacher, that Michael played a major part in the resurgence of Ferrari, that Italians are a breed apart, and probably much much more - and I have said there was no intent to get personal but accept it looked thatw ay. My question is as to why it is so hard to say 'well, yes, Michael was a major part of the Ferrari resurgence' (somethign that you also have difficulty with) when it is something that is simple to percieve. I couldn't stand Michael Schumacher as a racing driver - a sound bloke, mind - but it's not something I would seek to dilute.

As for how he is putting Michael down - he's like yourself in that respect; anythign that anyone says that is postive, good or even faint praise has to be rounded on. To me, that's curious behavior.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, nor on both of them; I have a curious interest in the behaviour of people on bulletin boards, that's all.




#6296 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:08

No, not at all. I don't see how you can possibly read that into my posts without wanting to do so beforehand. In fact, we hold many of the same views - we both agree that the tifosi worshipped the likes of Villeneuve and Alesi more so than Schumacher, that Michael played a major part in the resurgence of Ferrari, that Italians are a breed apart, and probably much much more - and I have said there was no intent to get personal but accept it looked thatw ay. My question is as to why it is so hard to say 'well, yes, Michael was a major part of the Ferrari resurgence' (somethign that you also have difficulty with) when it is something that is simple to percieve. I couldn't stand Michael Schumacher as a racing driver - a sound bloke, mind - but it's not something I would seek to dilute.

As for how he is putting Michael down - he's like yourself in that respect; anythign that anyone says that is postive, good or even faint praise has to be rounded on. To me, that's curious behavior.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, nor on both of them; I have a curious interest in the behaviour of people on bulletin boards, that's all.


You attempt to qualify yourself over the likes of aditya and myself by repeatedly stating you were or are not a fan on M Schumacher. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion ;-) I couldn't care less if you were a fan of Hakkinen, M Schumacher or Terry Wogan... A tedious post is a tedious post. ;-)

Yes, you and many others believe M Schumacher was "the major" component of the Ferrari success since 1996 - you have made that abundantly clear and I think I have made myself abundantly clear that he was merely an ingredient of a much bigger formula and I've given my historical account for it. So my friend there is little point in continuously asking " I just can't understand why you don't admit the truth" ;-) Accept that life will generate different opinions on the same subject. It's not that difficult really! Try highlighting the points made in the post in question and address them on their own merits or flaws rather than allowing them to contribute to a bigger theory that you are trying to refute. Anyway let's get back on topic ;-)

#6297 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,680 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:16

A tedious post is a tedious post. ;-)

I am glad we all agree on this though

u're one of the main contributors in this area

#6298 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:19

I am glad we all agree on this though

u're one of the main contributors in this area


Glad to be of service. ;-)

#6299 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:28

I've given my historical account for it.


Yeah, but your historical account for it is well managed, isn't it? i mean, you state that 'but for freak events' Ferrari would have won this, that and the other races in 93, without pointing out that it would have been 'freak events' that led to them doing so in the first place. Ferrari weren't a major force in '93 at all, yet you want us all to believe they were. Is that different from me 'wanting you to believe' that Michael was a very major, central part to the Ferrari resurgence? Not really. Likewise your historical perspective on how the fastest Ferrari was five seconds off the pace at Japan 92; it was, but you don't explain to those who might not know that the Williams' pair were a second ahead of the rest, and that Senna - next - was a couple of seconds up on the next man, his team mate; so that takes account of three of those seconds. Puts a slightly different light on events, doesn't it? Well, I think so. You should also clarify that 92/93 comparison by pointing out the car wasn't that great in 93 either. It was frequently more than a couple fo seconds off the ultimate pace. In anyone's view, sensioble view that is, it took until 96 for Ferrari to begin making some ground (and no, I'm not one who spouts how Schumacher had to drive a pile of shite that year) and the fruits of the 'dream team' only began to show results after that.

Advertisement

#6300 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:28

Gods its like a rerun of the wizard of oz in here.. everywhere I look there's a strawman or someone with no brain.

Sorry couldnt resist, Im sure you are all very bright but the strawman part is true. When did ANYONE claim Ferrari were nothing and that Rory Byrne, Ross Brawn and Jean Todt (And please lets not forget Martinelli!') had nothing to do with their success?? I mean they were referred to as the Dream Team for a reason people.. but sensible people acknowledged Michael's vital role in providing the sharp end of the weapon. Maybe we could do with a few more sensible people here..


Yeah,I'm puzzled,too. I'm not sure where/how this age-old rehash began.


I guess people just need to talk. :well: