I never said Alonso was the best ever. Why can't you claim Schumacher had it easier if its true? Unless you think Hill, Coulthard, Mika, were as good as Schumacher, Hamilton and Vettel, then he clearly did have it easier. In Michaels glory days there were only 2 top teams at any given moment, not 3 like today, which makes it much harder. If results are most important as you say, then Senna is clearly not at Schumachers level. I would disagree with you along with most of the F1 community.
For some it would seem that their favourite had it the hardest while achieving their results.
For some, it would seem that their favourite's era was the most challenging.
This is just a convenient way of making things fit to suit one's impression.
If Michael is dominating, he's having it easy with a great car or lousy fellow drivers. If Alonso dominates, then it's because he's just that good. If Alonso isn't dominating, then it's because the competition is so tight.
It was not so recently that Kimi was HUGE, until he met Massa at Ferrari. Suddenly his reputation was different.
We argue as if these guys are runners, cyclists or similar. Though they are supremely fit, they have cars to drive and teams to work with. Their car's competitiveness varies from season to season and from race to race. This will affect their overall competitiveness on race day. A race win goes to the team and driver. It couldn't happen without their combined efforts, but again, it would seem that when there's a win, it's about Alonso's greatness, but when the team doesn't win, it's about how the team messed up!
Alonso/Renault got the better of Michael/Ferrari in 2006. This was a celebration for Alonso/Renault... not Alonso ALONE!. If you really watched that season, I cannot see how you would not appreciate that it was a fine battle to witness since either of them would have deserved the championship. Michael could easily have won as well. This 'he was old' thing just doesn't apply. It was how good he was then and he was definitely there. However, the car and team have to be there as well.
Micheal has been DEVASTATING in his career once given a dominant car. Alonso has demonstrated a similar capability and so has Vettel. I do believe that Alonso gets more out of his races than Vettel when he's not driving the best car or when he has to mix with the others in the race to get a good result. He consistently demonstrates this through his abilities and race craft. His greatness comes, not from from one hit wonders, but his consistent ability to not 'drop the ball' during a race and doing the maximum lap after lap. He is relentless, quick, a clean wheel to wheel racer, and consistently so.
IMO, the only way one can negate the car's influence is to look at what has been done with the car each driver has over seasons. How consistent are they? This thing of 'driver A beat driver B' to a championship while they are in different teams..... I just don't get it when it's a team sport with so many variables. Saying that one driver is better than the other based on his pace, race craft, how he contributes to the team's development of competitive machinery, how he contributes to the execution of race strategies as well as how he affects team spirit and moral... now THAT, IMO are points for discussion. Alonso is definitely up there in all those categories.... no doubt about that.
