Everybody knew about the special relation between Alain and the frenchman.
Yes. Because SS officers REALLY like Jews.
Schumacher was the better rain driver, the better qualifier, transformed (of course with others) Ferrari to winning team, had by far more master class performances than Prost in the late 90s. Even without his winning streak from 2000 to 2004 Michael showed in every way he was a better and faster version of Prost. Your turn.
Well, of course Prost transformed Ferrari from also-rans into a but-for-Senna's-attempted-murder title winner, for which they sacked him. Only it took Alain one season.
Prost was happy to have Senna as a team-mate. Schumacher was happy to have Irvine as a team-mate.
Better than Prost in every way?
In a race of 10 finishers, Howden Ganley finished 5th whilst Peter Gethin finished 1st. He was also only +0.61 behind over 200 miles. If we don't know the exact scoring, there could be the chance that Senna and Prost are actually very close, yet 3 others have managed to squeeze between them.
Congratulations, you've found the single closest race in 106 years of Grand Prix history. Now what are the chances that that level of proximity could be applied to a Formula 1 greatest list?
The same logic applies to Prost-Senna.
The qualifying score against Prost was 28-4 to Senna been on average 0.737s ahead. (this is more than the double of what Alonso has on Massa this year...)
The race score when both finished the race was 14-6 to Senna.
Statistics are like a bikini. Very interesting and providing crucial support, but to get to the really important stuff you have to peek behind.
Prost had changed his race mentality by the time Senna came along. He had tried leading from pole when with Renault and found that that buggered up reliability. Remember it wasn't bulletproof reliability back then. Prost learned from Lauda - a driver who was consistently slower but who beat him to the 1984 title - that he would do better in Championship terms to chillax a little. Get the car in the right place and let IT do the work. He concentrated on things like race set-up as opposed to sheer speed, in an era when you could overtake.
Indeed I could throw another statistic back; Senna lost a third of the races he started on pole. Clark's statistic was a fifth, Fangio hardly any. Indeed Schumacher has won more races than he poled, and Prost had an excess of wins over poles of 50%. That suggests Senna lacked the same race brain as Prost.
Just to dampen someone's fire, I have seen many an interview where Max Mosley said something like Jerez 1997 was originally going to be classed as a racing accident and he "encouraged" them (the stewards) to look again at it. But I guess that viewpoint won't fit in the obvious agenda being peddled.
Fits with Mosley's agenda, doesn't it? Anyone got any corroboration from e.g. the stewards?