417 replies to this topic

[TheFish]

Most F1 fans are agreed should Lewis DNF in Abu Dhabi with a 31 point lead we will have the wrong WDC for 2014.

 

How many and which years did we have the wrong WDC?

 

We always hear about Mike Hawthorn/Stirling Moss and Keke Rosberg - Why are these so important and what about other years? 1986/7? Jim Clark only having 2 titles?

[george1981]

Vettel in 2010 and 2012. Alonso should have won these two IMO. Had that happened it would be Alonso's 4 titles to Vettel's 2. That would restore the imbalance in the universe or something.

[byrkus]

There is NO wrong WDC. Every single one deserved it, and every single one in future also will deserve it.

 

It's not like a single race would count for WDC - that is more a winter sports style. Or olympic. Here, you have to be on top (or near top) throughout a season, with 16-20 races pres season, AND makes the most points on then current points system. That's all there is to say about it.

[TheFish]

Vettel in 2010 and 2012. Alonso should have won these two IMO. Had that happened it would be Alonso's 4 titles to Vettel's 2. That would restore the imbalance in the universe or something.

 

Why did Alonso deserve it over Vettel in 2010 and 2012?

[TheFish]

There is NO wrong WDC. Every single one deserved it, and every single one in future also will deserve it.

 

It's not like a single race would count for WDC - that is more a winter sports style. Or olympic. Here, you have to be on top (or near top) throughout a season, with 16-20 races pres season, AND makes the most points on then current points system. That's all there is to say about it.

 

Indeed - it's no easy task to win a WDC. However, there are times when luck plays a part in this sport. It's never purely about your own performance, Mansell getting a puncture in 1986 was not his fault, if he hadn't had that bad luck he would have been a 2 time champion, and Prost would have had 3. It would be hard to argue that Mansell didn't deserve it.

[Kraken]

The WDC is the person who scores the most points at the end of the season. There has never been a wrong WDC and there won't be this year regardless of who wins it.

Edited by Kraken, 05 November 2014 - 22:12.

[Atreiu]

Just consider "wrong WDC" as being synonym to "lease impressive WDC".

 

Vettel's 2010 campaing was not the most impressive. Neither was Alonso's. Hamilton was the best driver that year, but it does not mean was the wrong driver or underserving, he simply had the chips stacked in his favour and yet barely escaped with it.

[Collombin]

Probably 1981 should be up there, especially considering the unfair advantage Brabham had at Buenos Aires.

Prost was the medals champion, Villeneuve worked wonders in a tank, whilst Jones, Reutemann and Laffite were all more deserving than Piquet too.

The only safe uncontroversial answer is Pete Aron 1966.

[John B]

 IMO Prost in 86 did a great job keeping in touch with the Williams to be able to take advantage of their misfortunes at the last race. His wins included a dominant Monaco where he beat Senna and the rest decisively.  Less so with 1987....not the strongest WDC performance.

 

One could argue that apart from the points Prost and Senna's 1988-89 titles could be switched as far as deserving.....Prost had more points in 88 and lost to the  best-11 finishes rule, Senna the pace in 89.

Edited by John B, 05 November 2014 - 22:16.

[scheivlak]

 

 

We always hear about Mike Hawthorn/Stirling Moss and Keke Rosberg 

Only by stupid and/or uninformed people.

[george1981]

Why did Alonso deserve it over Vettel in 2010 and 2012?

Alonso had a much slower car in both those years but managed to keep fighting until the final race.

[sennafan24]

I still wake up screaming about 1989 

 

Senna 5 Mechanical  DNF's (4 from the lead, one of the grid where he started 2nd)

 

Prost 1 Mechanical DNF (First lap, but in the lead from pole)

[garoidb]

Why did Alonso deserve it over Vettel in 2010 and 2012?

 

I'm not going to get into that one right now, but it is worth realising that two races make the difference beween 4-2 to Alonso, 3-3 or 4-2 to Vettel. It could easily have swung the other way, and it is not through any great merit of Vettel that it did not. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.  

[OvDrone]

Against my better judgement, it is 2010 for me. But then my Webberitis goes away.

[sennafan24]

A few more reasonable mentions would be 1990 and 1994

 

You could argue that Senna and Schumi should have been excluded from the WDC entirely for their questionable tactics.

[SpartanChas]

Vettel did deserve it in 2010 really. Obviously there were mistakes but all of the contenders made notable blunders that year except maybe Button, who just wasn't quick enough anyway.

 

2012... Vettel had a good year... Alonso will always be remembered for getting so much out of a bad car. Tough call.

[Paa]

'99 Schumacher

[bourbon]

I'm not going to get into that one right now, but it is worth realising that two races make the difference beween 4-2 to Alonso, 3-3 or 4-2 to Vettel. It could easily have swung the other way, and it is not through any great merit of Vettel that it did not. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.  

 

Vettel was a most deserving champion, not only because he won, but because he came from behind to do it against the odds on both occassions, driving perfect when it was called for; holding faster cars behind and mostly never giving up.Alonso choked in 2010 and 2012.  2010 Unable to pass a rookie in the final race after numerous errors in earlier races costing him finishes and points - but went into the finale with a 15 point lead and blew it.  He would have been the most undeserving champion if he had won because Webber, Hamilton and Vettel were all better than him that season.  In 2012 he cocked up the end of the season, unable to match his early performance and blamed the car - even though Massa got better performance out of the car at the end of the year.  Go figure.

 

2005 should have gone to Kimi for certain - in that case it was not a slow car, but a car that would not go.  And Massa in 2008 - it was a dead heat race between the contenders, but Singapore screwed Massa out of the title and that was not fair because it involved illegal action.  That one is a close call because they were both very deserving (Singapore wasn't Lewis' fault).

Edited by bourbon, 05 November 2014 - 23:08.

[sennafan24]

That's all there is to say about it.

What about cheating?

 

Plus, I think we all have the right to chose who deserves to be WDC the most. If you think it is the person who winds up WDC, then fair play.

 

But others think F1's is a flawed practice in deciding the best driver in the field. Whether that is due to the points system, luck, or the differential in car performance. You really cannot stop people from having their own perspectives and perceptions.

 

Live and let live 

[george1981]

A few more reasonable mentions would be 1990 and 1994

 

You could argue that Senna and Schumi should have been excluded from the WDC entirely for their questionable tactics.

 

 

I'd argue against exclusion. I think they were both backed into a corner by the FIA and reacted in a certain way based on previous treatment.

[Collombin]

I always felt Lauda got too much credit for 1984. He didn't outfox Prost, he just had the better reliability during the crucial stage of the season.

And what if Monaco hadn't been stopped prematurely? Prost could have let Senna and Bellof past and still picked up more points than for being a half points race winner!

[sennafan24]

Alonso choked in 2010 and 2012.  2010 Unable to pass a rookie in the final race after numerous errors - but went into the finale with a 15 point lead and blew it.  He would have been the most undeserving champion if he had won because Webber, Hamilton and Vettel were all better than him that season.  In 2012 he cocked up the end of the season, unable to match his early performance and blamed the car - even though Massa got better at the end of the year.

 

2005 should have gone to Kimi for certain - in that case it was not a slow car, but a car that would not go.  And Massa in 2008 - it was a dead heat race, but Singapore screwed Massa out of the title and that was not fair because it involved illegal action.

 

 

You really cannot stop people from having their own perspectives and perceptions.

On second thoughts 

Edited by sennafan24, 05 November 2014 - 22:29.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

The WDC is the person who scores the most points at the end of the season. There has never been a wrong WDC and there won't be this year regardless of who wins it.

Making tautological statements, and making them strongly, does not get around the fact that championship points are an attempt to quantify who was the best performer during the season.  As with all attempts to quantify something that is fairly subjective, it doesn't work out perfectly, but some systems work better than others.  If we awarded points entirely with the roll of the dice, and all races would be just for exhibition, your statement would still hold, but obviously the championship would be a meaningless joke if it were awarded like that.

[ensign14]

There is NO wrong WDC. Every single one deserved it, and every single one in future also will deserve it.

 

I'm trying to work this one out if Rosberg wins the title because one race is arbitrarily given double points and his team-mate has the bad luck to retire.

 

Piquet did not deserve it in 1987; he was outclassed by Mansell all year but a cross-threaded wheelnut at Hungary decided the title.  Piquet also didn't deserve it in 1981 because he had an illegal car at the start of the year with which he scored enough points to make the difference.  And he also didn't deserve it in 1983 because his car used illegal fuel which enabled him to overhaul Prost and his over-rampant libido.  Conversely Piquet deserved it more in 1982 when he was the best driver that year.  And had Bernie not short-termed Brabham onto Pirelli's concrete rubbish he might have taken the fight to McLaren over the next couple of years.

 

Other definitely wrong years: Surtees in 1964, benefitted from his kamikaze team-mate taking out Graham Hill; Schumacher in 1994, for reasons even Stevie Wonder could see; Lauda in 1984, although he was closer to Prost that year than Rosberg has been to Hamilton.

 

But it's all fairly meaningless.  Fangio was the best in the world until 1957, then it was Moss until 1962, then Clark until 1968, then Stewart until 1973, then a varying interregnum until Prost reigned from 1983 to 1987, Senna until 1994, Schumacher until 2003 with a brief Hakkinen usurpage, then Alonso to 2007ish and Hamilton and him as duarchs since.  Although Hamilton has added much more race intel this year which might give him clear blue water.

[ensign14]

And what if Monaco hadn't been stopped prematurely? Prost could have let Senna and Bellof past and still picked up more points than for being a half points race winner!

 

Bellof would have been DQ'd anyway by FISA stitch-up.

[scheivlak]

Bellof would have been DQ'd anyway by FISA stitch-up.

That's what he meant 

[Collombin]

Bellof would have been DQ'd anyway by FISA stitch-up.

Exactly, otherwise the maths wouldn't stack up.

I think Piquet was top dog from 1982 to 1984, but certainly Prost took the baton over in 1985 I think.

But I would nevertheless hate the WDC to be decided by a voting panel, like the US college "football" champions are decided. Yuk.

[Spillage]

The following I would say are years in which the best driver over the course of the season did not win the WDC, working backwards:

2012 - Vettel (Alonso)

2008 - Hamilton (Kubica)

1998 - Hakkinen (Schumacher)
1997 - Villeneuve (Schumacher)

1996 - Hill (Shumacher)

1993 - Prost (Senna)

1989 - Prost (Senna)

1988 - Senna (Prost)

1987 - Piquet (Mansell/Prost)

1982 - Rosberg (Pironi)

1981 - Piquet (Villeneuve)

1976 - Hunt (Lauda)

1967 - Hulme (Clark)
1966 - Brabham (Clark)

1961 - Hill (Moss)

1959 - Brabham (Moss)

1958 - Hawthorn (Moss)

 

But that would be to do a disservice to the men who did win those championships. There may be one or two duds in the list, but I don't think many people begrudge drivers like Hunt or D. Hill their world titles, although I wouldn't name any single season in which they were the outstanding driver. I'd also say that the seasons delivered by Vettel in 2012 and Hakkinen in 1998 were worthy of world championships, even though neither scaled the heights of whoever Ferrari's resident genius was that particular year. Hell, you could even argue that Frentzen outperformed Hakkinen in 1999, but I'd still say Hakkinen was one of the 20-odd best drivers F1 has ever seen and a totally deserving double world champion.

 

A victory for Rosberg, though, would grate. The only circumstances in which I think he could be a worthy winner is if Hamilton chucks it off the road in the final two rounds. Otherwise he'll either be the beneficiary of good luck (fair enough, mechanical failures are part of the game after all) or a ridiculous points system. And that really would suck. I suspect I'm going to sit down for the Abu Dhabi GP and, for the first time in my life, pray that Hamilton succeeds.

 

EDIT: It's also sometimes the case, as in 1996 and 1981, that the best driver that particular year isn't in the title hunt at all. I don't think that necessarily undermines the title fight or the drivers contesting it; after all, it's a helluva lot harder to perform when the pressure's on.

Edited by Spillage, 05 November 2014 - 22:55.

[LeMans86]

Most F1 fans are agreed should Lewis DNF in Abu Dhabi with a 31 point lead we will have the wrong WDC for 2014.
 
How many and which years did we have the wrong WDC?
 
We always hear about Mike Hawthorn/Stirling Moss and Keke Rosberg - Why are these so important and what about other years? 1986/7? Jim Clark only having 2 titles?

And what if Lewis stupidly crashes in Brasil, Rosberg wins, giving him a 1 point advantage into Abu Dhabi.
The Mercs collide there with Rosberg DNF-ing and Hamilton scraping home in 10th, giving him 2 points thanks to double points and the WDC

?

Edited by LeMans86, 05 November 2014 - 22:48.

[ed24f1]

Was going to mention 2008 due to the sour influence of Singapore as well. It's one thing to lose a title due to a mechanical failure (e.g. 05 or 87 as mentioned and potentially 2014), but completely different to lose it due to an unrelated act of cheating. Having said that not as bad as other years where the cheaters themselves benefited, it was just bad luck that Ferrari couldn't handle the pressure of the dodgy SC.

As for Kubica being worthy of the championship in 2008, I find it hard to agree with as we never saw how he would face any real pressure as Hamilton and Massa had to. He only kept in it mostly through Massa's mechanical failures and Hamilton's errors - a bit like Frentzen in 99. It is a different ballpark to drive around under the radar compared to having to face real championship pressure. As we've seen from Rosberg, Webber and many others it's how you face these pressures that determines your standing in the sport. As for Kubica, it's same as with his season in 2010 means that I find it hard to judge him as high as others do

Edited by ed24f1, 05 November 2014 - 22:59.

[Radion]

Alonso had a much slower car in both those years but managed to keep fighting until the final race.

I agree with this. 

However, if Vettel hadn't had these retirements in 2010, Alonso wouldn't have been able to fight for that wdc at all. 

 

It was not all Alonso in '10. I'm not even sure why people rate his 2010 campaign so highly.

 

2012   

 

Other than that, I agree with #3

[New Britain]

2007. Forget about Hamilton; Alonso would have been WDC that year if Max Mosley had not interceded at Hungary, overruling his own stewards to order that Alonso be put back 5 places on the starting grid. If Alonso have been allowed to start either where he qualified (first) or where he would otherwise have qualified (second), he would have been the 2007 WDC.

[Collombin]

1996 - Hill (Shumacher)
1993 - Prost (Senna).

We have to be careful not to take this too far though. Whilst I agree that the better driver did not become WDC, in these sort of cases there is no way you can that the bracketed driver deserved it more based on the actual race results.

Years like 1984 and 1987 are another kettle of fish altogether.

[TheRacingElf]

Normally I would say every driver who became WDC deserved it because they scored the most points over a whole season. However Rosberg winning it just because of this stupid double points BS would be very undeserving in my book. He would just win it because some rich people in the middle east thought their race should be more important than all the other races on the calendar

[Longtimefan]

I feel this thread is going to open a huge can of worms but before its locked heres mine ;)

 

1982 should have been Watson or Pironi

1996 should have been Villeneuve or Schumacher

2008 should have been Massa

2010 should have been Alonso

[Doughnut King]

Did those seasons with dropped scores make a difference to the WDC? That, I think, is more comparable to the current season than in race incidents robbing a particular driver.

Edited by Doughnut King, 05 November 2014 - 22:57.

[Spillage]

We have to be careful not to take this too far though. Whilst I agree that the better driver did not become WDC, in these sort of cases there is no way you can that the bracketed driver deserved it more based on the actual race results.

Years like 1984 and 1987 are another kettle of fish altogether.

Indeed, as I say in my edit, in both cases the best driver did not have the machinery to challenge for the title, but I don't think that undervalues the World Champion. F1 is a team sport, after all.

[sennafan24]

I feel this thread is going to open a huge can of worms but before its locked heres mine ;)

 

1996 should have been Villeneuve or Schumacher

2008 should have been Massa

Can I ask why on these two

 

No issue if you do not "want to open a can of worms" just curious

[Collombin]

1982 should have been Watson or Pironi

Keke would (and did) point out that his and Piquet's Brazil DQ promoted Watson a couple of places. And Watson's car was just as illegal.

[mercedessurearepopularnow]

2007. Forget about Hamilton; Alonso would have been WDC that year if Max Mosley had not interceded at Hungary, overruling his own stewards to order that Alonso be put back 5 places on the starting grid. If Alonso have been allowed to start either where he qualified (first) or where he would otherwise have qualified (second), he would have been the 2007 WDC.

Hard to agree with that when the whole spygate thing was going on heavily involving Mclaren, i really didn't like seeing them magically win in 2008 after that either, especially the nature of the win, or nature of the loss rather, for a Ferrari driver i might add.

Edited by mercedessurearepopularnow, 05 November 2014 - 23:02.

[scheivlak]

2007. Forget about Hamilton; Alonso would have been WDC that year if Max Mosley had not interceded at Hungary, overruling his own stewards to order that Alonso be put back 5 places on the starting grid. 

Do you have any proof of that?

 

Apart from that, the stewards' decision http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/61373 was IMHO very well substantiated and completely transparent. If that was orderded by Max - which I don't believe- he should be proud of his intervention because it was completely justifiable.

[Nitropower]

Vettel was a most deserving champion, not only because he won, but because he came from behind to do it against the odds on both occassions, driving perfect when it was called for; holding faster cars behind and mostly never giving up.Alonso choked in 2010 and 2012.  2010 Unable to pass a rookie in the final race after numerous errors in earlier races costing him finishes and points - but went into the finale with a 15 point lead and blew it.  He would have been the most undeserving champion if he had won because Webber, Hamilton and Vettel were all better than him that season.  In 2012 he cocked up the end of the season, unable to match his early performance and blamed the car - even though Massa got better performance out of the car at the end of the year.  Go figure.

 

2005 should have gone to Kimi for certain - in that case it was not a slow car, but a car that would not go.  And Massa in 2008 - it was a dead heat race between the contenders, but Singapore screwed Massa out of the title and that was not fair because it involved illegal action.  That one is a close call because they were both very deserving (Singapore wasn't Lewis' fault).

Clearly an objective opinion from an Alonso fan

[OvDrone]

This thread will be an Ouroboros.

[Nitropower]

Kimi in 2007. Hamilton deserved it (so did Alonso, but he couldn't with his team racing him). Only Spygate and the Macca civil war let Kimi make it.

Vettel in 2010 and 2012. With an uttertly inferior car Alonso fought it until the end. Vettel had the best machinery in both cases in at least 70% of the races and some times 5 or 6 races in a row.

Both Senna and Prost when they crashed into the other one 89/90. They shouldn't have won.

Schumacher in 1994 cheating and breaking Damon Hill's car.

Edited by Nitropower, 05 November 2014 - 23:18.

[jonpollak]

It's part of the allure of our sport race fans...

 

The good the bad and the ugly.

 

Jp

[Lennat]

In general, I feel the drivers should adapt to whatever the rules are. For instance, I have NO problem with Senna winning in 1988 with fever points, since the only the eleven best races count-rule justified a more aggressive approach. It's different this year though, since it could be PURELY down to luck who's engine failed in the last race which counts double for no real reason at all. 

Edited by Lennat, 05 November 2014 - 23:22.

[scheivlak]

 

 

1982 should have been Watson or Pironi

 

 

 

Rosberg's performance that year is very underrated - possibly because he won the WDC. If he hadn't won it that year he would have probably been on top of the unsung hero lists or something like that.

 

He drove heroically all season long and had some pretty bad luck at times as well. Just look at his performance at the British GP when he was the fastest guy by far!

 

1982 was just the craziest season ever. One could present not just Watson, Pironi or Rosberg but Piquet, Prost, Arnoux or Villeneuve as well as possible champions. Rosberg was certainly no less deserving a champion than all those others. 

Edited by scheivlak, 05 November 2014 - 23:26.

[fque]

Hamilton should have won in 2007, results manipulated by TO isn't fair, should be banned as it had no impact to WCC score, therefore it shouldn't have happened.

Schumi should have won in 1999, Mika got lucky.

Hill or Senna had he not died should have won in 1994, Schumi we all know what he is like...

[Lights]

There is NO wrong WDC. Every single one deserved it, and every single one in future also will deserve it.

 

It's not like a single race would count for WDC - that is more a winter sports style. Or olympic. Here, you have to be on top (or near top) throughout a season, with 16-20 races pres season, AND makes the most points on then current points system. That's all there is to say about it.

 

Obviously this view has a lot of supporters. I completely disagree with it. First of all, the question in this thread is about years when the wrong driver was WDC. Not in which years the winner didn't deserve it. 

 

In my opinion the WDC always deserves it to a certain extent because he will have always worked hard for it. That doesn't mean that it's impossible that another driver would have been more deserving of the title, but missed out due to circumstances outside of his own control. Luck plays part in F1 and denying that is foolish.

[rf90]

Spot on. Someone who knows F1.

 

Edited by MightyMoose, 07 November 2014 - 01:52.
No need to add the dig at a poster, please don't.