25 replies to this topic

[rjtart]

I thought it would be interesting to rate the F1 drivers that don't get the attention the champions receive. These are drivers who were teamed with a driver who won that year's championship, taking part in at least 75% of that year's events, but were never able to win the crown themselves. The first poll lists most of the drivers who qualify to these conditions. Unfortunately, the poll only allows 20 choices, so I was forced to leave off 2 drivers. My deletions were: Hector Rebaque, 1981 - teamed with Nelson Piquet and John Miles, 1970 - teamed with Jochen Rindt. I also left out Felipe Massa and Nico Rosberg, who would have qualified for this poll, but they are still active and could conceivably take the championship (well, one of them maybe).

More significantly, I also left out the drivers whose careers were cut short by fatal accidents. My reasoning was that most of them were too good to be considered number 2 drivers, and had they had full careers several of them would likely have won the crown. I've therefore included a second poll of just these drivers so you can check off the drivers that you would have included among your top 5 if given the chance.

 

Here are my choices:

1. Stirling Moss. Head, shoulders and navel above any other driver on this list. Anyone who doesn't include his name isn't qualified to participate in this poll. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

2. Rubens Barrichello. Better than he's given credit for. Excellent in the backup role, although he'd bristle at the thought.

3. Mark Webber. I've always rated him highly. Could have easily won the crown in place of Vettel in 2010. I think he lost his confidence and/or motivation toward the end.

4. Carlos Reuttemann. Lots of speed. Could beat anybody when his head was on straight. A little inconsistent though.  Perhaps not enough of a team player to be considered a great number 2.

5. Gerhard Berger. Another driver ideally suited for a backup role.

If they had been included in the poll, I would put Nico at number 2. Felipe would be close to making my top 5, but more likely 6th - even though he was THAT close to taking the overall crown.

 

Here's my choices if the drivers in the second poll were included:

1. Stirling Moss. My only choice from the first poll to make the overall list.

2. Gilles Villeneuve. Yes, I'm one of those Gilles fans.

3. Ronnie Peterson. Really, really fast. Lacked the development skills to be a great number one.

4. Wolfgang von Trips. Went into his last race leading the championship.

5. Francois Cevert. I'm not sure if he'd have ever been champion (especially if he'd stayed loyal to Ken Tyrrell), but he certainly left his mark as Jackie's backup.

[nosecone]

Nico Rosberg isn't doing too bad against LH, isn't he?

[Marklar]

I would have put Nico in the top 5. Why isnt he in the poll?

Edit: nevermind. Just read the full OP

My top 5 (note that Rosberg would be my 2nd if he was included)
1. Moss
2. Reutteman
3. Webber
4. Fisichella
5. Berger

Edit: oops. Confused something

My top 5 if all were included (Rosberg would have been either 5th or 6th)
1. Villeneuve
2. Moss
3. Peterson
4. von Trips
5. Cevert

I've messed up the poll, I accidentely choose 5 each, sorry

Edited by Marklar, 04 January 2016 - 10:22.

[messy]

Moss
Webber
Barrichello
Coulthard
Berger

Are the obvious choices to me in the first poll - maybe Reutemann in there too but I'm not really old enough to have any great insight about F1 of that era. The similarity with them is that they had the speed to challenge the team leader and on some weekends when the chosen one was struggling, to be the team's cutting edge. Maybe less so Barrichello and Berger, but those two were utterly dutiful so make up for the larger pace deficit by being "the perfect number two"

I think Coulthard especially was hugely underrated. He was genuinely faster than Hakkinen on numerous occasions yet generally mixed that with being a faithful support act for Mika's titles.

Fisichella was the biggest disappointment, he was miles and miles off Alonso in 2005-06.

[Collombin]

I think Reutemann would be number 2 in the first poll, and only slip to 4th if the second bunch were included.

It's such a shame that someone like Mike Spence might fail to get a single vote simply because younger fans may have no reason to have heard of him other than for his death.

[igoru]

Where is 2015 Nico Rosberg clear Nr 2 to Lojz Hamilton

[Imateria]

Moss and Villeneuve.

[BuddyHolly]

Berger and Cevert (with several others almost too close to call)

[Spillage]

Good topic for a thread!

 

Moss and Reutemann are no-brainers, but after that it gets tricky. I went with Regazzoni because he almost won the title in 1974, outscoring Lauda in the process (albeit rather fortuitously). Selected Berger because, unlike most on the list, he was able to win races without a top car. Then I voted Coulthard because he outscored Hakkinen in 1997 and 2001, but now think I should probably have chosen Webber on the strength of his 2010 season.

 

I'd put Villeneuve and Peterson comfortably in that bracket. Cevert died too soon, I think, to make  aproper judgement, but certainly Stewart rated him very highly. Von Trips is similar despite his success; he probably would have won the championship in 1961, but his car was miles faster than the opposition and it isn't like Phil Hill (to whom he was evenly matched) had a fantastic post-championship career.

 

So, I voted:

1) Moss

2) Reutemann

3) Regazzoni

4) Berger

5) Coulthard (but regret not picking Webber)

 

Then from the other list I went for Villeneuve and Peterson.

[Volcano70]

Moss, Reutemann, Barachello, Webber, Frentzen but I would replace Villeneuve for Frentzen if everyone was included

[MortenF1]

I will never understand how people think when they rate Barrichello over DC. DC beat Barrichello in an inferior car far too many times, so that rating really doesn't hold water.

[OvDrone]

Good to see so many votes for my main dude - Webber.

[JohnDoe]

I am afraid that there is a lot to being a number 2 driver than just driving a championship winning car alongside someone who wins the championship with said car. 

[RedBaron]

Wow, Barrichello has a lot of votes. Some people are easily impressed!

 

[ensign14]

Interesting thought.  Also interesting for me how my votes turned out - 3 for the early deceased, only 1 for the living.  I was thinking "which of these would I have trusted to go on to win if something happened to the number 1?" and that turned out only to be Moss, Villeneuve, Peterson and von Trips.  And even then Taffy was fortunate to have a totally dominant car in 1961.  Only Webber came close to getting out of the "not good enough to lead a team" trap.  One gets the feeling that had anything serious happened to Vettel at the start of 2010, his replacement might have had a better shake at the title than Webber...

 

For all Cevert's talent, he had too many 2nds to drivers that were not Stewart.  Given JYS' health problems in 1972 Cevert had the chance to step up and win.  He didn't.

 

His time would have come.  All his 2nds were behind Stewart, Emmo and Peterson, and he had a tight 3rd behind Gethin and Peterson.  So come 1974, with Fittipaldi doing the Ocon route and Lotus losing the plot, he would surely have gathered a hatful of wins, and perhaps the title.  But when Jackie's car failed in 1971-3, it wasn't Cevert who took advantage.

[Mohican]

Do not get some of these comments which strike me as arrogant and highly selective readings of the history book.

Reutemann, for example, was clearly team leader at Brabham in 1974-76, at Ferrari in 1978 - and was in period certainly not seen as a clear no. 2 when joining Lotus in 1979 or Williams in 1980.
Ickx was clearly no. 1 at Ferrari in 1970-73, but had less opportunity to shine at Lotus in 1974. Surprised no mention of John Watson or Tony Brooks.

By this logic, you should include Graham Hill (twice world champion) at Lotus in 1967; which just shows the futility of trying to relativise like this. Why not just recognise that most F1 drivers deserve respect ?

[PayasYouRace]

Even though I rate Barrichello, he, like Patrese, was beaten to the title by two team mates in different teams.

[DampMongoose]

None of Hawthorn's teammates in the poll, either section? Collins, Musso... I guess no defined number 2.

[lbennie]

Moss & Webber.

[Otaku]

Do not get some of these comments which strike me as arrogant and highly selective readings of the history book.

Reutemann, for example, was clearly team leader at Brabham in 1974-76, at Ferrari in 1978 - and was in period certainly not seen as a clear no. 2 when joining Lotus in 1979 or Williams in 1980.
Ickx was clearly no. 1 at Ferrari in 1970-73, but had less opportunity to shine at Lotus in 1974. Surprised no mention of John Watson or Tony Brooks.

By this logic, you should include Graham Hill (twice world champion) at Lotus in 1967; which just shows the futility of trying to relativise like this. Why not just recognise that most F1 drivers deserve respect ?

 

 

Why the infamous Jones / Reut sign @ Brazil then?

 

BTW I think Reut was a better driver than Jones, just a bit inconsistent but he was really awesome at developing cars, ask the guys @ Ferrari.

[rjtart]

There's been some questioning about certain selections and omissions in this poll. I think perhaps I should clear up my thinking and rationale for this. I wanted to generate some talk about the lesser lights in F1. People who were very talented but were never able to grasp the gold ring.

Clearly making a poll rating all of the "number 2" drivers would be impossible. I could have created a list of those who I thought were the top 20, but I suspect the bulk of the responses would be "how could you leave out "Driver A", and how could you include "Driver B" when he had fewer wins than "Driver C."

My goal was to make a poll as objective as possible. All of the listed drivers spent the bulk of at least one season driving a car that was capable of winning the championship, but they were beaten to the crown by their teammates. None of them ever won the championship. Of course there are always mitigating factors. I consider fatal accidents the biggest reason why some never quite made it (hence the second poll). By the rules set up for this poll, no other driver qualifies (except for Rebaque and Miles, as explained in my OP). In no way do I mean the term "number 2" as pejorative. I would love to have had  Reuttemann's career.

Regarding post #16, unless I've overlooked something, neither John Watson nor Tony Brooks were ever teammates with someone who won THAT YEAR'S championship. Therefore, neither qualified for this poll. That is in no way a reflection of their considerable talents.
And, obviously, Graham Hill's 2 championships disqualifies him from this poll.

Regarding post #18, Hawthorne had 5 teammates during his championship year, but none of them ran 75% or more of the races. So none qualified for the poll, nor did they have a realistic chance of beating him.

[Giz]

I had a lovely one this morning

[danmills]

Points and results do the talking. Of all those, who came second or the smallest margin from the champion that season? Easy. No point theorising over 'what if's'.

[rsherb]

I was willing to give Rubens more credit during his Ferrari days; he was up against Michael Schumacher's extraordinary ability in a team that also openly stacked it in Michael's favor. However, after coming up short against Jenson and still whining about team favoritism, my rating for Rubens somewhat diminished. I think Coutlhard was a much more solid performer when racing against a Champion teammate in a team that (mostly) treated the drivers fairly evenly.

[Dick Dastardly]

Moss & Webber from the 1st list.....Peterson, Villeneuve & Cevert from the 2nd 

[sopa]

Tough choice. And what do we rate? How they performed as #2's   , or overall talent?

 

Because in such poll Frentzen looks bad since his 1997 wasn't particularly good as a #2, but few can match his 1999 in the Jordan. Fisichella also has a bad reputation for his 2005-06.

 

Then we look at i.e Barrichello, and relatively speaking his 2000-2001 were pretty average overall. But he looks stronger due to seasons after that (some of them in great cars).

 

From the first poll Moss clearly stands out. After his period of #2 he turned into the benchmark driver of the field for quite a few years.

 

Reutemann was also good, but I am not sure how much of a cut above others in poll 1, as there are clearly quite a number of drivers, between who it is very hard to choose from. So I won't split the hair there for now.

 

From poll 2 - Gilles Villeneuve, and then Peterson, with the possible inclusion of Cevert.