258 replies to this topic

[ferrarijon123]

What about it?

Like 2005 his rivals had engine failures.

You call that fighting hard?

I call 2007 fighting hard. I call 2008 and 2009 giving up and becoming a quitter.

Alonso should have won so much more, his career has actually been disappointing at how many titles he's thrown away.

He should be a 5x WDC by now.

I only remember michael only having 1 engine failure and fernando had an engine failure at monza, it equals itself out. 2008 giving up? He won 2 races in an average renault but i admit singapore shouldnt count. 5x WDC He couldve won 2007 and 2010. Where did the other WDC come from?

[PNSD]

He should be a 5x WDC by now.

I love your posts.

5 titles. Ok go. Name them.

[fernandofan2001]

What about it?

Like 2005 his rivals had engine failures.

You call that fighting hard?

I call 2007 fighting hard. I call 2008 and 2009 giving up and becoming a quitter.

Alonso should have won so much more, his career has actually been disappointing at how many titles he's thrown away.

He should be a 5x WDC by now.

I know he gave up in 2009. I mean, getting a podium at singapore with a car which stopped development 2 months before in the british grand prix, he REALLY gave up.

Jesus christ if this is the calibre of forum posters, then its no wonder I never posted for a good year or two.

[Hole]

What about it?

Like 2005 his rivals had engine failures.

You call that fighting hard?

I call 2007 fighting hard. I call 2008 and 2009 giving up and becoming a quitter.

Alonso should have won so much more, his career has actually been disappointing at how many titles he's thrown away.

He should be a 5x WDC by now.

Both Alonso and Schumacher had the same number of retirements due non-driver fault, so get your facts straight.

[Alarcon]

Both Alonso and Schumacher had the same number of retirements due non-driver fault, so get your facts straight.

You forget HUNGARY... was not his fault and Alonso he was doing an amazing race!

Then Alonso 2 retirements not by his fault and Schumacher 1. Alonso deserved that WC.

Edited by Alarcon, 11 July 2011 - 21:44.

[RockyRaccoon68]

He more than deserved his WDC in '06...he retired from the lead and from third place, without those retirements he would have finished on the podium in all but 2 races! He also lost an almost certain pole position at Malaysia that year because of a fuel rig error. He deserved it and it is one of the few things I will argue about with someone until the bitter end!

[MonzaF1]

Personally I dont care about world titles - as a fan.

For me its grand prix wins that are important. Which is why I am always chuffed that NIGEL is right up there with 31 wins.

[skinnyman]

Not quite so. In 2005 Montoya kept crashing (including on a motorcycle) and Kimi lost 2 victories due to his own errors. Alonso made virtually no errors.
MP4-20 was good enough to win both titles but the McLaren drivers (especially Montoya) did not keep their cool as Alonso did. True, Kimi's car (but not Montoya's) had some engine troubles but those were more than compensated by vastly superior speed. It was a rocket. I can't remember when did any car hold such a speed advantage over its rivals, before or since.

Alonso made no errors ? Selective memory at its best

How about crashing out of lead in Canada on his own, should have been an easy win.

And blaming Kimi for Imola and Nürburgring is stupid, car was obviously not going to finish in Imola and Jacques was the moron in Germany:

Räikkönen damaged his tyres with a lock up of his front-right whilst lapping Jacques Villeneuve who ignored blue flags, losing a small amount of time to Alonso as he ran wide. This created the "flat spot" which causes severe problems late in the race

It was already 36-7 after four races through no fault of Kimi, plus hydraulics failed him while clearly leading Hockenheim and he had some three 10-place penalties later because of engine.

That is 50+ points to overcome in some 8 races in which his car was faster and without issues, quite impossible.

Edited by skinnyman, 12 July 2011 - 04:33.

[mmanzur]

I think looking at percentage of wins versus starts means a lot and can level the playing field with the greater number of races that the current generation of drivers participate in. Fangio won 46% of all races that he started. Ascari 39%, Schumacher 32% (sadly this percentage is getting a lot lower since he retired from Ferrar!) and Senna 25%.

Ciao

Only Michael Schumacher has so far won more prior to his 30th birthday - 33

Alonso now has 27 wins, and is only four more wins from tying Nigel Mansell to become the 4th most successful driver in the sport's history.

Considering he has never ever had a car that's clearly the fastest over a full season (McLaren faster in '05 and Ferrari faster second half of '06), it has to be classified as really impressive.

If Ferrari gets order in their aero department soon, Senna's 41 may only be a couple of seasons away...

[john ruston]

What about Clark's and Stewart's numbers as a percentage?

Most have full careers these days and looking at weekend it's more dangerous being a Tour de France rider than a F1 chauffeur.

[Cesc]

It is not realistic to compare wins & poles between drivers from 30 years ago. Currently the grid is much more close in terms of performance, betwen the first 16 cars there are barely 2 secons. This is incredible considering that in the 80s and 90s, between the first 5 cars there could be 3 seconds in some races. Conditions are too different to compare stats.

[velgajski1]

Today's F1 has some 50% more races than in Stewarts time, so those stats are severely messed up. Even if you compare to 80s-90s era there's like 20-30% more races in last decade, so we should probably be careful when making these kinds of comparisons. Otherwise, you'll soon have Alonso, Hamilton, and Vettel beat complete generation that raced in 60s for example

Vettel and Hamilton, who are still in their early careers already overtook likes of Brabham, Fittipaldi, Ascari, Andretti, and will probably get at least to some 30 GP's or more by the end of their careers which would make them 'better' than Fangio, Clark, Lauda.

What ultimately matters for these comparisons is:
1. WDC titles
2. GP win %
3. GP podiums %

Edited by velgajski1, 12 July 2011 - 06:58.

[BRK]

What about Clark's and Stewart's numbers as a percentage?

Most have full careers these days and looking at weekend it's more dangerous being a Tour de France rider than a F1 chauffeur.

These are approximate rounded win rates of some drivers when they had completed 9 years in their own careers unless it ended before they completed nine years, I'm not even considering overall win rate so this is Schumacher's percentage before he ever laid his hands on a dominant car (in chronological order):

Fangio*: 46 %

Clark*: 35 %

Stewart: 27 %

Prost: 26 %
Senna: 26 %

Schumacher: 31 %

Neither Fangio nor Clark had completed nine years. These were the real legends.

Here's a few more:

Lauda: 15 %

Mansell: 11 %
Piquet: 15 %

Alonso: 16 %

Looking at these figures it should be obvious which category of driver Alonso belongs to. Great? Yes. A clear league behind the likes of Schumacher and Senna? Absolutely. As I said, you could spin car theories around all you want, the simple fact is that real class shines through. I would think by the time Vettel and Hamilton complete nine years they would be closer to the top league than Alonso ever was. Time will tell.

[topical]

Wrong. Imola was not Kimi's fault. One would think that when you are devoting your whole existence to stalking Räikkönen even you would know better. And besides it was not 20 points but more since Alonso benefited as usual.

Alonso will be remembered as one of the greats, Kimi as a talented guy who got his ass handed to him by Felipe Massa and went off to crash rally cars and race trucks. Nuff said.

Edited by topical, 12 July 2011 - 07:20.

[nbhb]

2005
RENAULT: 191 points
McLAREN: 182 points

2006
RENAULT: 206 points
McLAREN: 201 points

Considering Fisichella was not as competitive as Montoya and Massa more competitive as Fisico... I hope is clear for you. The fact is that Renault won both championship and was the 1st car.

You speak like the cars are driven by themselves...

Well Montoya has the fastest and the more reliable car, so how could have been Fisichella more competitive?
Strange how Fisichella who outperformed Massa at Sauber was less competitve than Massa. Could be the car?

But you didn't pay attention or chose to ignore that Montoya had a reliable rocket car. So how that Alonso had the best car is behind my imagination....Well it doen't suit your agenda but the point remain, you know....

[topical]

Looking at these figures it should be obvious which category of driver Alonso belongs to. Great? Yes. A clear league behind the likes of Schumacher and Senna? Absolutely. As I said, you could spin car theories around all you want, the simple fact is that real class shines through. I would think by the time Vettel and Hamilton complete nine years they would be closer to the top league than Alonso ever was. Time will tell.

Statistically a league behind Senna and Schumacher, yes. But come on, Schumacher's first two championships were won against Damon Hill, a driver of about the calibre of Felippe Massa. And how many wins did he get in 2002 and 2004? 25 or so? These were two years in which he literally had no competition - a massively superior car and a teammate there to serve his needs. Take away all that and what do you have?

imo neither Vettel nor Hamilton will get anywhere near Schumacher's statistics, precisely because they and Alonso are three top drivers in the same era. There are simply so many variables to take into account. And yet I fully expect Vettel to overtake Senna in terms of championships and possibly victories. Why? Well, he is already nearly a 2 times world champion at an age in which Senna had not yet even sat in a Toleman. Which just underlines how impossible comparisons are between different eras.

Edited by topical, 12 July 2011 - 07:27.

[BRK]

Statistically a league behind Senna and Schumacher, yes. But come on, Schumacher's first two championships were won against Damon Hill, a driver of about the calibre of Felippe Massa. And how many wins did he get in 2002 and 2004? 25 or so? These were two years in which he literally had no competition - a massively superior car and a teammate there to serve his needs. Take away all that and what do you have?

Once again, these stats for Michael are up to the end of the 2000 season, before he ever had a truly dominant car. He had already beat Senna twice in 94, I have no doubt the championship would have panned out the same way had Senna lived: one or two less wins is not going to make a difference or drop the percentage to anything below 26-27. That's the league of legends.

Vettel and Hamilton are ten wins away from surpassing Alonso, if you observe carefully you would notice their current stats are very close to those of the real legends at the same stage in their own careers, it's likely they will get close, closer at any rate than Alonso.

As I said, time will tell. What should however be clear is that Alonso is a league behind the legendary drivers. If any thing, it's the premise of this thread that's meaningless: the 'youngest' anything is simply a guy that got into F1 earlier, at least the youngest world champion may have some merit; saying someone's going to be the youngest to reach a certain number of wins is utterly meaningless. It's likely some of the younger drivers will get there much sooner: would this mean they're the greatest of all time? Of course not.

My belief is that Alonso will retire a double\triple world champion with 30-something wins to his name, like a Lauda or a Piquet. I'm sure when these drivers were racing they would have been ranked among the top ten greatest drivers of all-time, you won't find many that would do the same twenty odd years on. Same with Alonso.

Edited by BRK, 12 July 2011 - 07:41.

[Rinehart]

Define the 'best' car? A combination of Speed and reliability. On that note, I believe renault was the best car. But how is it, that all the critics say Alonso was the best driver, but and including Autosport, they say the Mp4-20 was THE best car of 2005?

I also define the best car as a combination of speed and reliability thus conclude that the Renault was the best car. I also agree Alonso was the best driver that season. I'm not disputing that Alonso wasn't a deserving champion in 2005 or 2006, or that he isn't an excellent driver, I'm just capping the brilliance of his career to date to reasonable terms.

[Rinehart]

Ohh GOD read the thread. I already explained to 1 guy:

2005: Was Montoya's car fragile? NO.So, Renault not the best car in 2005.
2006: Renault was faster in 9 races(incl. Hungary and China), Ferrari was faster in 9 races. If we don't count FIA involvements let's say Ferrari and Renault were equal best.

Hope is now clear for you also

That 1 guy doesn't agree with your bogus assessment, which seems to conclude that whichever car finishes ahead, was the best.

[ZooL]

I love your posts.

5 titles. Ok go. Name them.

2005
2006
2007 (lost his composure? or ran out of talent)
2008 (should've stayed at McLaren rather than quitting the challenge)
2010

To come out of that only a 2xWDC is disappointing. He could have achieved so much more.

[topical]

Once again, these stats for Michael are up to the end of the 2000 season, before he ever had a truly dominant car. He had already beat Senna twice in 94, I have no doubt the championship would have panned out the same way had Senna lived: one or two less wins is not going to make a difference or drop the percentage to anything below 26-27. That's the league of legends.

Vettel and Hamilton are ten wins away from surpassing Alonso, if you observe carefully you would notice their current stats are very close to those of the real legends at the same stage in their own careers, it's likely they will get close, closer at any rate than Alonso.

As I said, time will tell. What should however be clear is that Alonso is a league behind the legendary drivers. If any thing, it's the premise of this thread that's meaningless: the 'youngest' anything is simply a guy that got into F1 earlier, at least the youngest world champion may have some merit; saying someone's going to be the youngest to reach a certain number of wins is utterly meaningless. It's likely some of the younger drivers will get there much sooner: would this mean they're the greatest of all time? Of course not.

My belief is that Alonso will retire a double\triple world champion with 30-something wins to his name, like a Lauda or a Piquet. I'm sure when these drivers were racing they would have been ranked among the top ten greatest drivers of all-time, you won't find many that would do the same twenty odd years on. Same with Alonso.

I disagree with you on the first point. I think Senna would have won the WDC in 1994 had he lived and certainly in 1994-5 Schumacher would have got a lot less wins had Senna been alive. I mean come on, in his one proper race with Williams (Brazil) Senna lapped Hill before he span out. If Alonso is not in the same league as Senna or Schumacher, then Hill is certainly 1 or 2 leagues behind Alonso as well. On the other hand, Schumacher fans may say that had Senna lived then Schumacher may not have gone to Ferrari and instead joined up with Newey at McLaren and won a tonne of races there, which is also a fair point. Anyway, we can never know.

In terms of your overall argument, that in 10 or 20 years Alonso will not be ranked in the same class as Senna or Schumacher, I think you are probably right. He will probably be in that Lauda-Mansell group of 'greats' but not 'legends'. But that's not too bad either. Mind you, if Alonso is not in that group then neither will Hamilton or Vettel be there. Neither has shown that they are better than Alonso yet, although Hamilton may have a better chance of being a 'legend' due to his attacking style, much as Villeneue Sr. is a legend despite having far less wins, etc, than some others who are barely remembered today.
Either way, I think it's still a bit early to judge Alonso definitively. His record against Massa in the same team stands up quite well compared to Schumacher's, and if Ferrari produce a good car he could well retire with 3-4 WDC to his name. We'll have to wait a bit longer to find out.

Edited by topical, 12 July 2011 - 08:08.

[fernandofan2001]

2005
2006
2007 (lost his composure? or ran out of talent)
2008 (should've stayed at McLaren rather than quitting the challenge)
2010

To come out of that only a 2xWDC is disappointing. He could have achieved so much more.

But Kimi should have been more than a single world champion. Lewis for godsake should have more than one championship to his name, but they dont have them. I will still maintain that I cant believe jenson button won a world championship. its because of that, that I still dont rate sebastien vettel as anything more than a good driver in such a dominant car. Everytime he isnt on pole he falters unless webber lets him through. Hes a great driver, but not a very good racer. Especially if horner is worried that they cant race properly because vettels only knows how to crash into other cars, not overtake them.

[nbhb]

Once again, these stats for Michael are up to the end of the 2000 season, before he ever had a truly dominant car. He had already beat Senna twice in 94, I have no doubt the championship would have panned out the same way had Senna lived: one or two less wins is not going to make a difference or drop the percentage to anything below 26-27. That's the league of legends.

Is behind my mind how you came to this conclusion. Maybe you forgot how he beat Hill...

Vettel and Hamilton are ten wins away from surpassing Alonso, if you observe carefully you would notice their current stats are very close to those of the real legends at the same stage in their own careers, it's likely they will get close, closer at any rate than Alonso.

I wonder if you realised that both Hamilton and Vettel had in 3 of their first 4 years in F1, a car capable of winning a WDC and Alonso had only in 1 year. I hope you did, though I really doubt it...

As I said, time will tell. What should however be clear is that Alonso is a league behind the legendary drivers. If any thing, it's the premise of this thread that's meaningless: the 'youngest' anything is simply a guy that got into F1 earlier, at least the youngest world champion may have some merit; saying someone's going to be the youngest to reach a certain number of wins is utterly meaningless. It's likely some of the younger drivers will get there much sooner: would this mean they're the greatest of all time? Of course not.

My belief is that Alonso will retire a double\triple world champion with 30-something wins to his name, like a Lauda or a Piquet. I'm sure when these drivers were racing they would have been ranked among the top ten greatest drivers of all-time, you won't find many that would do the same twenty odd years on. Same with Alonso.

Well this Alonso (which you say is in a Piquet ligue) beat the legendary Shumacher + FIA assistence in at best an equal car (that only if we supose that Renault was beter in Bahrain, Hungary and China). So how is clear that Alonso is a league behind the legendary drivers? Not to say that Shumacher didn't beat any legendary driver, but he is legendary... Strange logic you have to be honest. In fact strange logic and imagination...

[BRK]

In terms of your overall argument, that in 10 or 20 years Alonso will not be ranked in the same class as Senna or Schumacher, I think you are probably right. He will probably be in that Lauda-Mansell group of 'greats' but not 'legends'. But that's not too bad either.

It isn't, and that's all there is to it.

Is behind my mind how you came to this conclusion. Maybe you forgot how he beat Hill...

Maybe because you have no clue how Schumacher was robbed of a win and banned from competing effectively handing free wins to Hill, and yet came back to win the title.

Well this Alonso (which you say is in a Piquet ligue) beat the legendary Shumacher + FIA assistence in at best an equal car (that only if we supose that Renault was beter in Bahrain, Hungary and China). So how is clear that Alonso is a league behind the legendary drivers? Not to say that Shumacher didn't beat any legendary driver, but he is legendary... Strange logic you have to be honest. In fact strange logic and imagination...

Alonso never beat Schumacher in equal cars. He achieved what Hakkinen achieved, two back to back titles with the best car in the field, beating Schumacher in the process -why should I consider him to be any better than Mika was? No reason at all, there's nothing strange about it. Schumacher would have been the champion in the Renault in 2006. But of course that's not the topic of this thread.

Edited by BRK, 12 July 2011 - 08:32.

[nbhb]

That 1 guy doesn't agree with your bogus assessment, which seems to conclude that whichever car finishes ahead, was the best.

Did I make this assessment? I belive not...

[velgajski1]

Statistically a league behind Senna and Schumacher, yes. But come on, Schumacher's first two championships were won against Damon Hill, a driver of about the calibre of Felippe Massa. And how many wins did he get in 2002 and 2004? 25 or so? These were two years in which he literally had no competition - a massively superior car and a teammate there to serve his needs. Take away all that and what do you have?

imo neither Vettel nor Hamilton will get anywhere near Schumacher's statistics, precisely because they and Alonso are three top drivers in the same era. There are simply so many variables to take into account. And yet I fully expect Vettel to overtake Senna in terms of championships and possibly victories. Why? Well, he is already nearly a 2 times world champion at an age in which Senna had not yet even sat in a Toleman. Which just underlines how impossible comparisons are between different eras.

Car is only an excuse. If Alonso was really the class of Schumacher / Senna he would shine through with same brightness so to speak. How? By beating Hamilton in 2007., winning the title, and from there he'd have a great shot at 2008. title again, instead of going for a 2 year Renault cooldown. This would be something special, and today there would be arguments like is Alonso better than Senna, instead of is Alonso the same class as Senna. Also, if he was really the Schu/Senna class of driver he'd also win 2010. title with Ferrari. In fact, for me - 2010. showed that none of top 3 drivers today is actually clearly better than other 2. All made quite a great share of mistakes and it shows how equally matched they are (because they're always driving on the edge). But Alonso is still fairly young, and 2007. and 2010. will be forgotten if he wins some more titles with Ferrari.

Fact is, today we have 3 extremely closely matched great drivers, all of them will be legends, but unless one of those goes into a 3 season long domination streak, its hard to imagine they will have their place shoulder to shoulder with Schu/Senna. That being said, all 3 drivers will probably win some more championships in their careers, and will most likely be remembered as that legendary super talented, but equally matched generation.

Of course, it could happen that any of those wins all seasons from 2012-2016. and then all of this falls to water, so its too early to speculate

Edited by velgajski1, 12 July 2011 - 09:28.

[Buttoneer]

Last chance to stay on topic.

This is not about his rivalry with Schumacher or Hamilton, and it definitely isn't about quoting Schumachers records in an attempt to hijack the conversation. If someone is trolling or hijacking the thread then report them - do not respond.

[Jan.W]

Car is only an excuse. If Alonso was really the class of Schumacher / Senna he would shine through with same brightness so to speak. How? By beating Hamilton in 2007., winning the title, and from there he'd have a great shot at 2008. title again, instead of going for a 2 year Renault cooldown.

[Alarcon]

Is behind my mind how you came to this conclusion. Maybe you forgot how he beat Hill...


I wonder if you realised that both Hamilton and Vettel had in 3 of their first 4 years in F1, a car capable of winning a WDC and Alonso had only in 1 year. I hope you did, though I really doubt it...



Well this Alonso (which you say is in a Piquet ligue) beat the legendary Shumacher + FIA assistence in at best an equal car (that only if we supose that Renault was beter in Bahrain, Hungary and China). So how is clear that Alonso is a league behind the legendary drivers? Not to say that Shumacher didn't beat any legendary driver, but he is legendary... Strange logic you have to be honest. In fact strange logic and imagination...

Vettel had a capable car on 3 last years (09,10,11), but he also won without a uncapable car. That´s the difference. I think Alonso never did something like that (pole+lead+win... and also where in the past a lot of wet races...) Also Lewis Hamilton won a WC without having best car and Fernando Alonso always won with the 1st car of the grid... except on 2007, where he got the best car but Kimi was much better (and faster) than him.

Otherwise he´s a first class, of course. He´s a good qualifier and a much strong on race. He´s a double WC. Who, apart Schumacher is a double WC on the grid?

Edited by Alarcon, 12 July 2011 - 11:45.

[DrewishPrince]

Car is only an excuse.

Absolutely true! Just as it was for certain ex-McLaren/ex-Ferrari driver's fans in 2003-6 and 2008-9.

[jeze]

Before starting to dwell on Alonso's percentages, I can then say that he started his career of in a Minardi four seconds off the pace, at the very least. He did good things in that too, qualifying 18th in Australia and USA back in 2001, but the car was not built by another team with greater resources, so unlike Vettel he could not challenge.

But had say, Ferrari, built the Minardi as a satellite car, he had flew, just like what Vettel did seven years later. It's just not comparable.

Difference is that Lewis has (bar half a season) had a top-two or a close (to the top) third car, Alonso has had that kind of car only in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010...

Vettel's been sitting in a rocketship for 2,5 years and has thrown away countless of races on his own. That's the difference. Every friggin' time Alonso gets a shot at victory he maximizes his resources. That's what makes him a great driver.

In the brief window of 2006 when the Renault was dominant, he won six out of nine, in spite of some qualifying troubles in those races.

[toxicfusion]

Vettel had a capable car on 3 last years (09,10,11), but he also won without a uncapable car. That´s the difference. I think Alonso never did something like that (pole+lead+win... and also where in the past a lot of wet races...) Also Lewis Hamilton won a WC without having best car and Fernando Alonso always won with the 1st car of the grid... except on 2007, where he got the best car but Kimi was much better (and faster) than him.

Otherwise he´s a first class, of course. He´s a good qualifier and a much strong on race. He´s a double WC. Who, apart Schumacher is a double WC on the grid?

2003 Hungarian Grand Prix. Alonso's first win in a car arguable shouldn't have been winning a race ;)

The MP4-23 and F2008 were pretty equal throughout the year, some tracks suited the one better than the other, so its not as if Lewis won the championship in a terrible car.

[MarioKart]

That's why I put the IIRC, I wasn't so sure about 1980 and so.

Oh OK cool

Stats dont mean **** as i have said, they are just fun for kids! Whenever Mansell had a competitive car, i.e late 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1992 and very briefly in 1994 he was bang in the hunt and quite unlucky at times. Lets have a look who he was up against too; Lauda, Rosberg, Piquet, Prost, Senna. Not bad. I'm not a Mansell diehard either

Yes, you're right. Thanks for your kind words.

and to stay on topic about Alonso , I think he's a special talent who has matured a lot since last year. I don't know if it's because of how close he was to win the WDC in 2010, or if approaching the age of 30 has something to do with it. His approach to driving is effective for getting the best possible results and enjoyable to watch,he has a healthy outlook on the world of F1 and seems really humble at the moment.

[BRK]

The Renaults Alonso had in his early career were some of the fastest in the field, they were a regular threat to whoever was the front runner at any given weekend, be it BMW Williams or McLaren or even Ferrari. A better driver could perhaps have done wonders with such machinery. Trulli was oftentimes the quicker and more impressive of the two drivers, there was absolutely nothing about Alonso that made him special in the way people claim today.

His two titles were nowhere near as dominant or impressive as some that preceded him. Renault started off 2005 with a massive advantage over McLaren, there can be no doubt that it was the quickest and most reliable package, and yet Raikkonen came close to winning the title. A better driver would have performed the way Vettel has this season; take out Sebastian Vettel from the equation and we have Webber winning multiple GPs and bagging pole positions, with a closely fought title race that should have been anything but. What Alonso achieved in 2005 wasn't better in any way than what Webber could have done these last two season with the Red Bull. How that is even comparable to Vettel's absolute domination with the same car, I don't know.

2006 was the year of the tyre war, Michelin had a significant advantage over Bridgestone throughout the year. Bridgestone and Ferrari's tyre graining woes from 05 had carried over and kept rearing its ugly head throughout the season, crippling their campaign. Apart from the pace advantage that the Renault enjoyed over its chief rival Ferrari (and the reliability advantage over McLaren), the R06 + Michelin was far and away the most consistently quick package of the season, race after race the Renaults would eke out more laps on their tyres and had a strategic advantage as a result. The Michelin shod Renaults also had a big advantage in the wet, and were rocketships off the grid. Ferrari only managed to sort out their issues towards the fag end of the year, but the engine blowup in Suzuka sealed it. Anybody that actually watched the season would know Renault + Michelin was the package to have, to argue that Renault only had a small advantage or none at all is not just ludicrous but a blatant falsehood.

In 2007 he was matched by a rookie, but all drivers improve the most between their first and second seasons in the sport: Vettel is a good example. From a very quick driver that nevertheless made mistakes and was at times bettered by his teammate in 2009, to putting in dominant unstoppable drives in 2011, Vettel certainly has come a long way -and so would Hamilton in 2008. 2007 was by no means an accurate picture, perhaps a 2008 Hamilton would have trounced him severely to the point that he would have had to consider retirement.

As it stands: Alonso did a good job to win with the best package twice, as did Mika Hakkinen, but just as that did not make Hakkinen the best driver on the grid, it will not make Alonso the best on the grid. Far from it. His statistics are just a reflection of this fact, he has achieved a lot but there are others that achieved much more in a shorter space of time, and there are those that are on course to achieve much more. Nothing special.

Edited by BRK, 12 July 2011 - 13:07.

[Kohque]

The Renaults Alonso had in his early career were some of the fastest in the field, they were a regular threat to whoever was the front runner at any given weekend, be it BMW Williams or McLaren or even Ferrari. A better driver could perhaps have done wonders with such machinery. Trulli was oftentimes the quicker and more impressive of the two drivers, there was absolutely nothing about Alonso that made him special in the way people claim today.

His two titles were nowhere near as dominant or impressive as some that preceded him. Renault started off 2005 with a massive advantage over McLaren, there can be no doubt that it was the quickest and most reliable package, and yet Raikkonen came close to winning the title. A better driver would have performed the way Vettel has this season; take out Sebastian Vettel from the equation and we have Webber winning multiple GPs and bagging pole positions, with a closely fought title race that should have been anything but. What Alonso achieved in 2005 wasn't better in any way than what Webber could have done these last two season with the Red Bull. How that is even comparable to Vettel's absolute domination with the same car, I don't know.

2006 was the year of the tyre war, Michelin had a significant advantage over Bridgestone throughout the year. Bridgestone and Ferrari's tyre graining woes from 05 had carried over and kept rearing its ugly head throughout the season, crippling their campaign. Apart from the pace advantage that the Renault enjoyed over its chief rival Ferrari (and the reliability advantage over McLaren), the R06 + Michelin was far and away the most consistently quick package of the season, race after race the Renaults would eke out more laps on their tyres and had a strategic advantage as a result. The Michelin shod Renaults also had a big advantage in the wet, and were rocketships off the grid. Ferrari only managed to sort out their issues towards the fag end of the year, but the engine blowup in Suzuka sealed it. Anybody that actually watched the season would know Renault + Michelin was the package to have, to argue that Renault only had a small advantage or none at all is not just ludicrous but a blatant falsehood.

In 2007 he was matched by a rookie, but all drivers improve the most between their first and second seasons in the sport: Vettel is a good example. From a very quick driver that nevertheless made mistakes and was at times bettered by his teammate in 2010, to putting in dominant unstoppable drives in 2011, Vettel certainly has come a long way -and so would Hamilton in 2008. 2007 was by no means an accurate picture, perhaps a 2008 Hamilton would have trounced him severely to the point that he would have had to consider retirement.

As it stands: Alonso did a good job to win with the best package twice, as did Mika Hakkinen, but just as that did not make Hakkinen the best driver on the grid, it will not make Alonso the best on the grid. Far from it. His statistics are just a reflection of this fact, he has achieved a lot but there are others that achieved much more in a shorter space of time, and there are those that are on course to achieve much more. Nothing special.

You know, it would be interesting to list the drivers who haven't won with the best package.

[Hole]

The Renaults Alonso had in his early career were some of the fastest in the field, they were a regular threat to whoever was the front runner at any given weekend, be it BMW Williams or McLaren or even Ferrari. A better driver could perhaps have done wonders with such machinery. Trulli was oftentimes the quicker and more impressive of the two drivers, there was absolutely nothing about Alonso that made him special in the way people claim today.

His two titles were nowhere near as dominant or impressive as some that preceded him. Renault started off 2005 with a massive advantage over McLaren, there can be no doubt that it was the quickest and most reliable package, and yet Raikkonen came close to winning the title. A better driver would have performed the way Vettel has this season; take out Sebastian Vettel from the equation and we have Webber winning multiple GPs and bagging pole positions, with a closely fought title race that should have been anything but. What Alonso achieved in 2005 wasn't better in any way than what Webber could have done these last two season with the Red Bull. How that is even comparable to Vettel's absolute domination with the same car, I don't know.

2006 was the year of the tyre war, Michelin had a significant advantage over Bridgestone throughout the year. Bridgestone and Ferrari's tyre graining woes from 05 had carried over and kept rearing its ugly head throughout the season, crippling their campaign. Apart from the pace advantage that the Renault enjoyed over its chief rival Ferrari (and the reliability advantage over McLaren), the R06 + Michelin was far and away the most consistently quick package of the season, race after race the Renaults would eke out more laps on their tyres and had a strategic advantage as a result. The Michelin shod Renaults also had a big advantage in the wet, and were rocketships off the grid. Ferrari only managed to sort out their issues towards the fag end of the year, but the engine blowup in Suzuka sealed it. Anybody that actually watched the season would know Renault + Michelin was the package to have, to argue that Renault only had a small advantage or none at all is not just ludicrous but a blatant falsehood.

In 2007 he was matched by a rookie, but all drivers improve the most between their first and second seasons in the sport: Vettel is a good example. From a very quick driver that nevertheless made mistakes and was at times bettered by his teammate in 2009, to putting in dominant unstoppable drives in 2011, Vettel certainly has come a long way -and so would Hamilton in 2008. 2007 was by no means an accurate picture, perhaps a 2008 Hamilton would have trounced him severely to the point that he would have had to consider retirement.

As it stands: Alonso did a good job to win with the best package twice, as did Mika Hakkinen, but just as that did not make Hakkinen the best driver on the grid, it will not make Alonso the best on the grid. Far from it. His statistics are just a reflection of this fact, he has achieved a lot but there are others that achieved much more in a shorter space of time, and there are those that are on course to achieve much more. Nothing special.

I don't think Alonso had the best package in 2006. I think both Ferrari and Renault had overall an even car. Renault was better in the first half, and Ferrari was better in the second half.
I think Alonso always take the full potential of a car, so if you think when Schumacher was ahead it was with a slower car then that means Schumacher was forcing a car to run faster than it should or Alonso was driving slower than he should with the machinery he had. I don't think it's likely any of the two.


Fact is that since 2000, as soon as a rival had a car as fast as Schumacher's car, he got beat. First by Mikka, then by Kimi (too bad about his reliability problems) and later by Alonso. Oh, yeah, and Montoya beat Schumacher in some random races too.

Oh, so according to BRK the Renault not only was more reliable but also faster than the McLaren in 2005? Renault was the most reliable car but McLaren was clearly faster that's why Kimi could get close to Alonso despite of his retirements. Also we must take into account the conservative aproach Alonso had in many races...

Also funny how you say other drivers achieved more than Alonso in a shorter period of time. Are you pourposely ignoring the sheer dominance of RBR's cars? Or that Alonso's car at first were not very nice? If Alonso had had a RBR in 2003 and 2004 he would have won also two championships as Vettel will do. But he had a midfield Renault that from time to time could get some random podiums.

Edited by Hole, 12 July 2011 - 14:13.

[Alarcon]

2003 Hungarian Grand Prix. Alonso's first win in a car arguable shouldn't have been winning a race ;)

The MP4-23 and F2008 were pretty equal throughout the year, some tracks suited the one better than the other, so its not as if Lewis won the championship in a terrible car.

Renault this year was 4th on WC. with 88 points (and Alonso did 3 podiums before winning)

Toro Rosso was 6th with 39 points !!! (best result before Monza was a 5th of Vettel after start on the grid the 18th!)

I mean YOU CAN´T COMPARE.

[Alarcon]

I hope this can help: just to compare Alonso on a fair way.

Alonso on his first 80 races... 14 victories and 13 pole position (he drove for Minardi 17 races)

Hamilton on his first 80 races... 15 victories and 18 pole position (he had Alonso´s team mate on his first year)

Vettel on his first 71 races... 16 victories and 22 pole position (he drove for Toro Rosso 25 races)

Edited by Alarcon, 12 July 2011 - 14:35.

[AlanWake]

If Alonso won the title in 2005 it was due to the fact that he had the most reliable car, not the fastest car. The MP4-20 was easily the fastest car on the grid since Imola/Spain 2005 and it was obvious that Mclaren was going to win almost all races if the car was reliable and able to finish the races, very much like Red Bull in 2010. I think Alonso won that title due to his brilliant consistency because he really hadn't the car to beat Mclaren on pace in most of races. If he had been as consistent in 2010 as he was in 2005 he would won against a faster car again (albeit less reliable). Although there is no doubt the R25 was a clearly better car compared to the opposition than the F10 was and the RB6 was still more dominant in terms of speed than the MP4-20 was. As some British journalist said in 2005 (I don't remember his name): "To win a race I would choose the MP4-20 and to win the WDC, I would choose the R-25". That pretty sums it up.

In 2006, Alonso deserved the WDC more than anyone. IMO over a course of a season, the 248F1 was at least equal/slightly superior to the R26. The R26 was better in the first half of the season and the 248F1 was better in the second half of the season. If Alonso won the WDC it was because he was flawless ALL THE YEAR and didn't make big mistakes unlike his WDC rival. He won the WDC despite FIA tried everything to screw him (the mass damper ban, Monza penalty, etc) and 2 reliability failures in Hungary and Monza.

He would have won the WDC in 2007 if he had been more mature and calmer in certain situations like in Canada or Hungary. He didn't expect Hamilton was as good as him and it rattled him. He had the talent to win the title that year but IMO his emotions affected his driving at times. But to be fair, I think the current Alonso would have handled much better what happened that year, he is a different animal nowadays.

[toxicfusion]

Renault this year was 4th on WC. with 88 points (and Alonso did 3 podiums before winning)

Toro Rosso was 6th with 39 points !!! (best result before Monza was a 5th of Vettel after start on the grid the 18th!)

I mean YOU CAN´T COMPARE.

Toro Rosso didn't even launch that car until the 6th race up until then Vettel was too busy crashing into people, the chassis was designed by one Adrian Newey and had a Ferrari engine in it (which as Red Bull moaned so much about was more powerful than its Renault counterpart). Looking at the results Vettel was the only driver scoring points in the second half of the season consistently, Bourdais struggled to do the same. With Alonso and Trulli both drivers were picking up points.

There is also the fact that in 2003 the engines weren't as reliable as they were in 2008, picking up more points can be attributed to that along with other drivers being out the race as a result of an accident.

[Cesc]

I hope this can help: just to compare Alonso on a fair way.

Alonso on his first 80 races... 14 victories and 13 pole position (he drove for Minardi 17 races)

Hamilton on his first 80 races... 15 victories and 18 pole position (he had Alonso´s team mate on his first year)

Vettel on his first 71 races... 16 victories and 22 pole position (he drove for Toro Rosso 25 races)

Fair?

These comparisions are extremely biased by yiour preferences.

Absolute numbers never show the reality when they are not from the same times/eras.

In the first 80 races, Alonso had winnig capable car in 2 seasons (the rest he was diiving a fine car, but behind Ferrari, Williams and McLaren), Hamilton has had a winnig car in almost all these races and Vetel has had absolutely the best car in half of those 70 races...and a race winnig car in 2009 (the best for half of the season).

but I guess that a lot of you will try to point out how good the R23 and R24 were, cars capable of winning championships... right ? Or how Trulli trashed Alonso in 2004 (forgetting that before the last two races in 2003 the scoring was 55 to 24 to Alonso, but a couple of mechanical problems and two decent races from Trulli left the scorecard a little bit better -55 to 33-)

[as65p]

The Renaults Alonso had in his early career were some of the fastest in the field, they were a regular threat to whoever was the front runner at any given weekend, be it BMW Williams or McLaren or even Ferrari. A better driver could perhaps have done wonders with such machinery. Trulli was oftentimes the quicker and more impressive of the two drivers, there was absolutely nothing about Alonso that made him special in the way people claim today.

His two titles were nowhere near as dominant or impressive as some that preceded him. Renault started off 2005 with a massive advantage over McLaren, there can be no doubt that it was the quickest and most reliable package, and yet Raikkonen came close to winning the title. A better driver would have performed the way Vettel has this season; take out Sebastian Vettel from the equation and we have Webber winning multiple GPs and bagging pole positions, with a closely fought title race that should have been anything but. What Alonso achieved in 2005 wasn't better in any way than what Webber could have done these last two season with the Red Bull. How that is even comparable to Vettel's absolute domination with the same car, I don't know.

2006 was the year of the tyre war, Michelin had a significant advantage over Bridgestone throughout the year. Bridgestone and Ferrari's tyre graining woes from 05 had carried over and kept rearing its ugly head throughout the season, crippling their campaign. Apart from the pace advantage that the Renault enjoyed over its chief rival Ferrari (and the reliability advantage over McLaren), the R06 + Michelin was far and away the most consistently quick package of the season, race after race the Renaults would eke out more laps on their tyres and had a strategic advantage as a result. The Michelin shod Renaults also had a big advantage in the wet, and were rocketships off the grid. Ferrari only managed to sort out their issues towards the fag end of the year, but the engine blowup in Suzuka sealed it. Anybody that actually watched the season would know Renault + Michelin was the package to have, to argue that Renault only had a small advantage or none at all is not just ludicrous but a blatant falsehood.

In 2007 he was matched by a rookie, but all drivers improve the most between their first and second seasons in the sport: Vettel is a good example. From a very quick driver that nevertheless made mistakes and was at times bettered by his teammate in 2009, to putting in dominant unstoppable drives in 2011, Vettel certainly has come a long way -and so would Hamilton in 2008. 2007 was by no means an accurate picture, perhaps a 2008 Hamilton would have trounced him severely to the point that he would have had to consider retirement.

As it stands: Alonso did a good job to win with the best package twice, as did Mika Hakkinen, but just as that did not make Hakkinen the best driver on the grid, it will not make Alonso the best on the grid. Far from it. His statistics are just a reflection of this fact, he has achieved a lot but there are others that achieved much more in a shorter space of time, and there are those that are on course to achieve much more. Nothing special.

Look, I found the hidden summit of you ramblings! Now do I get a cookie?

Seriously, I think you overcooked it. Less would have been more, in any case more believable. Better luck next time round...

[BRK]

Look, I found the hidden summit of you ramblings! Now do I get a cookie?

Seriously, I think you overcooked it. Less would have been more, in any case more believable. Better luck next time round...

That's right, when confronted with the opinion of someone that can see beyond the hype, it's time to throw in some irrelevant one-liners. Seems to be your modus operandi on every thread.

1994 happened. Get over it. There's no need to bear a grudge with everybody from Williams to Schumacher for it and 'support' anybody that beats them.

Anyone that has followed Alonso's entire career and not just jumped in in 2005 or 2007 (clearly a lot of them, judging by the quality of some of the replies to this thread) would know there is an element of overratedness connected with Alonso, ten years on and the stats prove this is indeed the case, but this doesn't seem to be enough for some people: as is always the case with such things, time will tell. What's funny is the same Senna wannabes complain there's too much Senna-hype surrounding Hamilton, but I've seen more 'Alonso (insert absurd and amusing 'records' here) Senna' threads on here, also the topic of this particular thread. Go figure.

As proven, Alonso is a cut below the likes of Schumacher and Senna. Never going to happen, but hey you're free to dream.

[as65p]

That's right, when confronted with the opinion of someone that can see beyond the hype...

Uhh, pompous much, aren't we?

....but I've seen more 'Alonso (insert absurd and amusing 'records' here) Senna' threads on here, also the topic of this particular thread. Go figure.

As proven, Alonso is a cut below the likes of Schumacher and Senna. Never going to happen, but hey you're free to dream.

I personally not care for the records stuff, at all. Indeed MS at least seems out of reach for decades, if not forever in that regard, yet it's all the more interesting that an MS fan would get so worked up about an Alonso-centered thread topic that states a simple and undisputable fact, just like MS 91 wins are. Must be something burning away at the inside that let's you begrudge a driver reaching 27 wins, while you're own man is at over triple that number. I wonder what it could be?

[Kohque]

These are approximate rounded win rates of some drivers when they had completed 9 years in their own careers unless it ended before they completed nine years, I'm not even considering overall win rate so this is Schumacher's percentage before he ever laid his hands on a dominant car (in chronological order):

Fangio*: 46 %

Clark*: 35 %

Stewart: 27 %

Prost: 26 %
Senna: 26 %

Schumacher: 31 %

Neither Fangio nor Clark had completed nine years. These were the real legends.

Here's a few more:

Lauda: 15 %

Mansell: 11 %
Piquet: 15 %

Alonso: 16 %

Looking at these figures it should be obvious which category of driver Alonso belongs to. Great? Yes. A clear league behind the likes of Schumacher and Senna? Absolutely. As I said, you could spin car theories around all you want, the simple fact is that real class shines through. I would think by the time Vettel and Hamilton complete nine years they would be closer to the top league than Alonso ever was. Time will tell.

I am afraid time is going to disappoint you. The last truly dominant car was Schumacher's Ferrari. As explained before, since the frozen engines and the emphasis in aero development the teams catch up much faster than before within a season. The time difference during qualifying between the 1st and 10th is similar to the one there was before between the 1st and the 2nd (Amen to that, BTW).

I don't think there is any statistic that can make justice to drivers nowadays when compared to the ones before Alonso. Yep, I think Alonso is one of the greats of his era, and that is as much as it can be said.

Edited by Kohque, 13 July 2011 - 06:48.

[BRK]

an MS fan would get so worked up about an Alonso-centered thread topic that states a simple and undisputable fact, just like MS 91 wins are. Must be something burning away at the inside that let's you begrudge a driver reaching 27 wins, while you're own man is at over triple that number. I wonder what it could be?

Finally some sense from AyrtonSenna65Poles (at least I'm not MS91W, clear cut above the fanboys eh? ).

Yes, you're absolutely right. A fan that supports a driver that has 91 victories must have a reason to dislike another that only has a third as many wins.

I've stated this reason already: it's because he's overrated and I think the excessive hype is unwarranted. You cannot deny there is hype, for otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

There's other candidates as well, of course, Alonso isn't the only one. Keep a close eye on the likes of Di Resta and Kobayashi, let's see how their own careers pan out, I'll be the first one to point out the hype in their early careers if they fall short. (I say this as someone that likes Kobayashi, FWIW)

Time will tell.

I am afraid time is going to disappoint you. The last truly dominant car was Schumacher's Ferrari. As explained before, since the frozen engines and the emphasis in aero development the teams catch up much faster than before within a season. The time difference during qualifying between the 1st and 10th is similar to the one there was before between the 1st and the 2nd (Amen to that, BTW).

I don't think there is any statistic that can make justice to drivers nowadays when compared to the ones before Alonso. Yep, I think Alonso is one of the greats of his era, and that is as much as it can be said.

I have no problem if I'm wrong about Vettel or Hamilton, you may point it out to me if they fail to meet expectations. As things stand today, all I'm doing is pointing out how overrated Alonso himself is, and the win-rate stats prove my point.

Edited by BRK, 13 July 2011 - 06:53.

[IamFasterthanU]

u can't compare drivers of different eras. u can only compare the people who've raced against each other eg. senna prost, senna schumi, to an extent alonso schumi etc.

Don't forget senna lost to prost in arguably both the seasons they raced in the same team (88 too prost had more points overall). As for schumi well don't say he won wdc in not so good cars. A good driver is one who can extract most out of a package, take advantage of the situations, motivate the team and do enough with car to make them develop the car to suit his driving style. Senna, Schumi both had this qualty and can say same is true for Hamilton. Can't say the same about vettel yet.

As for comparing their records, again they can't be compared as performance in f1 is 90% car rest driver.
Alonso had great car for 3 seasons and got the team to develop a decent car to great one in 2010 during the season.
Hamilton had a great car in 2007,2008 and part of 2010.
Vettel has had a good car in 2009,2010 and 2011. Can be said an utterly dominant car in 2010 and 2011, something which hamilton, alonso(2005?) never had. So he can't be compared to other 2 yet.

Hamilton,Alonso and schumi have managed to give some outstanding performances in not so good cars regularly which is imo hallmark of a great driver ,which leads to major teams being interested in them and which motivates a team to develop cars as per their wishes and work harder than usual. Yes, Alonso has bad attitude but schumi was no saint either. Comparing Alonso to mika is ludicrous as mika was always error prone (even in 98,99, 00), He did give some insanely good performances but was ordinary and error prone in many other races regularly loosing to Coulthard.

Hence according to me all of them are great and their is no way we can differentiate between them. Race wins need best or near best cars on the day, u can't really use them to compare current crop. Top teams wanting to get drivers at all cost and going all out for them indicates their talent.

Edited by IamFasterthanU, 13 July 2011 - 06:55.

[as65p]

I've stated this reason already: it's because he's overrated and I think the excessive hype is unwarranted. You cannot deny there is hype, for otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

Hu?

Even if Alonso had no fans at all and nobody ever hyped him, this thread would probably still exist, because it's topic is an undisputable statistical fact, isn't it? Where is the hype in stating such a thing? He did win 27 races, heck even Autosport just as most other racing publications found it worthy of a feature, you suppose it's because they've all fallen for that terrible "hype", except you who can see through it?

[Kohque]

I have no problem if I'm wrong about Vettel or Hamilton, you may point it out to me if they fail to meet expectations. As things stand today, all I'm doing is pointing out how overrated Alonso himself is, and the win-rate stats prove my point.

Well, that's basically part of my point too... Your stats don't prove he is overrated. They only proved they are stats, and like many stats in this forum, they only prove how little you can learn from them.

[as65p]

Well, that's basically part of my point too... Your stats don't prove he is overrated. They only proved they are stats, and like many stats in this forum, they only prove how little you can learn from them.

... but also how annyoing they can be for people, to the point of fighting them like the proverbial windmills.