He didn't deliver - really? I mean, he lost WDC by one point in 2007 in the midst of the McLaren implosion, and he lost 2010 by 4 points versus the two cars that had copend all poles but 4 out of 19, and he did not deliver? Having a WDC-capable car is all fine, but there is a difference between the circumstances Alonso faced in 2007 and 2010, and the ones Schumacher faced at Ferrari...
(See, we are arguing again! )
Well, people forget that Alonso started 2007. as practically #1 driver at McLaren. Hamilton only wanted to win a race in his first season, Ron said that he only expects Hamilton to be as fit as possible and to do his simulator hours. Alonso failed to deliver in 2007., wheter someone likes it or not, he should have beaten Lewis in first 5-6 races and established himself as a boss in the team. He failed to do that.
In 2010. Vettel and Hamilton too had just a few bad races - in the end Alonso wasn't worse than Vettel or Hamilton, but he wasn't better than them too. He missed those two titles by a little bit, but he did miss them. As a Hamilton fan, I could find same excuses for his 2007. or 2010. - faced strongest driver in F1 in 2007., had gearbox issue in last race of season. And in 2010. had reliability issues and not the fastest car out there. But I'm not doing that because I know that if Hamilton was indeed better than all others - he would win both 2007. (by not binning it in China for example) and 2010.(by being smarter in Monza and Singapore) - he just isn't. Same goes for Alonso wheter you people like it or not.
Now, this explains a lot...
Look, Jee Pee: that McLaren car that Raikkonen drove was the fastest car in the grid. Yet you only focus on it being unreliable - well, Raikkonen did not finish in three races, not 8 or 9. If you are going to claim that Alonso was lucky because of McLaren's poorer reliability, you'll have to agree that Raikkonen was equally lucky because of the car's greater speed - so the luck factor cancels out. I am a bit tired of that "Kimi should have won 2005 but he was let down by the car" mantra, as if the speed was all thanks to Raikkonen but the reliability all to be blamed on the car.
I guess you didn't watch that season a lot, Kimi also had to start a bunch of races with +10 spots in quali because they changed the engine so it wouldn't fail on Sunday. And I agree with Alonso (he said this in an interview when asked about his luck) on this, it wasn't luck - McLaren simply built an unreliable car. Partly it could have been influenced by Kimi driving style, but also - if Kimi were a better/faster driver perhaps McLaren could have made the car a bit slower but more reliable and Kimi would beat Alonso - but he didn't. Many McLaren fans blame Mercedes, many Alonso haters blame Alonso being lucky, but I suspect that that car was built so it falls apart as it enters the finishing line on purpose.
Your comments are normally a joke but coming from and extreme McLaren fanatic it's nothing surprising. In 2007 he had the car but he had no team and the team would make sure he would not win the title. Talking about pressure, actually his tires felt the pressure in China, not him.
I'm sorry to have stated that he had WDC capable machinery and failed to win 2007 and 2010. I know the facts sometimes hurt
As for China 2007., funny you don't think McLaren sabotaged Lewis by leaving him on destroyed tyres in the same China race you mention.
You know that Schumacher lost championships at the final race on two occasions too. Remember that?
Definitely. Senna wasn't perfect either, if I may say so. But for Alonso to be compared with those (and guys like Prost, Fangio, etc.) he does need to win more titles. His F1 career is already longer then Senna's and he is still to win that 3rd title. Like I said 2012. looks like it could be his season, and if he wins it my respect for him will grow massively.
Edited by velgajski1, 18 July 2012 - 09:32.