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.
I say that is surely a contributor to his problems, yes. I didn't say it was the 'only' reason at all. You're fond of adding bits to my comments, I must say.
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.
That's right, I do. because Michael was the better driver.
You seem to refute all other possibilities for 1.,
No I don't.
including (but not restricted to) how the 3 year gap might have affected him,
Again, not at all; I clearly stated that at the beginning of the year that was a valid argument, but now it's not.
and more importantly, how fast Rosberg may be after all.
I haven't even refuted the fact Rosberg is faster than him. My interest is in why, as I didn't expect that to be the case.
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.
It was, in the days of Johnny Herbert and Rubens Barrichello who we were talking about; it's not now, as we see it every weekend.
Hmm, quite the confused F1 fan arent ya ?
Often! Anyone who thinks that things in this sport are black and white is surely very new to it or extremely hopeful; I've watched it for 40 years and seen much that confused me, and the 2010 performance of Michael Schumacher is among those confusing elements.
Your constant efforts to disable my discussion (it's not an argument from my side, after all) are hardly conducive to an interesting conversation, and neither are they doing anything other than confusing the issue; I make quite clear points that i'm of the opinion Michael misses teh comfort and all round security of the Ferrari days, something that I don't think is particularly difficult to understand, and yet within my posts you variously accuse me of 'alleging mistreatment' of Johnny Herbert, claiming that an 'inferior driver can beat a superior one consistently', dismissing possibilities tht I haven't even mentioned, coming to conclusions about Schumacher on the basis of what I believe about Herbert, and if I could bother to remember them some more pure inventions that have no basis in anythign I've said.
Why not concentrate on what I actually write, rather than what you think I'm writing?
I suspect that while to me Michael's performance this year is an interesting facet of the whole, to you it's something that desperately needs to be explained in order to keep the great mans name out of the mud.