I think it's shocking, he lost to someone in their first season. Very embarrassing. Something I bet he is still trying to get over - hence his feelings towards Hamilton.
It's something very funny on this board. Despite my average english i try to explain as good as i can some double standards:
This season we have Alonso who is clearly faster than Massa. A lot of people here think that it's definitely too early to draw conclusions who is faster/better driver and it's better to wait for 2010 season for bigger picture. Ok, I understand. This season Massa has problems with tyres (as far as i know only in three or four races, but nevermind). It's too early. Argument? Because it's first season with Alonso and Massa in the same team. Ok.
But we have also 2007 season, one and only with Hamilton and Alonso in the same team. Alonso had this season also problems with tyres (ok, not really the same as Massa this year). Alonso was really good od Michelins and he had to immadiately switch tyres. He said in interview (around March 2007) that tyres were the main difference in 2007. But nevermind. Providing that he hadn't problems with the tyres, it was still one season with them as teammates.
My question is: why people say that Alonso vs Massa 2010 season is not valid and wait for 2011 to get bigger picture and at the same time say that Hamilton is better than Alonso based on one season when Hamilton was second and Alonso third with the same amount of points?
The answer of course will be: "Sorry, man, Hamilton was a rookie, so it's obvious that he would be better/faster on his second season".
Even seems logical, right? But we have some problems with this logic.
Robert Kubica in 2008 was asked by reporter how much he improved as a driver in relation to 2006, his rookie year. He answered that he didn't improve in terms of speed. He said that he is of course more experienced, but his speed is more or less the same. And even said it's difficult to improve speed.
Let's see what happened in BMW since 2006:
2006: Kubica (rookie) vs Heidfeld - evenly matched. Kubica had a third place Monza, Heidfeld no podium. 3-3 in races, 10-6 in points to Heidfeld. A really good year for Kubica, especially that he started in the middle of the season (last 6 races). So it was expected more from Kubica and...
2007: Heidfeld clearly better
2008: Kubica clearly better
After good rookie year, Kubica in his second year was clearly worse than Heidfeld.
So it's not that obvious that in second season you will perform better than in the first.
It's even more: Hamilton was so complete driver in 2007 so it's really hard to imagine that he was clearly better in 2008. In 2008 he was more erratic than in his rookie year. In terms of speed? Well, Kubica said that it's hard to improve speed...
I'm not saying that Alonso would beat Hamilton in 2008. I'm not saying Alonso is better driver than Hamilton. I'm not saying Alonso is the best driver in F1. I'm saying that one season is maybe not enough to draw strong conclusions (espiecally based on Kubica - Heidfeld history).
Now you can say that I'm blatant troll, traditionally I don't care