Twisting of words is an art around here. To reiterate, from couple of odd remarks by both, Ross and Michael on two different occassions, there was possibly some undisclosed issue with engineers, which, as Michael said, was different at Ferrari. Anyone can develop his own theories around it as much as it pleases.
I can't help but see the pattern:
-if the car is great then Michael gets credit and he must have been listened to. After all, listening to Michael is an essential ingredient to the car's success.
-if the car is uncompetitive, then it must be that they aren't listening to him.
It's really odd that he can never be associated with failure. If there's failure in his presence, then it's those around him that he depends on that are doing the failing and he has nothing to do with it.
He's been very successful and couldn't have been so without equally successful individuals around him. We may never know how these equally successful individuals handled his suggestions over his time with Ferrari. Maybe they took on some or all of his suggestions? Maybe his suggestions were useful though not incisive enough for someone not very smart to work with and enhance appropriately etc.
We just don't know and IMO, just as it seems unreasonable to shoulder all the blame on him for what's happened. It seems unreasonable as well to exonerate him fully from the MGP failure over the last 3 yrs.
The same goes for his success. It's unreasonable to give him full credit and it's just as unreasonable to claim he had nothing to do with it.
The truth of his meaningful involvement in both the successful and recently unsuccessful parts of his racing likely lies somewhere down the middle.
Edited by ali_M, 11 November 2012 - 18:17.