Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:11
In this thread I have missed the historical view. There have been poignant examples of teammates of which one was the faster driver (meaning: qualifying) and the other, by hook or by crook or by luck or by skill, somehow anyway knew to match the other. Prost was always faster than Lauda, I believe the average is 1.5 seconds in qualifying, but still Lauda won the championship in 1984. Senna was faster than Prost, but their battle ended in a draw. Hamilton is faster in qualifying than Button, and though Hamilton has the slight edge, Button outscored him in points in their three years together.
I do understand the frustration of some Hamilton-fans that Grand Prix victories have lost of their importance, by virtue of the points-system of F1. I think the difference between 1st and 2nd place should be much larger than it is now, so that seasons like that of Hamilton this year, would reap greater awards for him. However: the F1 championship is decided by points. 1984 was another good example: Prost won seven grand prix's, Lauda 5, Lauda won the championship. In 1977 Lauda won the championship when three or four other drivers won more Grand Prix than him... Whatever system you think of (10-6-4-3-2-1 is my favourite), there were always be drivers who win Grand Prix but miss the three, four non-podium finishes that clinch the title. Lauda beat Prost in 1984 by the virtue of half a point, I believe...
As a comfort, the same is true in tennis. I saw a match between Amalgro and Nadal. Amalgro served a higher percentage in, with a higher percentage of winners, he hit harder, in his groundstrokes he hit more winners, he won almost as many points as Nadal... and still Nadal had him under controll, 6-4,7-5, 7-6, or something. By virtue of winning most of the points at 40-all, 40-30: the deciding points. Unfair? Well, then we should change the rules of scoring.