Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#4401 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 August 2010 - 19:04

At the end of the day everyone on here continues to be armchair experts and assume Schumacher is done. Im not going to come out with any wild suggestions and say he'll come back next year and dominate. But tbh its ridiculous that people can diminish his past achievements based on this season. Never count him out.

The top guys inside MGP know the specifics that we dont, im sure Ross Brawn and MS are aware of what needs to be done. Brawn will know by now if Schumacher is done as a top level driver and if that is the case then an announcement will be made at the end of the season to end this. There are three races this season where MS will have had to ask himself some serious questions come the morning these were China, Valencia and now Hungary. Questions: Do i need this? and Can i fix this?

The tyre excuse which has been given is hard to acknowledge because of the performance of rookies such as Hulkenburg and Kobayashi in recent races, both dont have past season experience of tires. There is a bigger problem affecting MS this year, i have no idea what that problem is but Brawn and Schumacher will know that the tyres is covering their bases for now. The great man will be here in 2011 simply due to the fact that this year hasnt gone according to plan. BIG QUESTION is can a consistent gap of over .5tenths be eradicated during the close season??

Good points. I don't think anyone really counts MS out though. I think most people realyze MS is still better than most today, with the exception of the superstars. So, he's still worth the paycheck. The thing is, he's not the MS of old. A lot of his fans had been screaming he'd blitz the field, and what's happened is well, not so bad really, just probably not as good as they had hoped. It's been prety bad the past few races, but, overall I think he's done ok, pretty much where I thought he'd be before the season started. So, the perception that it's a failed comeback I think resides in the high unreallistic expectations of his rabid fans.

Advertisement

#4402 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 09 August 2010 - 22:40

remarkably fair minded post

I suspec that eve amongst the most rabid there was a element of concern though as to how it would all go and no doubt the excitement of seeing him back and I mean that in all the sense - it was exciting - somewhere reality got a little lost in some quarters

oh well

#4403 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 09 August 2010 - 22:49

so if I understand you correctly man you are asserting that given equal treatment herbert, brundle, barrichello, irvine and massa were in fact schumachers equal

that it was only preferential treatment that stopped herbert from getting even close to michael.

I just want to see you write a confirmation so I can have a good laugh but by all means make your case

#4404 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 August 2010 - 23:15

Boing - you make excellent points about how having a chassis suited to your driving is used as an explanation for lack of results in the case of MS in 2010 yet the same reason is somehow shovelled under the carpet when his fans eulogise how he dominated drivers like Irvine and Barra who never got close to equal treatment and certainly the car development went in the other direction.

I would agree to a certain extent that current regulations and car spec plus the Mercedes F1 car don't allow Michael to show his potential but it is extraordinary the degree to which he has struggled in this area. Rosberg on the other hand in a new team and in a new "supertanker" era has adapted just fine and other than Valencia has proven to be at least a match for his more illustrious teammate. Maybe it would be fair to say that SOME of MS fans are just plain blind to reason when they talk of turnarounds in fortune while at the same time devaluing the performances of the younger driver. How is it possible to have it both ways?

#4405 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,227 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 10 August 2010 - 01:45

so if I understand you correctly man you are asserting that given equal treatment herbert, brundle, barrichello, irvine and massa were in fact schumachers equal

that it was only preferential treatment that stopped herbert from getting even close to michael.

I just want to see you write a confirmation so I can have a good laugh but by all means make your case



I think what he is and other have asserted was that given equal treatment they MAY have been able to match MS....but never had the opportunity....other than Brundle. I think Brundle pretty much had a fair shake and out scored MS in the last half of 1992, was faster in several of the races including Canada where without a car failure, Brundle was in good shape to win. Irvine I doubt was better but he was not as far behind as he was made too look. Reubens probably had the best shot but to be fair, I blame him for rolling over and taking like a drunk frat girl as he was promised he would never have to give up a win and should have reacted like Webber did this year. After that he took on the humble servant role.

Herbert is a different puzzle. He was dynamite before his big accident, was often as fast as Mika when together at Lotus so hard to believe he was that far behind especially when Herbert was faster in the first test together.

I think the big thing is that it is hard to know given that there seemed to be little effort to engineer the car so someone other than MS was comfortable in it. That can be worth alot. Easily a second a lap depending.

Put it this way, there have been alot of match ups that on paper where the underdog driver in a team ended up winning or being very competitive.....Mansell against Rosberg, Mansell against Piquet, Senna against Prost (remember that Prost was a 2x WDC and holder of the most wins at beginning of 1988), Vettel against Webber this year, Lewis against Alonso....all situatuations that on paper, you would have predicted a different outcome and in some cases a whitewash. You have an underdog who gets a little confidence and then they take off. Actually, Irvine is a bit of an example of that. Most forget, he was actually leading MS in points for much of the year before MS was hurt at Silverstone. He seemingly had decided he wanted to take the fight to MS...He was fighting MS for position when MS went off and broke his leg. ....he was also let go (or wanted out) at the end of the year.

#4406 ZZMS

ZZMS
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 10 August 2010 - 03:28

Actually, Irvine is a bit of an example of that. Most forget, he was actually leading MS in points for much of the year before MS was hurt at Silverstone. He seemingly had decided he wanted to take the fight to MS...He was fighting MS for position when MS went off and broke his leg. ....he was also let go (or wanted out) at the end of the year.


Revisionism at its best....

EI was leading MS for the whole first ... TWO races, after that MS always had more points than EI :

race EI MS ADV
AUS 10 0 ei
BRA 12 6 ei
SMR 12 16 ms
MON 18 26 ms
ESP 21 30 ms
CAN 25 30 ms
FRA 26 32 ms

... Much of the year? Yeah, right....

The rest of your post is almost as "creative" as quoted masterpiece.

Edited by ZZMS, 10 August 2010 - 03:34.


#4407 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,227 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 10 August 2010 - 04:22

Revisionism at its best....

EI was leading MS for the whole first ... TWO races, after that MS always had more points than EI :


race EI MS ADV
AUS 10 0 ei
BRA 12 6 ei
SMR 12 16 ms
MON 18 26 ms
ESP 21 30 ms
CAN 25 30 ms
FRA 26 32 ms

... Much of the year? Yeah, right....

The rest of your post is almost as "creative" as quoted masterpiece.


Hmmm I remembered wrong I guess about the points as I am not sure that Irvine ever had more points before...still much closer than Irvine had been and he was ahead in France until ordered to let MS by (a point that would have been helpful latter) and was ahead afte the start in Silverstone.....MS locked the brakes (failure at the same time said the team) as Irvine said at the time he was going to make him work for it...

On another note, has it really been 11 yrs? crap.

Edited by jimm, 10 August 2010 - 04:23.


#4408 tormave

tormave
  • Member

  • 963 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 10 August 2010 - 04:36

Surley the point that has been proved once and for all here is that if a car does not suit a driver and he doesn't feel comfortable, if he doesn't have a chance of success then no matter how talented he is he will not give 100%

There is nothing more frustrating to an F1 technical team than a driver not giving 100%. If that's the case they can never know how good the car is. F1 drivers are there for their ability to squeeze all the performance out of the package. People no longer willing or able to do just that are called ex-F1 drivers.

#4409 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:01

its interesting that the likes of muz bee actually subtly stop short of asserting that the likes of reubens and herbert were his equal

they love to exclaim preferential treatment forgetting that they pulled over for schumacher about 3 times in the 10 yrs or so he was with ferrari.

there's also another big step to claim they were his equal though

I cant think of a single race where irvine was quicker than michael, reubens maybe 3 - 4, herbert never, brundle more even and massa none. but that was all favouratism right? senna was all talent but schumacher only by favouratism

talk about revisionist

#4410 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:03

I would agree to a certain extent that current regulations and car spec plus the Mercedes F1 car don't allow Michael to show his potential but it is extraordinary the degree to which he has struggled in this area. Rosberg on the other hand in a new team and in a new "supertanker" era has adapted just fine and other than Valencia has proven to be at least a match for his more illustrious teammate.

Muz Bee you are repeating yourself time and time again. Why you always in your comparison between Rosberg and Schumacher leave out the retirement period, the dude did not drive for three years? In this time the cars and rules did not changed and yes Rosberg is rookie. :rotfl:
This is the same as if some fanatic fans of Schumacher would say it would be more logical to compare Schumacher results with other real rookies this year in comparison to their teammates then you will see that he is the best rookie in the field. :rotfl:
You should ask yourself prior to your assumption were would Schumacher be if he would not retire? Probably he would be better than he is now. So you basically know how long it will take for Schumacher to figure out the tires and this new cars? :rotfl:
Could you tell me is there a difference between you who are probably Rosberg fan and some fanatic fans of Schumacher? :confused:

Edited by slaveceru, 10 August 2010 - 06:05.


#4411 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:11

and remind me of why brawn could be arsed going to ferrari given how he would know better than anyone that michaels only advantage was due to the team and not natural ability and incredible work ethic. add byrne

clearly ignorant of how it was theirs and theirs alone that got michaels victories. funny then that brawn would be interested in signing a now retired michael again. clearly very stupid

presumably no more stupid than reubens who must have guessed that he could take michael in equal machinery only to be blown away. why else go to ferrari?

it shouldnt bother me but the lack of respect does. I dont have to like a driver to respect their achievements and speed such as jackie stewart. I shouldnt bite but I hate the implied slur that because the team was clearly focused around schumacher that that somehowis a slur on his ability when the contrary is true. it underlines his ability

there isnt a driver alive who doesnt like to have the team built around them as numerous champions have left if they couldnt enjoy that situation, - schecter, fittipaldi etc etc.

#4412 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:49

If you read Brundle's own writing on Schumacher as a team mate it is clear Brundle regarded the earlier Schumacher as a phenomenal talent, but one who almost as a reflex action would not hesitate to put his team mate off for little or no trackadvantage.

Like all other British drivers of the period Brundle because of lack of major sponsorship money didn't get a fair crack of the whip (no pun intended) and we will never know how great he might have been but he himself admits the Schumacher of that era was a phenomena.

As for Rubens apart from the occaisions he was faster than Schmacher in a Ferrari we know he was at least as good as DC in lesser formula and though DC was handicapped by his lack of qualifying pace and McLaren internal politics he was more than capable of taking on Schmacher wheel to wheel and bettering him.



#4413 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 10 August 2010 - 07:23

what like france what 2000 or whenever

I'd agree about brundle possibly not getting the break to display his talents but schumcaher did get his break and more than returned on the opportunity

sadly for herbert he got blown away and eddie admitted he struggled to stay with michael. reubens was quicker on a few occassion sush as austria and his great maiden win. but equally michael was usually quicker and always quicker than massa

just as rosberg has been a little bit quicker than schumacher this yr

I think it is an indication of the sad reality that michael is not as quick as he once was that he has struggled to drive around the problem but even more so that when it rains he has if anything struggled even more at a time when the handling characteristics should count for less.

it as lauda intimated - as you age it does take more and more effort to compete at the same level - we were seeing tha ttowards the end of michaels career IMHO with races like China 2005 where he no longer had the ability/determination to overcome a defficiency in his package

#4414 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 10 August 2010 - 13:36

its interesting that the likes of muz bee actually subtly stop short of asserting that the likes of reubens and herbert were his equal

they love to exclaim preferential treatment forgetting that they pulled over for schumacher about 3 times in the 10 yrs or so he was with ferrari.

there's also another big step to claim they were his equal though

I cant think of a single race where irvine was quicker than michael, reubens maybe 3 - 4, herbert never, brundle more even and massa none. but that was all favouratism right? senna was all talent but schumacher only by favouratism

talk about revisionist


Shame you are not willing to accept the facts being kindly provided to you instead of perceiving any non-fanatical analysis of M Schumacher as a threat to your personal well-being.

M Schumacher received preferential treatment beyond teamorders on track. When the likes of Herbert had to accept M Schumacher's wish of one-way sharing of telemetery, it prevented M Schumacher's teammates from competing with him equally even before the engines were started at race weekends. The fact is, we will never know what the likes of Herbert could have done on equal terms with your man. This clear lack of respect for the "second" driver has a snowball effect that makes the said number 2 appear to be far worse than he actually is while also artifically boosting M Schumacher's performance against his teammate. Herbert was banned from accessing M Schumacher's telemetary which meant he had only half of the info available to the Benetton team which would subsequently screw up his confidence which entailed poorer results. Poor results meant even more focus on M Schumacher from the team. It really isn't a very complext scenario to understand. It was a vicious cycle which Herbert had no control over. In addition to that, M Schumacher's direct rivals were usually in a very different team environment. Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen,etc did not have the benefit of having an entire team moulded around them at the expense of the other team driver. This reality which you find difficult or unwilling to accept consequently gave an extremely distorted portrayal of M Schumacher. When he hasn't had a a team completely moulded around him he was paired alongside Frentzen at Merc in Sportscars, Brundle at Benetton and once again at Merc in the shape of Rosberg.



#4415 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 August 2010 - 14:13

he was paired alongside Frentzen at Merc in Sportscars


He had Frentzen as his teammate also in German F3.

#4416 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 August 2010 - 14:27

Shame you are not willing to accept the facts being kindly provided to you instead of perceiving any non-fanatical analysis of M Schumacher as a threat to your personal well-being.

M Schumacher received preferential treatment beyond teamorders on track. When the likes of Herbert had to accept M Schumacher's wish of one-way sharing of telemetery, it prevented M Schumacher's teammates from competing with him equally even before the engines were started at race weekends. The fact is, we will never know what the likes of Herbert could have done on equal terms with your man. This clear lack of respect for the "second" driver has a snowball effect that makes the said number 2 appear to be far worse than he actually is while also artifically boosting M Schumacher's performance against his teammate. Herbert was banned from accessing M Schumacher's telemetary which meant he had only half of the info available to the Benetton team which would subsequently screw up his confidence which entailed poorer results. Poor results meant even more focus on M Schumacher from the team. It really isn't a very complext scenario to understand. It was a vicious cycle which Herbert had no control over. In addition to that, M Schumacher's direct rivals were usually in a very different team environment. Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen,etc did not have the benefit of having an entire team moulded around them at the expense of the other team driver. This reality which you find difficult or unwilling to accept consequently gave an extremely distorted portrayal of M Schumacher. When he hasn't had a a team completely moulded around him he was paired alongside Frentzen at Merc in Sportscars, Brundle at Benetton and once again at Merc in the shape of Rosberg.


Excellent post - does nothing but confirm that MS was the prefered driver to concentrate all the teams efforts to.

Herbert and MS showed up at tests, Herbet was slower and often departed early while MS would pound and pound the track and offer information, make changes and go back out and pound around a lot more while Herbet would sit at home crying 'why are they paying more attention to MS"? :rolleyes:

You think these teams were stupid? They put everything behind MS and look at the results - don't for a moment even try top say that doing it differently would have been better. 2 WDC's for Beneton and 5 WDC's for Ferrari because they put their efforts behind one driver, something had McLaren and Williams done they would have more to show (and MS less), well cry me a river :lol:


#4417 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,073 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 10 August 2010 - 14:40

MS locked the brakes (failure at the same time said the team)


...while your opinion being that.. what did actually happen?

EDIT: perhaps best to answer after looking at this http://www.youtube.c...feature=related up to the end

Edited by valachus, 10 August 2010 - 14:43.


#4418 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 10 August 2010 - 14:55

Excellent post - does nothing but confirm that MS was the prefered driver


Indeed. Who needs logic and reason when you can have a nice healthy dose of fanatcial delusion. ;-)

Before Herbert had a chance to take his hat off, Mr sportsmanship M Schumacher insisted upon one-way sharing of telemetery. Why do you think he did that?

Mercedes are doing it differently now and your man has been out-qualified 9 or times or whatever the number is plus outscored by double the points tally...and he is doing it without the added style of kamikaze tactics. :cry:

So on equal terms, we know Rosberg is better than M Schumacher. M Schumacher was better than he previous teammates with the aid of massive preferential treatment...one can only wonder what a man of Rosberg's calibre would have done with the opportunities given to M Schumacher...8? 9? 10 WDC? ;-)

#4419 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 August 2010 - 15:11

Indeed. Who needs logic and reason when you can have a nice healthy dose of fanatcial delusion. ;-)

Before Herbert had a chance to take his hat off, Mr sportsmanship M Schumacher insisted upon one-way sharing of telemetery. Why do you think he did that?

Mercedes are doing it differently now and your man has been out-qualified 9 or times or whatever the number is plus outscored by double the points tally...and he is doing it without the added style of kamikaze tactics. :cry:

So on equal terms, we know Rosberg is better than M Schumacher. M Schumacher was better than he previous teammates with the aid of massive preferential treatment...one can only wonder what a man of Rosberg's calibre would have done with the opportunities given to M Schumacher...8? 9? 10 WDC? ;-)


You seem to miss that the "fanatical delusion" is on both sides of the fence - why do you and others spend so much time here hating away? The Guy is a success story, the most successful grand prix driver ever and second place isn't even close - doesn't matter what you write you can't change that fact.

Oh maybe he did it to beat his team mate Captain Obvious. Mr Sportmanship? Who gives a shit, nice guys come second, live with it as they have to :lol:

Not my man, thats a misunderstanding here. I just defend the incredible crap that gets thrown at him by people who forget what he did to get the bulk of his results, I have admiration for winners and no time for weakies - so sue me.

Rosberg is better than MS this year, simple - the rest of your sentence is dillusional beyond reality - and that reality is that MS has already bagged 7/91/154 and Rosberg is 0/0/5. Wiki or the entire internet can confirm that if you have doubts.


Advertisement

#4420 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 10 August 2010 - 15:43

You seem to miss that the "fanatical delusion" is on both sides of the fence - why do you and others spend so much time here hating away? The Guy is a success story, the most successful grand prix driver ever and second place isn't even close - doesn't matter what you write you can't change that fact.

Typical response of a fanatic...no substance, merely passion. A girl isnt a lesbian if she doesnt like you you know ;-)


Oh maybe he did it to beat his team mate Captain Obvious. Mr Sportmanship? Who gives a shit, nice guys come second, live with it as they have to :lol:

M Schumacher is not a nice guy by anybody's standards and if he isn't second to Rosberg, I would like to know your definition of the word.

Not my man, thats a misunderstanding here. I just defend the incredible crap that gets thrown at him by people who forget what he did to get the bulk of his results, I have admiration for winners and no time for weakies - so sue me.

So why are you defending a man who is being thrashed race after race, out-qualified, out-raced, out-thought by a journeyman? Doesn't that categorise as a weaky?


Rosberg is better than MS this year, simple - the rest of your sentence is dillusional beyond reality - and that reality is that MS has already bagged 7/91/154 and Rosberg is 0/0/5. Wiki or the entire internet can confirm that if you have doubts.

Again, if I can just pull you back to earth again, you are aware that Rosberg can only beat what is presented to him. M Schumacher has been presented to him, and Rosberg has given him a spanking fair and square, race after race in the same team with the same opportunities. Or do you really believe it makes sense to ask the question why Rosberg didn't pip M Schumacher for the 1994 title? ;-) The guy can only do the task that is presented to him. He has been presented with M Schumacher, and he has served his arse time and again.



#4421 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:01

well I may come across at fanatic Schumacher fan to some - well be it I don´care.
I´m not, but have respect for the man, more so this year then I had during his heyday´s, for his courage
to come back, and compare himself again against the "new" generation, where he could have had a easy life back home.

But what really interests me, is the telemetry argument and Herbert.
I´m not sure if this is true or not (it´s a bit hard to believe for me), but let´s say yes it is true.
Why would Herbert have needed M.S. telemetry when he was the faster driver?
Do you not normally use the telemetry to find out where you are "losing" time compare to your team mate?
I don´t know, but it seems odd to me that a faster driver is so bothered with the data of the slower driver.
What would he be able to get out of it then?

Edited by TC3000, 10 August 2010 - 16:04.


#4422 flyer121

flyer121
  • Member

  • 4,570 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:09

You seem to miss that the "fanatical delusion" is on both sides of the fence - why do you and others spend so much time here hating away? The Guy is a success story, the most successful grand prix driver ever and second place isn't even close - doesn't matter what you write you can't change that fact.

Oh maybe he did it to beat his team mate Captain Obvious. Mr Sportmanship? Who gives a shit, nice guys come second, live with it as they have to :lol:

Not my man, thats a misunderstanding here. I just defend the incredible crap that gets thrown at him by people who forget what he did to get the bulk of his results, I have admiration for winners and no time for weakies - so sue me.

Rosberg is better than MS this year, simple - the rest of your sentence is dillusional beyond reality - and that reality is that MS has already bagged 7/91/154 and Rosberg is 0/0/5. Wiki or the entire internet can confirm that if you have doubts.


Fans delude ... its in their genetic map. So I wouldnt sweat it/

But people sitting on the fence question as to what is the real reason suddenly a 7 time champ is getting thrashed by a guy not even considered in top 5.
That is the discussion we must be having. You should at least agree that something was different than just MS being younger and in practice form. Or do you not?

The strong possibility is that Ferrari happened to come up with a great car (no doubt helped by MS himself) and MS cemented his place in the team such that no other driver could displace him. I don't even want to compare his 2 bit team mates - maybe we were having a severe talent shortage back then! But that still doesnt put in perspective the legendary status of Schumi as the best ever. I mean - I would pick a 3 time WDC in a real 4-5 way fight than a 7 WDC in a not even a proper 2 way fight.

Now, If he continues to get humiliated by his teammate - he will invite criticism and also throw his legendary status in doubt. And the same thing applies - you can write all you want but you cant change the fact that 2010 has devalued all his past achievements in 4 swift months.

From now on - its only damage limitation for MS and lucky for him Brawn is keeping him for 2011.
If he is REALLY a 24 carat champ as you & lots of others beleive- then he should be able to still salvage it.
If not then he will go down in history as an aberration who won 7 WDCs without being that much better.




#4423 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:11

Shame you are not willing to accept the facts being kindly provided to you instead of perceiving any non-fanatical analysis of M Schumacher as a threat to your personal well-being.

I think you are under the (very wrong) impression that your own analysis is in some way "non fanatical". Please have a look at your own posts, Jeez !

#4424 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:23

But what really interests me, is the telemetry argument and Herbert.
I´m not sure if this is true or not (it´s a bit hard to believe for me), but let´s say yes it is true.


Oh, it's true, no doubt about it.

Of course Michael was the 'preferred' driver at Benneton and Ferrari, and credit where he's due for he made it happen that way. I wouldn't for one moment suggest that Herbert was a better driver than Michael, but he was certainly a lot better than he was allowed to show alongside Michael, and I think that's the crux of the discussion here.

Take away that 'preferred' driver scenario, and all that went with, and what happens? He's another cog in the wheel, and one that - for whatever reason - is being outdone by his team mate. Nobody can take his successes away from him - he's keeping them for evermore and so he should - but there is a modicum of lacking a security blanket in his performances this year, surely. It's a better 'excuse' after all than that he doesn't like the tyres, is 42, and has been away for three years ignoring the half a season and more he's been back.

#4425 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:42

Oh, it's true, no doubt about it.

Of course Michael was the 'preferred' driver at Benneton and Ferrari, and credit where he's due for he made it happen that way. I wouldn't for one moment suggest that Herbert was a better driver than Michael, but he was certainly a lot better than he was allowed to show alongside Michael, and I think that's the crux of the discussion here.

Allright so you admit Herbert wasnt a patch on Schumacher and in your opinion things would have been different if he wasnt given so much alleged preference in the team.

You have already said Schumacher is the better driver, so you yourself rule out that Herbert could have beaten Schu in the same equipment even under equal conditions.

Exactly what would have been different ? Can you please elaborate ?


#4426 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,803 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:51

Posts deleted.

Please avoid discussing each other. Also a reminder that labelling someone as 'fanboy' or 'hater' won't make their arguments go away. Please either put posters who irritate you on your ignore list (accessible through 'My Controls' at the top of the page) or discuss the issues rather than the person.

#4427 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:02

so you yourself rule out that Herbert could have beaten Schu in the same equipment even under equal conditions.


Where? Where do I rule that out by saying Schumacher was the better driver? I think he ws a better driver than barrichello (note the 'was') but there were occasions where Barrichello could beat him, and did, in the same equipment under equal conditions.

I'm saying that, without the lack of information from the Schumacher side of the garage and the obvious pandering to Michael - nothing wrong with that - Herbert may well have been able to stack up better against him. Don't worry, I'm not unveiliong any secrets that expose Schumacher as a Herbert hating reptillian, just putting a point across in a discussion.


#4428 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:08

Thanks for the reply in regards to the telemetry.
It´s still odd to me how this could have harmed Herbert, if he is/was the quicker driver at the time.

I have no doubt, that M.S. had, what some call, "preferential" treatment at his teams, but what does that say?
It happens all the time in racing (and I know, because I work in the industry 20+ years), it´s far from a rare thing.
You can have the same (IMHO senseless) discussions in regards to other multiple champions like Rossi in MotoGP or Mäkkinen/Loeb in WRC
It´s an chicken and egg discussion, got the treatment because is a good driver, is a good driver because got the treatment - what´s the point.
Some teams put their faith into one driver at the time, and then some drivers deliver the goods and others don´t.
In overall terms/results Ferrari/Schumacher or Benneton/Schumacher got what they where after, winning WDC/WCC so the results prove that they went
about their business in a sensible way.
If this is fair or the most sportsmanlike way to do it, is a different matter IMHO, and open to a different kind of discussion.
There are different ways to skin a cat.

I´m also struggeling to see, why one would need to find "excuses" for M.S. and his performance this year. It is what it is, not more not less.
At the moment N.R. getting better results out of the situation, no doubt about it, but what does it say? Why does it makes M.S. a lesser man?
One day every champion in any sport will be surpased by the next (likely younger) one.
Time and tide waits for no one. It´s just the flow of things. But what does it "prove" in relation to the past?
Nothing IMHO.

On the same token I´m amused when (some) people come up with their assessments in regards to other drivers.
Things like N.R. is not a top driver ... , a bit of a journey man..... etc. How do they know?

I spend a fair bit of time while working in Supetouring car racing to try to come up with some metrics to gauge/jugde driver performance.
It´s not easy, espacially in a championship with different cars/manufacturers, concepts FWD/AWD/RWD and three different tire companies.
Overall results tell you very little, as this is a very complex sport and you can´t really seperate car/tire from driver performance as far as overall results go.
You need a lot of good data, and the results will surprise you more often then not.
The guy who won on the day by a countrymile, could still just do a average job in regards to the potential performance of car/tire etc.
But who will ever care, he won the race/championship.
You will only care/find out, if you are trying to sign a "good driver" for your own team.
It´s not easy to make an correct/neutral assessment.
So, that some people come forward with so sure footed comments, that driver A is so much better then driver B surprises me without end.
For all what we know today N.R. could be a 10x WDC in the future, as could L.H. or Alonso or who ever.

I´m all for supporting your favorite driver, it´s your good right and a good thing IMO, but please let´s keep things into perspective.
That one driver is good, does not automaticly mean another one is crap and vis versa
At the moment, I don´t think, that there is any really "bad" driver in F1.
Some are better then others, and some are luckier/smarter or more fortunated then others by beeing at the right time in the right car.
But this is part of F1/motorsport - it´s not just about the driving, it´s about so much more, and you need to get a lot of ducks in a row to become a WDC/WCC.
And to do this multiple times is a great achievement (in any sport), driving fast/good is just one part of it.
Why I can see what it means for people to have an idol/hero and to cheer for him, it will remain one of the mystheries of life to me, what pleasure/satisfaction
people derivate from talking others down, casting doubts over their achievements.

What happend to the good old mantra: " If you have nothing good to say about someone, don´t say anything at all"
But maybe this is just me being sentimental/old fashioned - fair enough, don´t worry about it either.

Have a nice day

Edited by TC3000, 10 August 2010 - 17:25.


#4429 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:11

I think Michael is not getting Nico telemetry now and this is why Nico is better than him. Nico say from the start of the season that he will not share data. Because he need everything he knows to beat Michael.

#4430 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:18

I think Michael is not getting Nico telemetry now and this is why Nico is better than him. Nico say from the start of the season that he will not share data. Because he need everything he knows to beat Michael.


That might be right Ivan! Michael needs Nico's telemetry to be as quick as him, but he isn't getting it!


#4431 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:23

While there is little argument that Rosberg is the superior driver at Mercedes, lets put his teammate, M Schumacher's career into perspective with some crucial factors that make an impact on perceived performance. Over to you Johnny Herbert:

On testing:

" I'm a bit bitter towards Flavio because he said there would be a two car test team at Benetton and there never was. It was unfair that he expected me to turn up on Sunday and win a race.

I used to waste days going to tests. At first, Michael did two days and I did two, then it was three and one and sometimes I was down to half a day. I think the longest test I did all year was two days on Silverstone South. Doing a race distance. Great. I felt like Taki Inoue or someone. I think that's how it looked sometimes too, such as Hungary when the gap was two and a half seconds. I mean, that's just bloody ridiculous. In the end, it wore me down. In future, I'll get it on paper."*



*Obviously Herbert is a Brit which automatically means he is anti-German. And yes, Herbert must be a whinger, the same whinger that would have his Lotus fail on him race after race only to walk back to the pits with a smile on his face and always in remmarkably good humour.

Edited by man, 10 August 2010 - 17:25.


#4432 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:24

Where? Where do I rule that out by saying Schumacher was the better driver? I think he ws a better driver than barrichello (note the 'was') but there were occasions where Barrichello could beat him, and did, in the same equipment under equal conditions.

So a better driver can be beaten consistently by an inferior one, even when all things stand equal ? How is the better driver 'better' then ?

I'm saying that, without the lack of information from the Schumacher side of the garage and the obvious pandering to Michael - nothing wrong with that - Herbert may well have been able to stack up better against him. Don't worry, I'm not unveiliong any secrets that expose Schumacher as a Herbert hating reptillian, just putting a point across in a discussion.

Interesting. 'Stack up better', how much better do you think Herbert could have done. Enough to miraculously beat him inspite of him not being as good as Michael ?


#4433 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:28

Thanks for the reply in regards to the telemetry.
It´s still odd to me how this could have harmed Herbert, if he is/was the quicker driver at the time.

I have no doubt, that M.S. had, what some call, "preferential" treatment at his teams, but what does that say?
It happens all the time in racing (and I know, because I work in the industry 20+ years), it´s far from a rare thing.
You can have the same (IMHO senseless) discussions in regards to other multiple champions like Rossi in MotoGP or Mäkkinen/Loeb in WRC
It´s an chicken and egg discussion, got the treatment because is a good driver, is a good driver because got the treatment - what´s the point.
Some teams put their faith into one driver at the time, and then some drivers deliver the goods and others don´t.
In overall terms/results Ferrari/Schumacher or Benneton/Schumacher got what they where after, winning WDC/WCC so the results prove that they went
about their business in a sensible way.
If this is fair or the most sportsmanlike way to do it, is a different matter IMHO, and open to a different kind of discussion.
There are different ways to skin a cat.

I´m also struggeling to see, why one would need to find "excuses" for M.S. and his performance this year. It is what it is, not more not less.
At the moment N.R. getting better results out of the situation, no doubt about it, but what does it say? Why does it makes M.S. a lesser man?
One day every champion in any sport will be surpased by the next (likely younger) one.
Time and tide waits for no one. It´s just the flow of things. But what does it "prove" in relation to the past?
Nothing IMHO.

On the same token I´m amused when (some) people come up with their assessments in regards to other drivers.
Things like N.R. is not a top driver ... , a bit of a journey man..... etc. How do they know?

I spend a fair bit of time while working in Supetouring car racing to try to come up with some metrics to gauge/jugde driver performance.
It´s not easy, espacially in a championship with different cars/manufacturers, concepts FWD/AWD/RWD and three different tire companies.
Overall results tell you very little, as this is a very complex sport and you can´t really seperate car/tire from driver performance as far as overall results go.
You need a lot of good data, and the results will surprise you more often then not.
The guy who won on the day by a countrymile, could still just do a average job in regards to the potential performance of car/tire etc.
But who will ever care, he won the race/championship.
You will only care/find out, if you are trying to sign a "good driver" for your own team.
It´s not easy to make an correct/neutral assessment.
So, that some people come forward with so sure footed comments, that driver A is so much better then driver B surprises me without end.
For all what we know today N.R. could be a 10x WDC in the future, as could L.H. or Alonso or who ever.

I´m all for supporting your favorite driver, it´s your good right and a good thing IMO, but please let´s keep things into perspective.
That one driver is good, does not automaticly mean another one is crap and vis versa
At the moment, I don´t think, that there is any really "bad" driver in F1.
Some are better then others, and some are luckier/smarter or more fortunated then others by beeing at the right time in the right car.
But this is part of F1/motorsport - it´s not just about the driving, it´s about so much more, and you need to get a lot of ducks in a row to become a WDC/WCC.
And to do this multiple times is a great achievement (in any sport), driving fast/good is just one part of it.
Why I can see what it means for people to have an idol/hero and to cheer for him, it will remain one of the mystheries of life to me, what pleasure/satisfaction
people derivate from talking others down, casting doubts over their achievements.

What happend to the good old mantra: " If you have nothing good to say about someone, don´t say anything at all"
But maybe this is just me being sentimental/old fashioned - fair enough, don´t worry about it either.

Have a nice day


Excellent post :up: I too wonder why people are making a concious effort to malign Schumacher in this particular thread, without really giving any rational arguments at all. Does nothing to enhance the quality of discussion, and simply going on and on about how 'he has been exposed' is tedious. I cant see, for the life of me, how anyone can conclude a driver with 91 wins and 7 WDCs is average, no matter how blinded one may be

#4434 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:30

So a better driver can be beaten consistently by an inferior one, even when all things stand equal ? How is the better driver 'better' then ?


Interesting. 'Stack up better', how much better do you think Herbert could have done. Enough to miraculously beat him inspite of him not being as good as Michael ?



Can I ask, without eliciting too long a response, what your problem is? It's as if I've stepped in and called Michael shite or something, which isn't what I'm saying at all.

It doesn't come across well when others put words in my mouth, which has happened here - again - as I didn't say anything about a 'better driver being beaten consistently by an inferior one'; It may be that your first language is not English, but the words 'on occasion' mean just that - on occasion. Every now and then, once in a while, sometimes; not consistently. How much better do I think Herbert could have done? I haven't a clue, but again, the words 'may be' should have given you an idea about that. It follows, to me at least, that their may be a difference in performanc e between a driver with the others telemetry, and one without - surely that's a fair comment?

Not every comment is about wanting to put another down - some, like mine here, are about possibilities and logical conclusions.

#4435 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:34

So a better driver can be beaten consistently by an inferior one, even when all things stand equal ? How is the better driver 'better' then ?


Interesting. 'Stack up better', how much better do you think Herbert could have done. Enough to miraculously beat him inspite of him not being as good as Michael ?


We'll never know how good Herbert would have stacked up against M Schumacher as he was never given the chance. Thats the bloody point! The only thing we do know is he would have done a lot better than he did. In his first race for Benetton at Suzuka in 1994 he was .6 slower than M Schumacher. In Brazil in 1995 he was 0.5 down. Then all the funny telemetery business kicked in. ;-)


#4436 cindy4ever33

cindy4ever33
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:35

I think Michael is not getting Nico telemetry now and this is why Nico is better than him. Nico say from the start of the season that he will not share data. Because he need everything he knows to beat Michael.


And the interesting part of your story if it is true is that Nico can have Michael's data.

It is from the TR in Turkey qualifying.

Rosberg: "Change what?"
Clear: "I'm waiting for the data from Michael." Exchange. Nix secrecy in the team.



#4437 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:35

sorry guys, in todays world this is "unthinkable".
There are 100+ people at all levels looking at telemetry data, real time or later on.
I doubt very much that any team today would do that / allow one driver to do that
and 100% not MGP.

#4438 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:40

While there is little argument that Rosberg is the superior driver at Mercedes, lets put his teammate, M Schumacher's career into perspective with some crucial factors that make an impact on perceived performance. Over to you Johnny Herbert:


I feel that i really should respond to this, as Sparkplug will no doubt expect me to. I'm not sure that Rosberg is the 'superior' driver at mercedes; he's got to go along way, right now, to be ranked above Michael Schumacher on career terms. What he is, at the moment, is the better driver, the one that is handling the car, and the situation, more ably. I have no doubt that, had these two been in the Red Bull this season as team mates, and that it 'suited' Michaels style, he would be thrashing Nico, hands down. And this is why some of the comments made have been taken, by others, like a red rag to a bull - Michael is not in his favoured environment, he does not have that comfort blanket that he had for his entire F1 career; he's just another driver in the team, and he finds it hard to reconcile that. It's not a criticism, although in many ways it could be, but it is a problem.

As for Herbert, granted he didn't get the testing time, etc, but let's be honest, Michael deserves crdit for making it happen for him. Any sensible driver would have done the same thing.

#4439 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:41

sorry guys, in todays world this is "unthinkable".
There are 100+ people at all levels looking at telemetry data, real time or later on.
I doubt very much that any team today would do that / allow one driver to do that
and 100% not MGP.


I think that you missed the irony of my post and, I suspect, ivan's, too. Perhaps a smiley may have helped.


Advertisement

#4440 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:41

Can I ask, without eliciting too long a response, what your problem is? It's as if I've stepped in and called Michael shite or something, which isn't what I'm saying at all.

It doesn't come across well when others put words in my mouth, which has happened here - again - as I didn't say anything about a 'better driver being beaten consistently by an inferior one'; It may be that your first language is not English, but the words 'on occasion' mean just that - on occasion. Every now and then, once in a while, sometimes; not consistently. How much better do I think Herbert could have done? I haven't a clue, but again, the words 'may be' should have given you an idea about that. It follows, to me at least, that their may be a difference in performanc e between a driver with the others telemetry, and one without - surely that's a fair comment?

Not every comment is about wanting to put another down - some, like mine here, are about possibilities and logical conclusions.

I am just simply trying to understand what you think might have happened if Herbert got an equal opportunity (in your eyes) and how that would have changed your perception of Michael Schumacher as a racing driver.

Seems to me like you yourself agree that Herbert could have(or may have) beaten Schumacher 'on occasion' which means that even under equal conditions Schumacher would have comfortably blown Herbert away. So basically, no matter what Schumacher would still be the superior driver (albeit by a minus 'occasionally-beaten-by-Herbert' degree), and would still win probably all the races that he did win (minus the occasional one which Herbert grabbed), and would still be for the most part as successful as Herbert's teammate(again, minus the occasional beating) as he was even with the preferred status in the team.

Which leads me back to the question : If you yourself think it wouldnt make such a world of difference whether there were equal conditions or not, why bring up the alleged mistreatment of Herbert as MS's teammate at all ?  ;)
Perhaps (if your allegation of mistreatment is true), giving preferred status to Schumacher made him faster and better (by Benetton's judgement), which helped Benetton in winning the title more than if both had equal status and Herbert occasionally, once in a while, sometimes beat Schumacher ?

#4441 Stibbich

Stibbich
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:44

Formula One is fast moving, the things can change from race to race, from year to year.

Maybe Brundle was faster at some races in 1992, but is that really important? Even Trulli was faster than Alonso at some races in 2004. What reached Trulli in his career? Schumi II was better than JB in 2000. RS is forgotten and what about JB now? World Champion! Senna only finished one point ahead of Berger in 1992. Well, these are only some examples and we dont´t need to talk about things in the past. But there are some good reasons why AS, MS & FA were getting so successful and others don´t.

The 2010-main problem of MS is the constance. Many Up & Downs, but sometimes he showed, that he could be faster than Rosberg or at the same level. 2011 is another story. New cars & tyres and so on. Things always can change, that´s what i want to say.

Edited by Stibbich, 10 August 2010 - 17:46.


#4442 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:46

I feel that i really should respond to this, as Sparkplug will no doubt expect me to. I'm not sure that Rosberg is the 'superior' driver at mercedes; he's got to go along way, right now, to be ranked above Michael Schumacher on career terms. What he is, at the moment, is the better driver, the one that is handling the car, and the situation, more ably. I have no doubt that, had these two been in the Red Bull this season as team mates, and that it 'suited' Michaels style, he would be thrashing Nico, hands down. And this is why some of the comments made have been taken, by others, like a red rag to a bull - Michael is not in his favoured environment, he does not have that comfort blanket that he had for his entire F1 career; he's just another driver in the team, and he finds it hard to reconcile that. It's not a criticism, although in many ways it could be, but it is a problem.

As for Herbert, granted he didn't get the testing time, etc, but let's be honest, Michael deserves crdit for making it happen for him. Any sensible driver would have done the same thing.

I dont think Michael would have beaten Rosberg even if they were in Red Bull, if you ask me. Rosberg is simply better at this stage of their careers. Period. We all know that both Rosberg and Schumacher have very similar requirements with how they want a car to behave, so looking at the evidence we have this season, I am inclined to believe that Rosberg is faster than Schumacher in 2010. What is the reason behind it we wont know. If Schumacher does get faster than Rosberg in 2011, it would simply mean (atleast to me) that he took an awfully long time to get rid of rust from the 3 year break, thats all. Else, it would just mean that Rosberg is simply faster

#4443 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:48

I am just simply trying to understand what you think might have happened if Herbert got an equal opportunity (in your eyes) and how that would have changed your perception of Michael Schumacher as a racing driver.


I've given you an answer to the first half of this sentence - I do not know, but I suspect he may have been able to get closer to Michael, and on occasion do what Rubens did and beat him - but the second half of your question doesn't have anything to do with the post I was responding to. My perception of Michael Schumacher, as a racing driver, is that he's one of the very best I've seen, full stop. Quite why my perception of Johnny Herbert should have anything to do with that I simply do not know.

I'll skip the rest as it means nothing until.....

Perhaps (if your allegation of mistreatment is true), giving preferred status to Schumacher made him faster and better (by Benetton's judgement), which helped Benetton in winning the title more than if both had equal status and Herbert occasionally, once in a while, sometimes beat Schumacher ?


First, I haven't made 'allegations of mistreatment' anywhere in these posts; if you're referring to the fact that Schumacher got preference, I've even offered the opinion there is nothign whatsoever wrong with that - there isn't.

Of course the situation helped Benneton to titles; who is arguing otherwise?

Again, I really think you need to take a step back and not view everything as a slight against Schumacher. Not everything is.


#4444 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:49

I dont think Michael would have beaten Rosberg even if they were in Red Bull, if you ask me.


Then we have a difference of opinion!


#4445 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 18:00

Oh, it's true, no doubt about it.

Of course Michael was the 'preferred' driver at Benneton and Ferrari, and credit where he's due for he made it happen that way. I wouldn't for one moment suggest that Herbert was a better driver than Michael, but he was certainly a lot better than he was allowed to show alongside Michael, and I think that's the crux of the discussion here.

Take away that 'preferred' driver scenario, and all that went with, and what happens? He's another cog in the wheel, and one that - for whatever reason - is being outdone by his team mate. Nobody can take his successes away from him - he's keeping them for evermore and so he should - but there is a modicum of lacking a security blanket in his performances this year, surely. It's a better 'excuse' after all than that he doesn't like the tyres, is 42, and has been away for three years ignoring the half a season and more he's been back.

Now I am seriously confused about what your stand really is :mad:

#4446 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 August 2010 - 18:07

Now I am seriously confused about what your stand really is :mad:


Why? I think I put it quite clearly! I'm suggesting that what Michael suffers from most is the missing all-cosseting environment he had at, especially, Ferrari and at Benetton. I don't think it;s hard to get, really.

If you look at all the reasons - or excuses, althought I prefer the former - for his less than stunning performances this year some have merits, some don't. I don't buy the tyres bit as he's not some journeyman he's Michael Schumacher, i don't buy the he doesn't like the handling bit for the same reason and thanks to Rosberg's performance, it may have been passable to use 'he's been away for three years' at the start of the season but he hasn't been away for three years any more, and if the problem is that he's 41 then for the life of me I can't see why Mercedes would want him when he's 42. The one thing that stands out, to me, that is different now to how things were 'then', is that he's out of his old, comfortable and committed-to-him environment.

You will probably read that, as yo have many of my recent posts, as saying he shouldn't have had that in the fist place, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Different team, different environment, different treatment - and it's not working for him.


#4447 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2010 - 18:19

On the one hand you say this :

Why? I think I put it quite clearly! I'm suggesting that what Michael suffers from most is the missing all-cosseting environment he had at, especially, Ferrari and at Benetton. I don't think it;s hard to get, really.


Then :

I've given you an answer to the first half of this sentence - I do not know, but I suspect he may have been able to get closer to Michael, and on occasion do what Rubens did and beat him - but the second half of your question doesn't have anything to do with the post I was responding to. My perception of Michael Schumacher, as a racing driver, is that he's one of the very best I've seen, full stop.


So :
1. You say Schumacher is now being beaten regularly because he doesnt have the 'all cosseting' environment he had, and that he is now doing badly only because he does not have the same privileges as those he had before.

2. You say that Barrichello and Herbert would have only been able to 'on occasion' beat Schumacher, if they got an equal opportunity as MS's teammates.

You seem to refute all other possibilities for 1., including (but not restricted to) how the 3 year gap might have affected him, and more importantly, how fast Rosberg may be after all. But on the other hand you are quite convinced yourself that even given equal opportunities its hard for you to imagine MS's teammate beating him.

Hmm, quite the confused F1 fan arent ya ?

#4448 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 August 2010 - 19:21

On the one hand you say this :


Then :


So :
1. You say Schumacher is now being beaten regularly because he doesnt have the 'all cosseting' environment he had, and that he is now doing badly only because he does not have the same privileges as those he had before.

2. You say that Barrichello and Herbert would have only been able to 'on occasion' beat Schumacher, if they got an equal opportunity as MS's teammates.

You seem to refute all other possibilities for 1., including (but not restricted to) how the 3 year gap might have affected him, and more importantly, how fast Rosberg may be after all. But on the other hand you are quite convinced yourself that even given equal opportunities its hard for you to imagine MS's teammate beating him.

Hmm, quite the confused F1 fan arent ya ?

Dude, why do you pick out on everything he says? lol Are you a lawyer or something? His point is fairly simple, and I agree with it.

Point is: The fact that Michael was able to rally teams around him (all credit to him) maximized him as a driver, and possibly, minimized his teammate's abilities to compete on a level playing field. That in no way means his teammates were or could be as good as Schumacher, I doubt anybody reallistically thinks that. But, for sure, had things not been that way, his career in relationship to his teammates would not have been so extremely exagerated.

#4449 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 August 2010 - 22:48

its interesting that the likes of muz bee actually subtly stop short of asserting that the likes of reubens and herbert were his equal

they love to exclaim preferential treatment forgetting that they pulled over for schumacher about 3 times in the 10 yrs or so he was with ferrari.

there's also another big step to claim they were his equal though

I cant think of a single race where irvine was quicker than michael, reubens maybe 3 - 4, herbert never, brundle more even and massa none. but that was all favouratism right? senna was all talent but schumacher only by favouratism

talk about revisionist

Hey - I've never believed that let alone implied it. OK I will come out and give MY OPINION at risk of offending the faithful, it goes like this.

Michael Schumacher is undoubtedly in the top 10, possibly top 5 drivers of all time. For outright pace he would probably be shaded by Senna, Clark, Rindt and others but in the overall package he deserves to be among the greats, even acknowledging his unsporting misdemeanours, some unpunished. His two titles at Benetton were shrouded in controversy but coming in the era of Senna (a driver whose lack of sportsmanship I detested) I wasn't following F1 closely. For this reason I declare I'm hazy on the details of those years. Certainly he seemed to be someone that Ferrari should invest in. The team that assembled at the Scuderia in the late 90s were akin to a rock supergroup. Much of the success of those 5 titles should go to the collective but that's a view of realism rather than Michael-bashing. My Michael-bashing is confined to his total lack of ethics, sadly on display still at the age of 41 at Hockenheim.

That's my opinion and it doesn't extend to team mate nobbling even if there were times where team orders were as transparent when it was still legal as they were transparent (and illegal) recently. There is little doubt that Michael was a quicker driver on most days than Irvine or Rubens and his abilities on certain days appeared to take on 'Superhuman" status, like several drives at Spa I can recall. I actually returned to F1 on TV BECAUSE of the spectacle of Michael wrestling a red pig around, making it faster than it deserved to go. A tremendous spectacle and hats off. What I cannot abide is the errant nonsense of those that put Michael on his own pedestal, with Clark, Senna and co on a different level because Michael won 7 WDCs.

There - a far cry from the assumption about my views which you rush into print with. Incidentally my views are shared by many insider scribes like Roebuck who is one of our most knowledgeable F1 journos. His disdain for cheating is not the only area where I concur. The team thing is almost immeasurable, as much as we love to see flashes of individual, virtuoso brilliance. (Roebuck and I would I'm sure both agree we have seen this virtuosity in Michael on so many occasions.) Michael used to be the racer I liked, now I find it hard to like him because he pulls yet another ghastly move (Senna-esque) out of his 41 year old box of tricks. You are pressing against the tide of public opinion and informed opinion if you say that what Michael has done in F1 sport has been totally glorious. His record will remain both large and tarnished. The latter part has sadly been more of the tarnish than the gold plate.

Edited by Muz Bee, 10 August 2010 - 23:19.


#4450 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 11 August 2010 - 01:00

Hey - I've never believed that let alone implied it. OK I will come out and give MY OPINION at risk of offending the faithful, it goes like this.

Michael Schumacher is undoubtedly in the top 10, possibly top 5 drivers of all time. For outright pace he would probably be shaded by Senna, Clark, Rindt and others but in the overall package he deserves to be among the greats, even acknowledging his unsporting misdemeanours, some unpunished. His two titles at Benetton were shrouded in controversy but coming in the era of Senna (a driver whose lack of sportsmanship I detested) I wasn't following F1 closely. For this reason I declare I'm hazy on the details of those years. Certainly he seemed to be someone that Ferrari should invest in. The team that assembled at the Scuderia in the late 90s were akin to a rock supergroup. Much of the success of those 5 titles should go to the collective but that's a view of realism rather than Michael-bashing. My Michael-bashing is confined to his total lack of ethics, sadly on display still at the age of 41 at Hockenheim.

That's my opinion and it doesn't extend to team mate nobbling even if there were times where team orders were as transparent when it was still legal as they were transparent (and illegal) recently. There is little doubt that Michael was a quicker driver on most days than Irvine or Rubens and his abilities on certain days appeared to take on 'Superhuman" status, like several drives at Spa I can recall. I actually returned to F1 on TV BECAUSE of the spectacle of Michael wrestling a red pig around, making it faster than it deserved to go. A tremendous spectacle and hats off. What I cannot abide is the errant nonsense of those that put Michael on his own pedestal, with Clark, Senna and co on a different level because Michael won 7 WDCs.

There - a far cry from the assumption about my views which you rush into print with. Incidentally my views are shared by many insider scribes like Roebuck who is one of our most knowledgeable F1 journos. His disdain for cheating is not the only area where I concur. The team thing is almost immeasurable, as much as we love to see flashes of individual, virtuoso brilliance. (Roebuck and I would I'm sure both agree we have seen this virtuosity in Michael on so many occasions.) Michael used to be the racer I liked, now I find it hard to like him because he pulls yet another ghastly move (Senna-esque) out of his 41 year old box of tricks. You are pressing against the tide of public opinion and informed opinion if you say that what Michael has done in F1 sport has been totally glorious. His record will remain both large and tarnished. The latter part has sadly been more of the tarnish than the gold plate.


In large I can suscribe to your point of view Muz Bee.
I think is a rather fair and balanced assessment IMHO

As we have seen in the past (e.g. Senna) where there is light, there is shadow as well.
Great success will be always surounded by controversy in one way or the other.
Part of the answer is very human, Envy is very real and a part in most of us.
At the end of the day, they (the drivers) are all humans, for better or worse,
so we have to accept that they do the wrong thing at times - nobody is perfect.

It´s not an excuse, just a observation.
There are no saints out there, and everybody has it´s brilliant and it´s less stellar days.
When the later ones are happing more often, it´s a good time to move on - for all of us IMHO

Edited by TC3000, 11 August 2010 - 14:02.