121 replies to this topic

[George Bailey]

I refuse to accept drivers must be treated like artists. Why have finish lines and clocks if it's not the statistics that matter in racing?

[RedFever]

Another entirely useless statistic which provides no insight whatsoever to the case, as based on nothing.

Monaco 81: "not GVs fault they had problems, but it's not like he beat them with speed in a fair fight" Gilles should have never been in a postion to take advantage of Alan Jones car problems toward the end (clearly from your post, you didn't see that race). There are many pictures available of Gilles and Jones in Monaco that year. The 126C would not even go straight in that circuit, poor Gilles was sideways the entire time, coming out of the Casino to the next straight, usually a normal manouvre, was a miracle each lap, you wondered how in hell he had not crashed yet. What counts is that Gilles with the same car was 2.5 seconds faster than Pironi in qualyfing and during the race he was lapped early on. Lapped with that crap car with won't take the turns of Monaco, yet Gilles managed to be second behind Jones and won once Jones had to slow down. The issue is not therefore that gilles won because of Jones problems (the other way around happened as well, Holland 79 Jones won because Gilles' tire went flat), the issue is that Gilles should have not even been in the points at all with that car, as proved by his teammate. The victory was the frosting on the cake, the miracle had already been achieved by finishing in the top three and not crashing. Only Gilles Villeneuve could have won that race that day with that car.

[Peeko]

Williams, I am at a loss. Can you explain?

These are champions plus Moss and Gilles Villeneuve ranked by their stats in each of their first four seasons.

Senna achieved 65 ploes in his first 4 years?
Hill 25?

I would also like to point out that according to the stats posted by Williams, we would have to revamp the case to read can Gilles Villeneuve join the big 3 of Fangio, Ascari , and Damon Hill. If stats are to hold water, then Damon Hill is the 3rd greatest driver in the history of Formula One, being beaten consistantly by only Fangio and Ascari. Now, if this is the case, then I don't know what sport I've been watching.

Your Honour, the fact that Damon Hill is consistently in the top 3 pretty much nulifies any argument anyone brings forth regarding stats. His numbers either reflect his position in Formula One or they don't. If one is comfortable saying Gilles does not deserve his place because his numbers do not match up, then that person must also admit to Damon Hill's ranking in the sport (3rd), ahead of all drivers bar Ascari and Fangio, according to the "stats".

[Amadeus]

Ok, somewhere, somebody (everybody?) has lost the plot a little.

Firstly RedFever I have seen GV race - on video. I never saw him in the flesh - I suspect I am not alone in this BB (or Forum) in that, but in the Judges preamble we had

'You had to see him race to understand' is not a valid argument in my view

. To attack my validity as a poster based on the egotistical 'I know more because I saw him' is a little immature and not the purpose of this Forum as I understand it, where rational researched argument was supposed to hold sway over statements like

Also "I didn't seem him race". Sums it all......

As for the comments by Don, where he compares a digitised Mona Lisa to a comparison of Driver records? As I said before, if you can't look at a drivers performance against his peers as a measure (note, not the only measure) of his ability then what exactly can you use? If placings, pole positions and WDC trophies are that unimportant why don't we reduce F1 to the same level as Monstor Truck 'Racing' (or God forbid WWF), where the spectacle is more important than the result?

My point in using whole carear % ratios was to balance up on GVs behalf - as it happens his short carear gives him a slight statistical advantage - 1 win in 10 starts is 10%, 1 win in 100 starts is 1%. His driver record - again Don just one way of measuring him - is of a talented racer, not a benchmark achiever.

As I see it F1 drivers drive F1 cars for 2 reasons.

1 - They enjoy it

2 - They enjoy winning

Now it seems to me that GV loved 1 more than 2 - which is fantastic and it made him great to watch. He was a great driver, with superlative car control. He entertained, he was noble, polite, loyal, respected, looked up to by all. He was not a winner by the benchmark standards of the 'Big Three'. For all you fanatical Giles fans this is not a critisism unless you make it one!

As my closing statement on this whole thing....

Imagine you are Filthy McRich. You own an F1 Race Team with no budget limitations. Last year your car was fast, this year it has race winning speed and reliability. You have 1 seat open for a driver (Hell, it's your team, you'll be driving the other car!).

There are 2 applicants. GV, and JMF. Who gets the seat? Would the result be any different if it was AS vs GV? Or AP vs GV?

If you are logical about it GV would never get the drive - that for me is why GV is not one of the 'Big Three'. If you are emotional about it GV may well get a seat - but emotion doesn't win races! Does it allow us to ignore drivers historical performance and elevate GV to the status of the 'Big Three' because lots of people like him and he was spectacular?

[George Bailey]

San Marino 1981. DP in his 4th race in the Ferrari gets the "crap car" into 5th place, 75 seconds ahead of GV. Who are the four cars ahead of DP? The same Williams, Brabbams and Arrows that died in GV's Monaco win.

DP and GV finished in the points 4 times each, is it possible that with the same luck GV had at Monaco, DP might have taken that crap car to a win?

I also think it's funny that when GV qualifies ahead of DP it's proof of his mastery. When DP qualifies ahead of GV it shows that qualifying was a lottery.

[George Bailey]

One last Monaco point.

It's been claimed that it took a miracle to get GV into position to win the race when the leaders spun off or had mechanical problems. Indeed a miracle to even finish the race without crashing as the car handled so poorly. I'd like to note DP had his best finish of the season (4th) with the same car at the same track. Another miracle?

When DP beat GV by over a minute at San Marino, and GV beat DP by over a minute at Monte Carlo, I'm suggesting the driving efforts were identical. The overall results differed due to the mechanics of the other cars - something neither Ferrari driver had any control over.

[Williams]

With apologies to the other members of the court, here are the stats I had earlier submitted, with the errors corrected.

These are F1 Champions, plus Moss and Gilles Villeneuve ranked by their stats in each of their first four seasons. All stats are included for completeness. Stats with a value of zero, except in driver errors, are ommitted (e.g. Rosberg had no wins in his first four seasons, so he is not in the "wins" list).

**********************************************************
Average of ranking of drivers in
each of the other stats, which are
shown below
**********************************************************

J.M.Fangio (1.85)
Ascari (2.85)
D.Hill (6)
Clark (7)
Farina (7)
M.Schumacher (8.71)
P.Hill (9.85)
E.Fittipaldi (10.71)
Senna (11)
Mansell (11.14)
J.Villeneuve (13)
Hunt (13.28)
Prost (13.42)
Stewart (13.42)
Hulme (14.28)
Hawthorn (15.71)
Brabham (17.42)
Surtees (17.85)
Piquet (18)
Scheckter (18.42)
G.Villeneuve (18.57) <============
Lauda (20)
Moss (20.28)
Andretti (20.71)
Rindt (22.42)
Rosberg (24.57)
Hakkinen (25.42)
Jones (25.85)
G.Hill (26.14)

**********************************************************
Percent Wins in Starts
**********************************************************

Ascari (44.82)
J.M.Fangio (37.5)
D.Hill (32.3)
Clark (30.3)
E.Fittipaldi (20.93)
Mansell (20.63)
M.Schumacher (19.23)
J.Villeneuve (16.92)
Farina (16.66)
Prost (15.25)
Hunt (12.5)
Piquet (12.24)
Stewart (12.19)
P.Hill (11.11)
Hulme (10.52)
Senna (9.52)
Scheckter (8.57)
Brabham (8.43)
G.Villeneuve (8.33)
Hawthorn (7.4)
Andretti (5.88)
Lauda (4.54)
Jones (3.44)
Surtees (3.12)

**********************************************************
Percent Poles in Starts
**********************************************************

J.M.Fangio (46.87)
Ascari (44.82)
Clark (39.39)
D.Hill (30.76)
Senna (25.39)
P.Hill (22.22)
Lauda (20.45)
J.Villeneuve (20)
Mansell (19.04)
Prost (16.94)
Hunt (14.28)
Farina (13.33)
Piquet (12.24)
M.Schumacher (11.53)
Brabham (9.63)
Surtees (9.37)
E.Fittipaldi (9.3)
Andretti (5.88)
G.Villeneuve (2.08)

**********************************************************
Percent Fastest Laps in Starts
**********************************************************

J.M.Fangio (37.5)
Clark (36.36)
Ascari (34.48)
D.Hill (29.23)
M.Schumacher (28.84)
P.Hill (22.22)
Farina (16.66)
G.Villeneuve (14.58)
Hunt (14.28)
J.Villeneuve (13.84)
Prost (13.55)
Mansell (12.69)
Surtees (12.5)
E.Fittipaldi (11.62)
Senna (11.11)
Moss (9.09)
Hulme (7.89)
Brabham (7.22)
Lauda (6.81)
Piquet (6.12)
Andretti (5.88)
Scheckter (5.71)
G.Hill (5)
Stewart (4.87)
Hawthorn (3.7)
Jones (3.44)

**********************************************************
Percent Podiums in Starts
**********************************************************

D.Hill (61.53)
Ascari (58.62)
J.M.Fangio (56.25)
Farina (53.33)
M.Schumacher (51.92)
P.Hill (48.14)
E.Fittipaldi (46.51)
Clark (45.45)
Senna (39.68)
Hulme (39.47)
Hunt (35.71)
Mansell (33.33)
J.Villeneuve (32.3)
Hawthorn (29.62)
Stewart (29.26)
Prost (28.81)
Piquet (26.53)
Scheckter (25.71)
Brabham (21.68)
Surtees (18.75)
G.Villeneuve (18.75)
Hakkinen (14)
Andretti (11.76)
Lauda (11.36)
Rindt (10)
Moss (9.09)
Jones (8.62)
G.Hill (5)
Rosberg (1.92)

**********************************************************
Percent Podiums in Starts
**********************************************************

D.Hill (61.53)
Ascari (58.62)
J.M.Fangio (56.25)
Farina (53.33)
M.Schumacher (51.92)
P.Hill (48.14)
E.Fittipaldi (46.51)
Clark (45.45)
Senna (39.68)
Hulme (39.47)
Hunt (35.71)
Mansell (33.33)
J.Villeneuve (32.3)
Hawthorn (29.62)
Stewart (29.26)
Prost (28.81)
Piquet (26.53)
Scheckter (25.71)
Brabham (21.68)
Surtees (18.75)
G.Villeneuve (18.75)
Hakkinen (14)
Andretti (11.76)
Lauda (11.36)
Rindt (10)
Moss (9.09)
Jones (8.62)
G.Hill (5)
Rosberg (1.92)

**********************************************************
Average Grid Position
**********************************************************

J.M.Fangio (1.5)
D.Hill (2.26)
Farina (2.46)
Ascari (2.75)
M.Schumacher (3.92)
Mansell (4.26)
Senna (4.77)
Clark (4.81)
J.Villeneuve (5.55)
Prost (5.84)
Stewart (5.95)
P.Hill (6.03)
Scheckter (6.42)
Hawthorn (6.62)
Surtees (6.75)
E.Fittipaldi (6.81)
Hulme (7.05)
Hunt (7.08)
Piquet (7.46)
Moss (7.9)
G.Villeneuve (8.18)
Brabham (8.33)
G.Hill (8.4)
Rindt (8.6)
Andretti (8.76)
Lauda (11.06)
Rosberg (12.19)
Hakkinen (13.1)
Jones (14.06)

**********************************************************
Percent Driver Errors in Starts
**********************************************************
Hawthorn (0)
J.M.Fangio (0)
Moss (0)
E.Fittipaldi (2.32)
Stewart (2.43)
Clark (3.03)
Ascari (3.44)
Hulme (5.26)
Farina (6.66)
Rindt (6.66)
Brabham (7.22)
P.Hill (7.4)
Rosberg (7.69)
Lauda (9.09)
Senna (11.11)
Scheckter (11.42)
Andretti (11.76)
Hakkinen (12)
G.Villeneuve (12.5)
Surtees (12.5)
M.Schumacher (13.46)
Mansell (14.28)
Prost (15.25)
Jones (15.51)
Hunt (16.07)
D.Hill (16.92)
G.Hill (17.5)
J.Villeneuve (20)
Piquet (22.44)

The following tables are raw stats for the first
four seasons of each driver, which are NOT included
in the "Average Ranking" list above, but are included
for reference only

**********************************************************
Wins
**********************************************************

D.Hill (21)
Mansell (13)
Ascari (13)
J.M.Fangio (12)
J.Villeneuve (11)
M.Schumacher (10)
Clark (10)
Prost (9)
E.Fittipaldi (9)
Hunt (7)
Brabham (7)
Senna (6)
Piquet (6)
Stewart (5)
Farina (5)
Hulme (4)
G.Villeneuve (4)
Scheckter (3)
P.Hill (3)
Lauda (2)
Jones (2)
Hawthorn (2)
Surtees (1)
Andretti (1)

**********************************************************
Poles
**********************************************************
D.Hill (20)
Senna (16)
J.M.Fangio (15)
J.Villeneuve (13)
Clark (13)
Ascari (13)
Mansell (12)
Prost (10)
Lauda (9)
Hunt (8)
Brabham (8)
Piquet (6)
P.Hill (6)
M.Schumacher (6)
Farina (4)
E.Fittipaldi (4)
Surtees (3)
G.Villeneuve (1)
Andretti (1)


**********************************************************
Fastest Laps
**********************************************************


D.Hill (19)
M.Schumacher (15)
J.M.Fangio (12)
Clark (12)
Ascari (10)
J.Villeneuve (9)
Prost (8)
Mansell (8)
Hunt (8)
Senna (7)
G.Villeneuve (7)
P.Hill (6)
Brabham (6)
Farina (5)
E.Fittipaldi (5)
Surtees (4)
Piquet (3)
Lauda (3)
Hulme (3)
Stewart (2)
Scheckter (2)
Jones (2)
G.Hill (2)
Moss (1)
Hawthorn (1)
Andretti (1)


**********************************************************
Podiums
**********************************************************


D.Hill (40)
M.Schumacher (27)
Senna (25)
Mansell (21)
J.Villeneuve (21)
Hunt (20)
E.Fittipaldi (20)
J.M.Fangio (18)
Brabham (18)
Prost (17)
Ascari (17)
Farina (16)
Hulme (15)
Clark (15)
Piquet (13)
P.Hill (13)
Stewart (12)
Scheckter (9)
G.Villeneuve (9)
Hawthorn (8)
Hakkinen (7)
Surtees (6)
Lauda (5)
Jones (5)
Rindt (3)
G.Hill (2)
Andretti (2)
Rosberg (1)
Moss (1)

**********************************************************
Starts
**********************************************************

Brabham (83)
J.Villeneuve (65)
D.Hill (65)
Senna (63)
Mansell (63)
Prost (59)
Jones (58)
Hunt (56)
Rosberg (52)
M.Schumacher (52)
Hakkinen (50)
Piquet (49)
G.Villeneuve (48)
Lauda (44)
E.Fittipaldi (43)
Stewart (41)
G.Hill (40)
Hulme (38)
Scheckter (35)
Clark (33)
Surtees (32)
J.M.Fangio (32)
Rindt (30)
Farina (30)
Ascari (29)
P.Hill (27)
Hawthorn (27)
Andretti (17)
Moss (11)

[Williams]

Peeko, I admit some strange things can happen when one begins to look at stats such as these. I am simply responding to another post which stated that the only fair way to look at this is to take only the first 4 years of each drivers career in order to make a fair comparision to Villeneuve, with some unfortunately absurd results. But no matter how one plays with the stats, Gilles does not move into the top ranks of F1 drivers, statistically speaking.

The point I am trying to make is the same I have tried to make since the beginning of this case: that Gilles is simply too far off the accomplishments of the "Big Three" to be included in that august company, without an awful lot of justification. Whether that large helping of justification has been supplied somewhere in these argument it will be up the to judges of this esteemed court to decide. If Gilles was close, say tenth in rank or above, then the case for the prosecution would be a lot easier to make. But there are so many other great drivers ahead of him who could also be arbitrarily plucked from the mix and declared to be a "Big Three" driver. It just so happens that the person bringing this case happens to be GV fan (don't get me wrong so am I ), so GV is today's lucky entrant into "Who Wants to be a Big Three Driver".

[mtl'78]

Mr. Bailey, About 1981.

Monaco, Jones took over the lead on lap 54, forcing Piquet into a spin under pressure. Gilles was 2nd about 20 seconds behind. He then started to catch Jones over the next 20 laps. Jones' tyres were going off quickly and he was forced into a mistake, touching a barrier. His tyres finished, he dedided to pit, and that's why he finished 40 seconds behind. Gilles had caught up to within visual range when Jones pitted.

Jarama,

Originally posted by George Bailey


Spain - GV leads a string of five cars to the finish with a gap of 1.24 seconds first to fifth. His own fastest lap was set on lap 6, and from lap 14 to lap 80 he keeps the vastly superior cars behind him without ever setting the fastest lap, yet without ever blocking the cars behind him. It's a great accomplishment, but I just can't accept it was done without blocking. I know how close two cars are in corners that are .5 seconds apart, I don't know if I've ever seen three cars within .5 seconds with another two in the next .5 seconds. I wouldn't say HHF is a great driver for holding off JV lap after lap at Indy.

This is exactly what makes this race one, if not THE, most exciting race ever! Jarama is a tight track, difficult to pass on. It has many short and medium straights that are split up by 180 deg and hairpin corners. Gilles made an incredible start from row 3-4 and led at turn 2. He then used the Ferrari engine's power to keep his rivals behind on the straights, while he used incredible late braking to prevent anyone passing in the corners. He must have locked up his tyres 20 times easy. It was incredible. 7 drivers, Prost, Piquet, Andretti, Reutermann, De Angelis, Watson and Laffite were all swapping places furiously behind him. Their constant dicing caused the demise of Piquet and Prost. Time after time, they made it up to the 2nd position, gave Gilles an underbraking duel, and lose. They were rewarded for their efforts by falling a position or two. Not once was contact made with Gilles, but the others bumped quite often. If you've noticed, this race had many similarities with a NASCAR race! (failed move for the lead and you lose positions, lots of bumping, etc.)

By winning this race, Gilles showed that Monaco was no fluke. It remains the most impressive dry-weather win I've ever seen. It would be comparable to Fisichella in last years' Benetton, holding back at the Maclarens, Ferraris and Williams' at Monaco and Hungary. The fact that he did it clean and without any resentment from the remaining 4 is a testament to both his skill and ethics.

[BT52]

I must admit that the thought of looking at the likes of Senna and Prost in their first 4 years makes an interesting comparison and makes me alter my view slightly.

But it also proves the point that no-one can really tell what would have happened.

If you take Piquet's first 4 full seasons he fares much better, yet suffers later on in his career due to the blunder of signing for Lotus combined with the after affects of Imola.

IF Piquet had not crashed at Imola and had Joined McLaren in 1988 (as was more than possible) then it's possible that he may have equalled Fangio's 5 titles.

My point is that there are so many ifs and buts that no-one can be correct here.

Look at Bellof, who knows what he could have acheived.

Jackie Stewart has said similar things about Magnussen to what he said of Gilles, also of Cevert, and a multitude of other drivers.

Fate is responsible in a huge way for the statistics, and fate had it's say on Gilles in Belgium in 82.

Statistcs can prove anything if you take the appropriate sample and use them accordingly. And speculation is even more flexible.

I therefore withdraw my previous opinion that Gilles would not have acheived that level of success and change it be that I have no idea at all.
But I can be certain that we CANNOT say that he definitely would have equalled the greats in numbers of championships.

[Amadeus]

Just had a thought. Does anyone else see a contradiction between:

So, I am clearly convinced Gilles numbers average bacause he died after only 4 seasons in F1. As a result, I drew a comparison to the great 3 aforementioned and wondered....what would have happened if Fangio, Prost and Ayrton Senna would have died in an accident after only 4 full seasons in F1? .......(Fangio)although reduced in stature from a statistical point of view, his career would still be impressive.......Prost would become a footnote in F1's history had he died after 4 seasons in F1.........Senna would have been another obvious driving talent who loved to push the envelope and drive at the limit, but never managed to "materialize" his talent in solid results

as posted by Redfever

and

I strongly believe that Gilles is a victim of the superficiality of those who are able to judge talent only based on concrete numbers, while he deserves to be remembered as the great driver he really was.

as posted by Redfever

These are two examples, there are more - from a variety of posters - where GV supporters argue that Senna and Prost, if judged by only thier first four years, become "footnotes", regardless of ability, but GV - who only has four years to be judged by is a 'special case'.

Also, his career was short (especially by the standards of the very best drivers, who by virtue of thier talent tend to have longer careers). But:

James Hunt - active for 6 years (92 starts/10 wins - 11%)
Jody Scheckter - active for 8 years (112 starts/10 wins - 9%)
Damon Hill - active for 7 years (115 starts/22 wins - 19%)
Alberto Ascari - active for 5 years (32 starts/13 wins - 40%)
Jim Clark - active for 8 years (72 starts/25 wins 35%)
---
GV - active for 5 years (66 starts/6 wins - 10%)

If we start including every driver who had a shortish career but a lot of promise we'll end up with a 'Big Three Hundred'. AS, AP, JMF are out in front for one reason - they had promise and they delivered on it.

[RedFever]

Not that we needed any comfirmation I think, but Peeko's point "If one is comfortable saying Gilles does not deserve his place because his numbers do not match up, then that person must also admit to Damon Hill's ranking in the sport (3rd), ahead of all drivers bar Ascari and Fangio, according to the "stats" demonstrates without doubt the stupidity of using plain numbers to evaluate a driver's talent. Now I want the accusers above to tell me in what way is Damon Hill better than Senna and Prost and Schumacher. Please, take your silly stats and burry them.

Talent is to measurable in numbers. Take another sport. I would challenge anyone to prove me that Pete Sampras is any better than John McEnroe. John was possibly the most talented tennis player that ever lived, his control of the ball absolute, his playing astounding. Yet, a fairly boring player like Sampras, with decent but not exceptional control over the ball, but gifted with extreme hight which allows 130mph serves, has won more Wimblendon and other Grand Slam tournaments than John. Numbers will tell you Pete is much, much better than John, but if you saw both playing and your eyes are not covered with slices of ham, than you know John was actually in another planet compared to Sampras. The same goes for Gilles Villeneuve. His talent is not in the numbers, it was in the way he drove his cars, yes, even the very crappy ones.

[George Bailey]

Peeko and Redfever,

Let me see if I understand your point. "Hill has 4 year numbers that put him in the big three, GV does not. Since we know that Hill does not deserve to be there, numbers obviously tell us nothing about racing".

I disagree 100%. You'll note, I hope, that all my posts have made comparisons to GV and his teammates. I understand the difference between a great car and a bad car. I hope you will agree that the numbers do in fact matter when they deal with two individuals in the same car.

[RedFever]

In reply to Amadeus:

Contradiction??? absolutely none. In both cases I am stating one and one point only: statistics are a poor and inexact way of judging a driver's talent. If you want to syntesize to the max all I said, that would be it.

I used the first 4 seasons numbers for Prost, Fangio and Senna not to support Gilles at all. I used it to show how two out of three of the greatest F1 drivers would have have minor success in F1 had they died after 4 seasons. That is all I was trying to prove.

Also:
"My point in using whole carear % ratios was to balance up on GVs behalf - as it happens his short carear gives him a slight statistical advantage - 1 win in 10 starts is 10%, 1 win in 100 starts is 1%." Your system doesn't help Gilles at all. He had crappy cars 50% of his short career. Did Senna and Prost have crappy cars 50% of their career? what kind of discount are you going to use for this? what weight? based on what scientific principle? or simple empirical personal judgement??? These stats are completly missleading.

I tend to agree with Don Caps entirely. And disagree with the poster who feels offended because I mentioned he never saw Gilles racing other than some video footage. The reality is that the real talent of a driver is perceived only on a racing track. SOme drivers are unimpressive on TV, either because of their style or because of their car. Only at the critical points you notice how good they are. Reutemann, Prost and Hakkinen all looked terribly slow an unimpressive on TV. But you watched Alain in real life....wow....clean as nobody else but faster than most. Now that was impressive to watch live.

Tosa in Imola: GV and Senna had the ability to make me feel shivers all over my back. They outbreaked everyone else, nobody was capable to brake that late (not carbon brakes of today, where even mazza breaks at the limit).

Acque Minerali: Gilles and DeCesaris assaulted that part like nobody else (I never saw Senna in that spot unfortunately).

Gilles was pure magic when watched at a race track, even when his car was the 1980 T5, a slow unstable piece of crap. But Gilles, fighting for 8th place was a show within the race. He blew away the reigning WDC with that car, yet stats only say he scored zero wins and 4 points. How do your stats keep into considerations this??? Place Senna in a Jaguar last year and watch him never get on the podium. Again, stats would only record poor performance, but Ayrton would have still been Ayrton.

[Williams]

Now I want the accusers above to tell me in what way is Damon Hill better than Senna and Prost and Schumacher. Please, take your silly stats and burry them.

Ah...if only it was so easy. Just ignore all the stats, then we can have a field day with subjective opinion and lots of anecdotes. While the entire story is not in the stats, the stats must play some role, for, after all, Formula One is a sport which is all about numbers. We do not have to show statistically that Villeneuve is in fact a top three driver, but but at least in the top ten would be nice before we start declaring him to be as good as Fangio, Prost or Senna.

The Damon result is obviously the sort of thing that happens when we stray from the real stats and over-manipulate them. But the point is that, even when the stats are manipulated to be grossly in his favour, Villeneuve's record comes no nearer to the accomplishments of the Fangio/Prost/Senna.

All of the same arguments about the great races that Gilles had, or his style of driving could be applied to a number of drivers, and the same claim made for them as well. We could apply the same logic and also make the case that Stewart, Ascari, or Clark belong in the top three, just as deservedly as Villeneuve, if not more so. And that is my main concern with this case, that we can ignore and displace other drivers who were just as talented, dedicated and passionate as Villeuve.

Numbers will tell you Pete is much, much better than John, but if you saw both playing and your eyes are not covered with slices of ham, than you know John was actually in another planet compared to Sampras.

Hmmm...kind of smacks of the old "you have to have seen them play to understand" argument which was ruled out in the Judges Preamble.

[Amadeus]

Talent is to measurable in numbers. Take another sport. I would challenge anyone to prove me that Pete Sampras is any better than John McEnroe. John was possibly the most talented tennis player that ever lived, his control of the ball absolute, his playing astounding. Yet, a fairly boring player like Sampras, with decent but not exceptional control over the ball, but gifted with extreme hight which allows 130mph serves, has won more Wimblendon and other Grand Slam tournaments than John. Numbers will tell you Pete is much, much better than John, but if you saw both playing and your eyes are not covered with slices of ham, than you know John was actually in another planet compared to Sampras. The same goes for Gilles Villeneuve. His talent is not in the numbers, it was in the way he drove his cars, yes, even the very crappy ones

posted by redFever

OK, I know that I am hitting my head against a bit of a brick wall here, but once more into the breech dear friends............

• You are right sport cannot be reduced to simple numbers
• You are right artistry is important
• BUT so are results
• Ask John McEnroe would he rather be admired for his talent or remembered as the man who won more titles than anyone else and he will want the titles
• You are right that GV was different to all other drivers
• He was talented/fast/ethical/insert other praise as appropriate
• But he was not a winner by the standards of the group you are attempting to put him in
• In terms of results (please tell me that chequred flags are still important?) he falls behind Ascari, Hunt and his own son, his achievments in the same timeframe were substantially poorer
• I know that some of his cars were dogs
• But some of them won WDCs
• And all drivers drive dogs at some point in thier career
• If you really want a sport where style, panache and percieved ability are of paramount importantance may I suggest Ice Dance or Synchronised Swimming?
• Because in F1 we have a device called a stopwatch, and by the end of a season that is a pretty good guide to the best race driver that year

Most people view talent, in an F1 driver, as a multi faceted thing - speed, grace, talent, detrmination, car control, will to win, results. GV was outstanding enough to be viciously argued about years after his death. But to set him as a benchmark against which to measure other drivers is unrealistic.

[nordschleife]

If it please the Court I will project the future that Gilles Villeneuve could have had given a complete and speedy recovery. Because there are similarities between his and Fangio's career arc I wish to present the two simultaneously.

1948/77: Older than the products of the European system JMF/GV debuts in the big time. Taking part in less than a full season he impresses immediately.

1949/78: Meeting his promise JMF/GV wins in his first full season. He is not yet regarded as the best.

1950/79: Indisputably faster but less fortunate than his more experienced teammate JMF/GV finishes a close second to him in the World Drivers' Championship. The winner's accolades are not rife with the word "deserving" since fate and team orders skewed merit's measure.

1951/80: JMF/GV outscores his world champion teammate. He is hailed as the best driver of his time.

1952/81: JMF injures his neck and is out for the season. GV's performances and results (when appreciated in the context of his car's shortcomings and his teammate's respectability) raise his status beyond best of his time.

1953/82: JMF wins one race and finishes second in the championship. GV is poised to win a race when his teammate disobeys orders to slow and hold position unethically stealing win. During qualifying for the next race a backmarker changes his position on the track with the intention of aiding GV's progress. The result is injury to GV.

Here the Court intervenes to change the outcome of Gilles's accident but surely not its occurence. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that the consequences matched that of Fangio in which the season is lost but the driver returns in winning form the following year.

1954/83: JMF moves to another team, one for whom great things are foreseen given their massive budget, professional attitude and successful history. Car and driver have no peer and dominate, JMF taking 6 wins of 8. Prior to Imola 82 Gilles's intention was to honour his agreement with Ferrari. Quoting without permission from page 282 of Gerald Donaldson's "Gilles Villeneuve The Life of the Legendary Racing Driver": "Gilles ...was greatly relieved that he wouldn't have to break his Maranello ties." However this was before the team failed to clearly support his position vis-a-vis Pironi's win at Imola. If this might have shaken his regard for the Scuderia the fact that his seatmounts failed at Zolder would have eliminated sentiment from his considerations. The result would be that he would remain at Ferrari in 83 with the intention of joining McLaren in 84 when they would have a turbo and Watson's seat would be available.
After missing two 82 races due to a neck problem Tambay certainly would not have been chosen over Rene Arnoux so Gilles teammate would have been the latter. As it happened Ferrari drivers scored 40 (PT) and 49 (RA) points trailing the 57 of Prost and 59 of Piquet. Would a healthy GV with the constructors' winning car have outscored RA who only outpointed PT by 9? Yes, because he regularly beat RA with an inferior car.Would GV have finished as many races as RA? Yes, because RA's on-track persona was Gilles-lite. Would Gilles's daredevil ways been tempered to his benefit by his accident? Lauda's were. If we imagine the points-scoring capability of GV and RA (49) in 83 as matching the relative capabilities of GV (31) and DP (19) in 81 and 82 combined then we calculate that GV would have scored 163% more than RA did, a total of 80 points. With a 25% margin for error GV would still have won his first driver's title. As actual team leader RA scored 3 wins and PT one will the Court find 4 wins for GV appropriate?

1955/84: JMF sweeps all before him in spite of a highly-regarded teammate. Long before Prost is fired by Renault GV signs with McLaren replacing Watson for 84. As it happened Prost's speed failed to derail Lauda's charmed season. Couls GV have thwarted the fates? Let's make Gilles, like Prost, only the seven-race-winning moral victor.

1956/85: Collins hands JMF his car and the championship because he feels it appropriate for the Maestro to retain his title. In Prost's place GV dominates but feels the hot breath of Senna. Five wins plus one win disallowed (minimum weight infraction).

1957/86: JMF at the height of his powers with a Maserati. Worlds collide as GV is joined by Prost at McLaren. Too smart for their own good, McLaren's drivers split their points and wins (3 each) down the middle resulting in Mansell clinching the title in Suzuka.

1958/87: For JMF the coda. A second year of great contrasts in style between GV and AP yet results are identical- two wins each. Honda powered opponents obscure the best purest racing of all time between these two.

1988: Going against all received wisdom McLaren does not renew GV's contract. Looking to the future they hire Ayrton Senna. In line for the #1 seat at Lotus-Honda GV is passed over at the last moment as Camel insists on the current world champion. GV is finding the effect of big money in F1 increasingly distasteful but wins the Jim Clark Cup for Ken Tyrrell. He is a casket-bearer for Ing. Ferrari. He retires to nurture his son Jacques's progress.

[Peeko]

I understand the difference between a great car and a bad car. I hope you will agree that the numbers do in fact matter when they deal with two individuals in the same car. - George Bailey

Here are the qualifying averages between Gilles and his teamates from Argentina 1978 to San Marino 1982:

1978
Avg grid position:
Carlos Reutemann - 5.6
Gilles Villeneuve - 6.8 (+1.2 pos. behind)

Avg qualifying difference between teamates:
Carlos Reutemann +0.209 faster

1979
Avg grid position:
Gilles Villeneuve - 5.1
Jody Scheckter - 6.1 (+1 pos. behind)

Avg qualifying difference between teamates:
Gilles Villeneuve +0.197 faster

1980
Avg grid position:
Gilles Villeneuve - 12.2
Jody Scheckter - 16.2 [1 DNQ] (+4 pos. behind)

Avg qualifying difference between teamates:
Gilles Villeneuve +0.655 faster

1981
Avg grid position:
Gilles Villeneuve - 7
Didier Pirnoi - 10.7 (+3.7 pos. behind)

Avg qualifying difference between teamates:
Gilles Villeneuve +0.624 faster

1982 (1st 4 races)
Avg grid position:
Gilles Villeneuve - 3.8
Didier Pirnoi - 6.8 (+3 pos. behind)

Avg qualifying difference between teamates:
Gilles Villeneuve +0.959 faster

In terms of results (please tell me that chequred flags are still important?) he falls behind Ascari, Hunt and his own son, his achievments in the same timeframe were substantially poorer
- Amadeus

James Hunt first 66 races resulted in 8 wins and one title (how many races did Lauda miss in 1976?) compared to 6 wins and 1 runner up for GV. Hardly substantially poorer.
Ayrton Senna's first 66 races resulted in 7 wins and no better than 3rd in the championship (16pts behind Piquet in 87), compared to 6 wins and a 2nd place in the championship (4pts behind) in Gilles 66 races. Hardly substantially poorer.

I know that some of his cars were dogs But some of them won WDCs - Amadeus

Gilles drove one car that was capable of winning the Championship, and it wasn't even the best car throughout the whole year, unlike Jacques' 96 and 97 cars. In 1979, the Ligier was the car to have early on in the season. Ferrari then recieved their 79 challenger at the 3rd race and had soon became the car to have. By mid season Williams had caught up, and later in the season the Williams was the car to have.

And all drivers drive dogs at some point in thier career - Amadeus

No doubt. How many drivers fail to qualify their car for a race the year after winning the title?

But he was not a winner by the standards of the group you are attempting to put him in - Amadeus

The 5 cars Senna drove in his 1st 66 races averaged 46.6 pts a year (compared to 39.2 for Gilles) in the Constructors title, and averaged a 3.6 (compared to 4.2) placing in the Constructor's Championship. Senna managed one more win.
Senna's teamates in his 1st 66 races? Johnny Cocetto (0 poles, 0 wins), Elio DeAngelis (3p, 2 w), Johnny Dumfries (0p, 0w), Satoru Nakajima(0p, 0w), and Prost for 4 races (16p, 30w). Gilles' teamates were Carlos Reutemann (4p, 8w), Jody Scheckter (3p, 10w), and Didier Pironi (3p, 2w).

[Williams]

For the perusal of the Court in coming to their decision, here are the World Driving Champions' rankings, plus those of Gilles Villeneuve, based on differentials betweens teammates. That is, each stat is the difference between the drivers statistic and the statistic of his teammate. This basically says by how much each driver beat his teammate, or was beaten by his teammate, in each category. For example, Senna beat all of his teammates by 26 wins (percentages are used here, so over his career, his pecentage wins was about 16% points higher than all his teammates' win rate over that period). Therefore we are comparing each driver to his teammate and not to the driver of another car.

There are four sets of stats, using Gilles 79 season and his full career stats, and with and without mechanical failures figured into the equation. Other drivers rankings are alway based on full career stats. His rankings in each case are:

Gilles 79 season only, mechanical failures discounted - 14th overall
Gilles 79 season only, mechanical failures left in - 17th overall
Gilles full career , mechanical failures discounted - 21st overall
Gilles full career , mechanical failures left in - 18th overall

Further details on how the stats are calculated are available on my AtlasF1 webpage (see sig for link). Instructions on duplicating these results can be found there on the message board.

**************************************************************************************
Here Gilles is rated on his 79 season only, with mechanical failures discounted. The other drivers are rated on their careers. To calculate percentage figures, the number of mechanical failures suffered by each driver is first subtracted from his number of starts, thus improving the percentage figure slightly in each case.

1 Clark . (3.57)
2 M.Schumacher . (6.14)
3 J.M.Fangio . (6.71)
4 Stewart . (6.85)
5 Hunt . (7.71)
6 Rindt . (9.42)
7 Senna . (9.57)
8 Piquet . (10.42)
9 Surtees . (11)
10 Ascari . (11.57)
11 Prost . (11.57)
12 E.Fittipaldi . (12.14)
13 Hakkinen . (12.71)
14 G.Villeneuve . (14.42) <======== 14th overall
15 Lauda . (16.14)
16 Jones . (16.57)
17 Rosberg . (16.71)
18 Mansell . (17)
19 Scheckter . (17.85)
20 Andretti . (18)
21 J.Villeneuve . (18.14)
22 Hulme . (19.57)
23 D.Hill . (20.28)
24 Brabham . (21.14)
25 G.Hill . (21.42)
26 P.Hill . (21.71)
27 Hawthorn . (22.71)
28 Farina . (24.85)

("Reliable start" is number of starts less races terminated by mechanical failure)

Difference of Percent Fastest Laps in Reliable Starts - 49.9% more than teammate - 1st
Difference of Percent Driver Errors in Starts - 0.81 less than teammate - 2nd
Difference of Percent Podiums in Reliable Starts - 8.23% less than teammate , 14th
Difference of Average Grid Position - 1.06 positions ahead of teammate -15th
Difference of Percent Poles in Starts - 0%, even with teammate, 19th
Difference of Percent Wins in Reliable Starts - 0%, even with teammate - 22nd
Difference of Average Race Classification - 1 position behind - 27th

**************************************************************************************
Villeneuves stats for the 79 season only with mechanical failures left in.

1 M.Schumacher . (3.33)
2 Clark . (4)
3 Hunt . (4.16)
4 J.M.Fangio . (7.16)
5 Stewart . (7.66)
6 Senna . (7.83)
7 Piquet . (8.16)
8 Rindt . (9.83)
9 Prost . (10.66)
10 Ascari . (10.83)
11 Hakkinen . (11.66)
12 Surtees . (12.66)
13 E.Fittipaldi . (13.16)
14 Jones . (15.33)
15 Mansell . (15.66)
16 Lauda . (15.83)
17 G.Villeneuve . (16.33) < =========== 17th overall
18 J.Villeneuve . (16.66)
19 Scheckter . (17.33)
20 Andretti . (17.5)
21 Rosberg . (17.66)
22 D.Hill . (19)
23 Hulme . (21.33)
24 G.Hill . (22.5)
25 Brabham . (23.16)
26 P.Hill . (23.16)
27 Hawthorn . (26)
28 Farina . (27.33)

Difference of Percent Fastest Laps in Starts - 40% more than teammate - 1st
Difference of Percent Driver Errors in Starts - 0.81% less than teammate - 2nd
Difference of Percent Podiums in Starts - 6.6% more than teammate - 12th
Difference of Average Grid Position - 1.06 positions ahead of teammate - 15th
Difference of Percent Poles in Starts - 0% - even with teammate - 20th
Difference of Percent Wins in Starts - 0% - even with teammate- 22nd
Difference of Average Race Classification - 1 behind teammate - 27th

**************************************************************************************
The following stats are calculated based on Villeneuve's full career, with mechanical failures discounted

1 Clark . (3.28)
2 M.Schumacher . (5.85)
3 Stewart . (6.57)
4 J.M.Fangio . (6.71)
5 Hunt . (7.57)
6 Rindt . (9.28)
7 Senna . (9.42)
8 Piquet . (10.28)
9 Surtees . (10.71)
10 Prost . (11.28)
11 Ascari . (11.42)
12 E.Fittipaldi . (12)
13 Hakkinen . (12.71)
14 Lauda . (15.85)
15 Jones . (16.28)
16 Rosberg . (16.42)
17 Mansell . (17)
18 Scheckter . (17.85)
19 Andretti . (18)
20 J.Villeneuve . (18.14)
21 G.Villeneuve . (18.28) <===== 21st overall
22 Hulme . (19.42)
23 D.Hill . (20.14)
24 Brabham . (21.14)
25 G.Hill . (21.14)
26 P.Hill . (21.57)
27 Hawthorn . (22.71)
28 Farina . (24.85)

("Reliable start" is number of starts less races terminated by mechanical failure)

Difference of Percent Fastest Laps in Reliable Starts - 8.1% more than teammate - 12th
Difference of Average Grid Position - 1.1 positions ahead of teammate - 13th
Difference of Average Race Classification - l.1 positions ahead of teammate - 13th
Difference of Percent Driver Errors in Starts - 16.11 % more that teammate - 26th
Difference of Percent Podiums in Reliable Starts - 4.05% less than teammate - 20th
Difference of Percent Poles in Starts - 1.49% less than teammate - 20th
Difference of Percent Wins in Reliable Starts - 4.05% less than teammate - 24th

**************************************************************************************
Here Gilles is rated on his full career. Mechanical failures are left in..

1 M.Schumacher . (3.16)
2 Clark . (3.83)
3 Hunt . (4)
4 J.M.Fangio . (7.16)
5 Stewart . (7.5)
6 Senna . (7.83)
7 Piquet . (8.16)
8 Rindt . (9.83)
9 Prost . (10.5)
10 Ascari . (10.83)
11 Hakkinen . (11.83)
12 Surtees . (12.33)
13 E.Fittipaldi . (13.16)
14 Jones . (15.16)
15 Lauda . (15.66)
16 Mansell . (15.83)
17 J.Villeneuve . (16.66)
18 G.Villeneuve . (17) <======== 18th
19 Rosberg . (17.5)
20 Scheckter . (17.5)
21 Andretti . (17.66)
22 D.Hill . (19)
23 Hulme . (21.33)
24 G.Hill . (22.33)
25 P.Hill . (23.16)
26 Brabham . (23.33)
27 Hawthorn . (26.16)
28 Farina . (27.5)

Difference of Percent Fastest Laps in Starts - 5.9% more than teammate - 12th
Difference of Average Race Classification - 1.1 positions ahead of teammate - 13th
Difference of Average Grid Position - 1.11 ahead of teammate 13th
Difference of Percent Podiums in Starts - 2.98% less that teammate - 21st
Difference of Percent Poles in Starts - 1.49% less than teammate - 20th
Difference of Percent Wins in Starts - 2.98% less than teammate- 24th
Difference of Percent Driver Errors in Starts - 16.11 % more than teammate - 26th

[AD]

GV is overated becuase he died while driving a F1 car, and hence a lot of people are relucant to speak out against him. Also too many people have rose tainted glasses on themselves. Yes there was very good drivers in the '70s and the 80's, but Schumacher, Hakkinen, Jacques Villeneuve, are every bit as good and Schumacher is rated as being better than anyone who raced between when Stewart retired, and when Alain Prost first began racing in F1. In 20 years time the aformentioned drivers will be much more talked about than drivers like Pironi, Reutamen(spelling?), Shecter(spelling?), etc. These drivers are all of a sudden are being rated as being great drivers, just to make GVs achievements look superhuman. But if you put Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Prost, Senna, or Schumacher in those so called dogs of Ferrari's, they'd win at least once, and be on the podium another 3 or 4 times at least. Why? Becuase they're born winners, not born showmen like GV.

[Rich]

As per the Court schedule, this hearing is now closed. Thanks one and all for your contributions, I'll post my thoughts within 7 days.

[Rich]

Case #2: Gilles Villeneuve to join the 'Big Three'

Case Submission by RedFever
Court Decision by Richard Barnes
February, 2001

Preface

On the 8th of May 1982 Canadian Gilles Villeneuve, driving the famous number 27 Ferrari, died after a crash at the Zolder circuit, during the final moments of qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix. Nearly two decades later, his memory and image still capture the imagination and admiration of fans everywhere, young and old. Both through his raw natural ability on track and his untimely death, Villeneuve was one of the most influential figures of modern Formula One. His death was universally mourned, and also left unanswered questions as to 'what might have been...'

The speculation about what Gilles Villeneuve may have achieved offers widely differing views, and has generated controversy and heated debate for almost twenty years. RedFever has brought the Gilles Villeneuve case to the Atlas F1 Court, to establish recognition of the man's greatness. For the purposes of this case, it was decided that Juan Manuel Fangio, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna would comprise a triumvirate benchmark of great talents (the 'Big Three') against which Gilles' accomplished and speculated achievements could be measured.

Fangio, Prost and Senna all had the opportunity to turn their talent into accomplishment; Gilles Villeneuve's death robbed him of that opportunity. Prost and Senna raced during the same era as Villeneuve, allowing comparisons between their accomplishments under the same basic technical and technological racing conditions. Literature and other research material on the Big Three are widely available.

Finally, the 'Big Three' are almost universally accepted as legitimate greats. As such, the triumvirate provided an accessible and comparable benchmark. Doubtless, there are many others who deserve to be included among motor racing's greats - Nuvolari, Ascari, Clark, and a host of others. Their exclusion in this case is neither a snub nor an implication that Gilles Villeneuve was a greater talent. It was necessary purely to keep arguments focused, and comparisons at manageable proportions.

The case is not about whether Gilles Villeneuve was the only driver who bears comparison to the 'Big Three', nor about whether he is the most deserving driver to bear comparison. It is purely about whether Gilles Villeneuve, had he enjoyed a full career until retirement, would have been able to turn talent into accomplishment in the same way that Fangio, Prost and Senna did.


The Judgement

In a case like this, it is very easy to become lost in a quagmire of statistical information, quotes and personalised perceptions about what constitutes 'talent'. When faced with such a potentially complex mixture of fact, myth and personal opinion, the best solution is to pare the issue down to the basics, and keep those basics constantly in mind when reviewing and sorting evidence.

For me, the essence of this case is simple: If Gilles Villeneuve had lived and raced until retirement, would he have become a great achiever, rather than merely a potentially great achiever? To answer that, we have to isolate the component parts of what makes an 'achiever', and decide whether Gilles Villeneuve was likely to have met those requirements.

In the field of motor racing, 'achievement' has three component parts - talent, approach and opportunity. An absence of any of the three aspects is certain to reduce the driver's achievements considerably. My judgement is based on the evidence brought before the Court, and I have rationalised it as follows:

• Talent: hand/eye co-ordination, physical strength, good reflexes and eyesight, exceptional spatial awareness - these are all natural gifts that the great drivers exhibit in abundance.
  
  There seems no doubt, not even from the Defence, that Gilles had natural talent by the bucket load. Even his rivals were happy to acknowledge that Gilles had a special inherent talent for racing that few could match. To make the massive jump from Formula Atlantic to Formula One, and that after so few Formula Atlantic races, speaks volumes about the man's raw talent.
  
  Gilles Villeneuve's death didn't change that; Gilles would have retained that talent birthright for as long as he raced.
  
  
• Opportunity: This is perhaps the easiest of the three aspects to quantify.
  
  The traditional career path for a racing champion is to join F1 and cut their rookie teeth with an inferior team, before working their way up to the plum drive. Senna's and Hakkinen's careers are perfect examples.
  
  When that natural order is inverted, it can lead to perverse statistics, and there is no better example than the case of Damon Hill. During the hearing, statistical evidence was offered to 'prove' that Damon was the greatest achiever of all, including Senna and Prost. The object of the exercise was to prove that statistics are worthless. However, the only point it proved is that superficial statistical analysis is worthless.
  
  There is nothing fake or flawed about Damon's statistics - they are what they are, solid concrete fact. What the Hill case does serve to illustrate is the importance of opportunity. Hill benefited from a virtually unprecedented triple-edged opportunity. Firstly, he obtained the prime Williams drive very early in his career. Secondly, he inherited the team leadership (and a rookie team-mate) very shortly afterwards, due to Senna's untimely death. Thirdly, the above two events coincided with a 'talent vacuum' in F1, precipitated by the departure (for various reasons) of the previous generation's premier talents - Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet.
  
  Gilles Villeneuve's career was also drastically affected by the three-pronged fork of opportunity. In contrast to Hill, though, all of the slings and arrows conspired against the Canadian.
  
  Like Hill and like his own son Jacques, Gilles Villeneuve landed a great drive early in his career. The late-70's Ferrari wasn't anything like as good as the mid-nineties Williams, but it was certainly an upper-tier machine. Sadly for the whole Ferrari team (and Gilles in particular), the triumph of 1979 turned into the tragedy of 1980. Just at the time when Villeneuve was expected to mature into a world-beating driver, the car turned against him. And finally, just when mechanical fortunes had seemed to swing once again in Gilles' favour, he was struck down in his prime. The fatal accident at Zolder 1982 was a grim metaphor of Gilles' entire career - with all the talent and best intentions in the world, he invariably found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  
  However, we are not only concerned about the opportunities presented to Gilles Villeneuve during his life. We must also speculate on what may have happened had the fatal accident not occurred, and had he continued racing until retirement.
  Prost had a 13-year career span. I don't find it unreasonable that Villeneuve would have raced for at least ten years, with retirement in the late 1980s or even as late as the early 90's.
  
  From the time of Villeneuve's death until the turn of the decade, Formula One was dominated by three teams - McLaren, Williams and Ferrari. Villeneuve appeared to have a Ferrari seat for as long as he wanted, and McLaren appeared keen to sign him. Frank Williams may have had reservations about signing Villeneuve, but the Canadian certainly captured his attention.
  
  Therefore, I think it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Villeneuve would have enjoyed reasonably competitive machinery for the remainder of his career.
  
  It's also fair to speculate that Villeneuve would have become the elder statesman of Formula One, enjoying an experience advantage over the upcoming quartet of Prost, Senna, Mansell and Piquet. Whether he would have been in the dominant car at the right time is of course open to further speculation. I believe that the answer lies in the third, and most tricky, component - approach.
  
  
• Approach: Approach is a combination of many factors - work ethic, will to win, nerve, political astuteness, confidence, and an understanding of how the various components of the car work together and against the friction offered by air and tarmac. Some of these are natural traits, others are learnt, but they are all in a state of constant flux.
  
  A single accident can rob a driver of his nerve, or a single bad season can discourage him to the point of giving up. On the other hand, a first victory can shatter a mental barrier, and provide newfound zest and confidence. These are the intangibles of Formula One, and indeed any sport. The evidence provided by both sides regarding these intangibles occupied the bulk of my time spent considering the case, for I consider Villeneuve's mental state to be key in this issue.
  
  Firstly, much anecdotal evidence was given to support the notion that Gilles Villeneuve was an all-round good guy, fair, honest, sporting, popular, loved by one and all. As touching as this evidence may be, and as much as it celebrates the memories of the man, it played no part in my final judgement, because it is irrelevant to the case. We are here to decide whether Gilles would have become a great achiever, not how he would have done so.
  
  I examined the notion that 'the championship wasn't important to Gilles, he only wanted to win races'. This immediately reminded me of the annual Oscar Awards ritual, where nominees will state 'Winning isn't that important, being nominated is the real honour' as they enter the auditorium. One look at the faces of the nominees after the announcement tells you differently - winning is everything. Andre Agassi ritually belittled the status and reputation of Wimbledon - until he won it.
  
  Even fierce competitors like Jacques Villeneuve and Ayrton Senna have been content to sacrifice race wins - once the championship was settled in their favour. Nigel Mansell, another of the 'championships don't matter, it's race wins that count' school of thought, failed to win another race in 1992 after he'd clinched the championship.
  
  Gilles Villeneuve was intensely competitive; we can be sure that the championship was extremely important to him.
  
  I believe that Villeneuve's apparent desire to push beyond the limits all the time was not because he only wanted race wins, and not championships. Instead, I believe it was the result of inexperienced enthusiasm, nothing more and nothing less. It's a common error, and not limited to Villeneuve alone. Prost and Lauda were both hard chargers during their early careers, only to adopt the Fangio 'win as slowly as possible' credo later on. Would Villeneuve have followed suit? I believe he would have.
  
  Both human and animal studies have shown that ageing brings with it an ability to work smarter, to get the job done using less energy.
  
  Villeneuve, for example, was enraged when Pironi broke a pre-race agreement at Imola. Thus, by the time of his death, Villeneuve's ultra-aggressive and reckless early style was already being tempered by the wisdom of experience. The rookie Villeneuve would have wanted to lap his teammate, irrespective of team orders. The Villeneuve of a few years later had seemingly adopted a more pragmatic approach to the business of racing.
  
  There are also accusations that Villeneuve lacked mechanical sympathy. Again, this allegation is backed up by quotes largely from the Canadian's early years. And again, it's a common error among rookie drivers. It's uncertain whether experience changed that. Villeneuve had to flog the uncompetitive Ferrari during '80 and '81. All the mechanical sympathy in the world wasn't going to help teammate and WDC Jody Scheckter if he couldn't even get the car onto the starting grid.
  
  One thing is certain - Gilles Villeneuve could never be accused of not understanding car setup. His wins in the turbo-lagged Ferrari prove the contrary - he had extraordinary ability to adapt to the peculiarities of the car at any given time, combined with an understanding to how turn in competitive lap times despite those quirks. His turbo wins have been accredited to some unconventional setups. It's irrelevant whether those setups would have benefited a more conventional driver - they worked for Gilles, that's all that was needed.
  
  Gilles' apparent lack of fear in the cockpit is listed as another potential negative. I see it as the opposite. As he got older, he may have learnt fear. If he did, he would have probably become a better driver. If he didn't, he was daunting enough as it was. The only time fear becomes a negative is when the driver loses his nerve completely. In Villeneuve's case, that seemed an extremely remote possibility.
  
  Politically, Villeneuve seemed too timid to assert himself in a team the way that Prost, Senna and Schumacher have. Of the intangibles, that is the weakest link. However, it's not an irretrievable one. No amount of internal politics can replace sheer raw talent. Teams didn't want Villeneuve because of the sponsorship deals he brought, or because he was a wily manipulator. They wanted him because he was so obviously talented. Again, though, there were signs of change: his anger at the Pironi affair, and his reported intentions of perhaps leaving the team, are signs that maybe a more assertive Villeneuve was emerging immediately prior to his death.

Final Verdict

Before I get to final judgement, a word about this Court's stance.

Unlike a criminal court, I did not follow a principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. And that cut both ways. Neither Villeneuve's reputation, nor the Big Three's accomplishments, was viewed as the high ground. I started from a position of ambivalence. I did not ask the Prosecution to prove positively that Villeneuve would have achieved as much as the Big Three, nor did I ask the Defence to prove the contrary. For 'proof' in this case is impossible to provide either way. Instead, we are concerned more with compelling argument, and with reasonable speculation on what might have been...

In summary, it has been reasonably proven that Gilles Villeneuve had the raw intrinsic talent to become a Fangio-, Prost- or Senna-like achiever. Of the three teams who dominated F1 in the decade after Gilles' death, two were more than happy to have him drive for them, and the third had noticed his extraordinary talent. In addition, his main driving rivals during that time (Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet, possibly Rosberg) were mostly less experienced and arguably less talented than the Canadian.

I therefore find it reasonable that Villeneuve would have enjoyed some top-class competitive machinery for the bulk of the remainder of his career.

In terms of intangibles (approach), I find that the evidence against Villeneuve is based largely on the mistakes he made as a new and inexperienced driver in Formula One. I find enough evidence that Villeneuve, like so many drivers both before and after him, had learnt with experience and become a smarter and better driver with age, without losing the nerve, desire and commitment which characterised his earlier years.

I sincerely doubt that Gilles Villeneuve would have taken 66 pole positions, six World Championships and 52 GP wins. However, that was not the requirement. The Prosecution had only to argue that Villeneuve would have attained similar ballpark figures to those set by the Big Three. I believe they have done that successfully.

Therefore, In the case of Gilles Villeneuve and the Big Three, this Court finds for the Prosecution.