141 replies to this topic

[le chat noir]

Been wondering for a while and inspired by Vettel's standing thread, here's a thread of pure conjecture, meant as fun. The idea behind it is to tally the number of WDCs a driver won, should have won, could have or would have. (And yes, what ranks is arguable). Waiting for wife at pub, so will only get it started. Dating from recent to past then:

Vettel: 3 won, 1 coulda (2009). Total: 4
Button: 1 won. Total: 1
Hamilton: 1 won, 1 coulda (2007). Total: 2
Raikkonen: 1 won, 1 coulda (2003). Total: 2
Alonso: 2 won, 3 coulda (2007, 2010, 2012). Total: 5
Schumacher: 7 won, 2 coulda (1997, 2006), 1 woulda (1999). Total: 10
Hakkinen: 2 won. Total: 2
Villeneuve: 1 won, 1 coulda (1996). Total: 2
D Hill: 1 won, 1 coulda/shoulda (1994). Total: 2
Prost: 4 won - bit hazy on how close he was to others
Senna: 3 won, 1 shoulda (1988? The Prost Balestre one). Total: 4 (shoulda 1994? Total: 5)

There you go. Clear up Prost and Senna and take it from there.

LCN

[garoidb]

Been wondering for a while and inspired by Vettel's standing thread, here's a thread of pure conjecture, meant as fun. The idea behind it is to tally the number of WDCs a driver won, should have won, could have or would have. (And yes, what ranks is arguable). Waiting for wife at pub, so will only get it started. Dating from recent to past then:

Vettel: 3 won, 1 coulda (2009). Total: 4
Button: 1 won. Total: 1
Hamilton: 1 won, 1 coulda (2007). Total: 2
Raikkonen: 1 won, 1 coulda (2003). Total: 2
Alonso: 2 won, 3 coulda (2007, 2010, 2012). Total: 5
Schumacher: 7 won, 2 coulda (1997, 2006), 1 woulda (1999). Total: 10
Hakkinen: 2 won. Total: 2
Villeneuve: 1 won, 1 coulda (1996). Total: 2
D Hill: 1 won, 1 coulda/shoulda (1994). Total: 2
Prost: 4 won - bit hazy on how close he was to others
Senna: 3 won, 1 shoulda (1988? The Prost Balestre one). Total: 4 (shoulda 1994? Total: 5)

There you go. Clear up Prost and Senna and take it from there.

LCN

Prost was second in 1983, 1984, 1988 and 1990. They are definitely "coulda". The "shoulda" part would be controversial.

[sopa]

"Real" titles + couldas I get:

5 for Alonso, 4 for Vettel and Hamilton, 3 for Raikkonen. Hamilton very controversially gets a "coulda" for 2012, when he was 100 points behind WDC in an unreliable car.

[Collombin]

Better to do it by year, otherwise we will have about 3 times more championships won than there have been seasons.

[le chat noir]

Better to do it by year, otherwise we will have about 3 times more championships won than there have been seasons.

That's part of the beauty I think

[Andrew Hope]

Barrichello 2009.

[Collombin]

Prost was second in 1983, 1984, 1988 and 1990. They are definitely "coulda". The "shoulda" part would be controversial.

Use the medals system for 1981, and Prost becomes champion in his first full season.

Bring in the 10-6-4-3-2-1, all rounds counting system in 1984, and Prost becomes 1984 and 1988 champ as well.

However, he didn't really deserve the 81 or 88 championships, and not the 89 or 93 ones either. Even 86 was lucky, albeit probably deserved.

I think Prost ended up with the right number of titles, just not always in the right seasons. Maybe four straight from 83 to 86 would have been a more appropriate reflection of the state of play.

[garoidb]

"Real" titles + couldas I get:

5 for Alonso, 4 for Vettel and Hamilton, 3 for Raikkonen. Hamilton very controversially gets a "coulda" for 2012, when he was 100 points behind WDC in an unreliable car.

Does anyone else get the same benefit? I remember Nelson Piquet's Brabham BMW being very unreliable in 1984 but scoring 9 poles, Ayrton Senna leading a lot of races in 1985 etc. Are there other more recent examples where someone "coulda" won the WDC, but finished outside the top three due to reliability?

[Juablo]

Hakkinen 2000, Montoya 2003

[Watkins74]

Doesn't it go both ways?

Hamilton 1 (2008)- Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda had 0
Raikkonen 1 (2007)- Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda had 0
Vettel 3 - (2010, 2012) Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda had 1

To lazy to go any further back but you get the idea.

[Dan333SP]

Massa 2008. As close as anyone has ever gotten to winning a WDC, and then having it snatched away.

[Cool Beans]

Kimi 2005. Won everything, absolute domination and car broke down every ****ing race from the lead and Alonso cruised into the victory

[juanma9]

Niki Lauda 1976: Accident + losing by 1 point.

[ensign14]

1950-1: Fangio
1952-3: Ascari
1954-7: Fangio
1958-60: Moss
1961-7: Clark
1968-73: Stewart
1974-7: Lauda
1978: Andretti
1979-82: G Villeneuve
1983-7: Prost
1988-92: Senna
1993-8: Schumacher
1999-2000: Hakkinen
2001-4: Schumacher
2005-6: Alonso
2007-9: Hamilton
2010-date: Halonso

would submit ^ is a more accurate list than the WDC one

[Kingshark]

Alonso woulda won in 2007, coulda won in 2010, and shoulda won in 2012. That's a 5 time WDC.

Vettel coulda won in 2009, that makes him a 4 time WDC.

Hamilton woulda won in 2007, coulda won in 2010, and shoulda won in 2012. That's a 4 time WDC.

Raikkonen woulda won 2003, shoulda won 2005, and coulda won 2008. That's also a 4 time WDC.

Schumacher coulda won in 1997 and 1998, woulda won 1999, and shoulda won in 2006. That's 11 WDC.

Prost coulda won 1983 and 1984, shoulda won 1988, and woulda won in 1990. That's 8 WDC.

[DaddyCool]

Don't wanna open that can of worms, but it's funny to think that Alonso could have been a 5 or even 6 times world champion (2007, 2008, 2010 and '12 a long shot) with McLaren, had they opted for a lesser driver than Hamilton in 2007.

Talk about domination

[sopa]

Prost in 1981 is a very good case. He may only have been fifth in the championship, but only a handful of points behind the winner. It was that close. And Prost never finished a race outside top three. So Prost in 1981 definitely 'coulda' more than some cases mentioned here in this thread.

Edited by sopa, 10 June 2013 - 18:25.

[darkkis]

Räikkönen 2003, 2005

[Collombin]

Not sure how many to award Moss.

I was going to try to make a case for 1956, but Collins was the true "coulda" that year. And I don't really want to take titles off Fangio anyway.
1958 is a shoulda - defending Hawthorn from dq, misreading a pit signal, Ferrari team orders, 4 wins to 1, blah blah blah.
1959 is another shoulda - retired from the lead with gearbox problems 3 times, whilst Brabham only had one mechanical problem all year, which happened to be in another race in which Moss also retired with gearbox problems! Easily the most deserving driver that year.
1960 is a coulda - missed 3 races after the Lotus broke his back at Spa, but scored the same number of points as Brabham in the races in which they both competed.
1961 he was still easily the best driver, and his Monaco and Nurburgring wins are still legendary today, but realistically the Ferraris were in a different league even though their drivers weren't. So that's probably a shoulda rather than coulda.
1962 onwards. Moss v Clark. Who knows? The great battle that never was.

[olliek88]

Hamilton 2010 too, without mistakes in Monza & Singapore he'd of won the WDC.

[Fastcake]

Barrichello 2009.

He wasn't anywhere near as close to a title, unlike many mentioned here.

[Collombin]

would submit ^ is a more accurate list than the WDC one

That's the path of the "best driver" baton getting passed down through the ages, and hence bears little correlation to names on a WDC trophy.

[Skinnyguy]

Hamilton 2010 too, without mistakes in Monza & Singapore he'd of won the WDC.

Mistakes shouldn´t be an argument for shouldas, after all it´s all the drivers doing.

Anyway pointing a finger at Lewis for Singapore is quite unfair if you ask me. Haven´t seen the crash for ages but Webber wasn´t far enough alongside IIRC.

[ensign14]

That's the path of the "best driver" baton getting passed down through the ages, and hence bears little correlation to names on a WDC trophy.

Exactly. What else should the World Drivers' Championship be?

[hogstar]

Alan Jones in 1981 is one that stands out for me. Had he stayed with Williams for '82, could of had that too given the circumstances.

[zippythecat]

Hamilton had a shoulda/coulda in 2010. Remember he binned it at 2 consecutive races (Monza and Singapore) after starting that stretch with the points lead.

Edited by zippythecat, 10 June 2013 - 19:28.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Frentzen in 1999. He was leading at the Nurburgring when his gearbox packed up.

[Atreiu]

2 cents...

Hamilton threw 2007 away, snatched 2008 (should have won by China if the actual Belgian GP track result had been respected) and was the best driver in 2010 and 2012 but his car/team let him down too often.

Kimi should have won 2003 and 2005 with proper reliability and snatched 2007. Had his customary bad luck in 2008 but also mistakes and poor showings.

Alonso snatched 2005 and 2006 and could have won 2007. Made too many mistakes in 2010 and should not have been in contention in 2012 despite being terrific. Red Bull/Vettel took too long to get things going and McLaren threw it away.

Hakkinen would have dominated and made both 1998 and 1999 not even close with Ferrari-like reliability in the McLaren despite some blunders from his part. He should have won 2000 without mechanical DNFs in Australia, Brazil and USA even if Schumacher had donw without mechanical DNFs in Monaco and France.

Schumacher won all the titles he deserved to.

Prost's luck evened it out between his close losses and titles in 86 and 89.

Senna was heads and shoulder above everyone in 89 whenever he didn't throw it away (Rio, Silverstone and Adelaide). The only runner up to have close as much bad luck as him in 89 was Kimi in 2005. Mechanical DNF from the lead at Detroit, Montreal and Monza. DSQed after win at Suzuka. Punted by a disqualified Mansell from a safe podium finish at Estoril. And mechanical DNF at France. He had terrific seasons in 85, 86 and 93, but his cars were too far away from the eventual winners...

[BlackGold]

2010-date: Halonso

would submit ^ is a more accurate list than the WDC one

So, 2011 never happened, so that u can delete a whole series of 3 time wdc? ^^

[Collombin]

So, 2011 never happened, so that u can delete a whole series of 3 time wdc? ^^

His list shows the class of the field - Brabham never was, Piquet maybe was, but only very briefly (late 83-84), and Vettel isn't if you rate Hamilton and Alonso higher.

My only gripe with that list is that Clark and Schumi were maybe given the baton a little prematurely.

[BlackGold]

His list shows the class of the field - Brabham never was, Piquet maybe was, but only very briefly (late 83-84), and Vettel isn't if you rate Hamilton and Alonso higher.

My only gripe with that list is that Clark and Schumi were maybe given the baton a little prematurely.

I thought this thread is about shoulda, woulda, coulda? And 2011 there was no shoulda, woulda or coulda for Lewis or Fernando....

[Winter98]

Been wondering for a while and inspired by Vettel's standing thread, here's a thread of pure conjecture, meant as fun. The idea behind it is to tally the number of WDCs a driver won, should have won, could have or would have. (And yes, what ranks is arguable). Waiting for wife at pub, so will only get it started. Dating from recent to past then:

Vettel: 3 won, 1 coulda (2009). Total: 4
Button: 1 won. Total: 1
Hamilton: 1 won, 1 coulda (2007). Total: 2
Raikkonen: 1 won, 1 coulda (2003). Total: 2
Alonso: 2 won, 3 coulda (2007, 2010, 2012). Total: 5
Schumacher: 7 won, 2 coulda (1997, 2006), 1 woulda (1999). Total: 10
Hakkinen: 2 won. Total: 2
Villeneuve: 1 won, 1 coulda (1996). Total: 2
D Hill: 1 won, 1 coulda/shoulda (1994). Total: 2
Prost: 4 won - bit hazy on how close he was to others
Senna: 3 won, 1 shoulda (1988? The Prost Balestre one). Total: 4 (shoulda 1994? Total: 5)

There you go. Clear up Prost and Senna and take it from there.

LCN

Interesting.

The very top tier of drivers, MS, Senna, Prost, seem to convert their chances roughly 75% of the time or better. The second tier seems to do it 50% or less.

Guess that kind of makes sense, not wasting the opportunity when it is presented.

[ensign14]

The very top tier of drivers, MS, Senna, Prost, seem to convert their chances roughly 75% of the time or better. The second tier seems to do it 50% or less.

Guess that kind of makes sense, not wasting the opportunity when it is presented.

Doesn't work. Clark only had a 50% conversion rate as he lost 1962 and 1964 thanks to a last race car failure. Moss had a 0% conversion rate. Conversely Piquet had a 75%. And Hawthorn and Button 100%.

[Collombin]

Conversely Piquet had a 75%.

Maybe a coulda for 1980 as well as 1986?

Keke Rosberg and Jack Brabham do rather well on conversion ratios too. Hardly GOAT contenders.

[garoidb]

Maybe a coulda for 1980 as well as 1986?

Yes. He also had the second most laps led in 1984 after Prost.

[Atreiu]

Button had one clear shot in 2009 and two other opportunities in 2010 (long shot against RB6, yes) and 2012 (his horrible mid-season run put him out of it). Even if we ignore 2010, no matter how we factor the poor run in 2012, that doesn't ammount to a 100% converson rate, IMO.

[DarthWillie]

1982 is coulda woulda shoulda between Villeneuve, Pironi, Watson, with Pironi shouldaist one
1981 Reutemann

[TomNokoe]

Hamilton should have won 2007 and 2012
Could have won 2010
Could have won 2009 if you actually do the math. But its the longest of the longshots.

[garoidb]

Hamilton should have won 2007 and 2012
Could have won 2010
Could have won 2009 if you actually do the math. But its the longest of the longshots.

But not 2011?

[Collombin]

Yes. He also had the second most laps led in 1984 after Prost.

That doesn't surprise me, he was my favourite driver in those days so I found the whole thing totally frustrating - best driver, fastest car, guaranteed not to finish.

1982 is coulda woulda shoulda between Villeneuve, Pironi, Watson, with Pironi shouldaist one

1982 is the very pinnacle of shouldaism. Pironi is the obvious candidate, but Villeneuve was still superior to him in every race, meanwhile the Renault pair would sail off into the distance every race before catching fire, and the McLaren pair were still technically in the running even at the final race. I think Wattie was very lucky at Rio though, gaining extra points from the Piquet and Rosberg DQs when his car was every bit as illegal.

[garoidb]

That doesn't surprise me, he was my favourite driver in those days so I found the whole thing totally frustrating - best driver, fastest car, guaranteed not to finish.

It is largely forgotten now. He scored 18 points that season - two wins.

[BlackCat]

Senna 1 (1988), DQ for life after Suzuka '89
Schumacher 1 (1995), DQ for illegal car in 1994, DQ for life after Jerez '97

[George Costanza]

Mika Hakkinen.... Won 2. Should have won 3, IMO. 2000 was his had he won USA GP and finished ahead of Michael in Japan.

[MP422]

Interesting.

The very top tier of drivers, MS, Senna, Prost, seem to convert their chances roughly 75% of the time or better. The second tier seems to do it 50% or less.

Guess that kind of makes sense, not wasting the opportunity when it is presented.

You see what ferrari/bridgestone were giving schumi to drive on some of those titles ?

[Kingshark]

Senna deserved none of his titles.

In 1988 Prost woulda won because he out-scored him, but the ridiculous best-11 results gave the WDC to Senna.
In 1990 he shoulda been disqualified from the whole championship after his murderous move on Prost at Suzuka.
In 1991 Mansell coulda won but he had too much bad luck and the Williams was too unreliable.

I accidentally opened a small can of worms.

Edited by Kingshark, 10 June 2013 - 23:41.

[turssi]

Raikkonen shoulda stayed with McLaren to win 2007, 2008 and 2012!

[mattferg]

There's far too many criteria to take into account in this thread when making a decision, and it's being made worse by the fact that everyone else is using different ones :S

[mattferg]

Don't wanna open that can of worms, but it's funny to think that Alonso could have been a 5 or even 6 times world champion (2007, 2008, 2010 and '12 a long shot) with McLaren, had they opted for a lesser driver than Hamilton in 2007.

Talk about domination

Or a 6 times world champion if he hasn't been so arrogant and accepted RBR's contract when DC retired.

[Collombin]

In 1988 Prost woulda won because he out-scored him, but the ridiculous best-11 results gave the WDC to Senna.

It wasn't a ridiculous system in the context of the time, indeed it was far more sensible than the system it replaced. With a smaller gap in those days between 1st and 2nd place points it was a method of ensuring that winning mattered more than consistency, which is how it should be. And anyway, reliability was such an issue in those days that rarely did the rule actually come into play.

However, McLaren in 1988 produced an unheard of state of affairs, a bulletproof ultra fast car piloted by the two best drivers. Hence it was obvious that both drivers would get at least 11 1st and 2nds each, and so the title was always going to go the man who won the most races - and quite rightly too. But they both knew early on that that's what the rules of engagement were, and so the outcome was perfectly fair. Senna outdrove Prost and won more races, hence deserved the title. This was true to an even bigger extent the following year, so maybe it is that season that should be being mentioned instead. Nothing wrong with 1988.

[Kingshark]

It wasn't a ridiculous system in the context of the time, indeed it was far more sensible than the system it replaced. With a smaller gap in those days between 1st and 2nd place points it was a method of ensuring that winning mattered more than consistency, which is how it should be. And anyway, reliability was such an issue in those days that rarely did the rule actually come into play.

However, McLaren in 1988 produced an unheard of state of affairs, a bulletproof ultra fast car piloted by the two best drivers. Hence it was obvious that both drivers would get at least 11 1st and 2nds each, and so the title was always going to go the man who won the most races - and quite rightly too. But they both knew early on that that's what the rules of engagement were, and so the outcome was perfectly fair. Senna outdrove Prost and won more races, hence deserved the title. This was true to an even bigger extent the following year, so maybe it is that season that should be being mentioned instead. Nothing wrong with 1988.

Most of Senna's DNF's in 1988 were his own fault, while Prost's retirements that year were mechanical and out of his control.

Senna crashed while leading in Monaco.
Senna collided with Schlesser in Monza.
Senna got disqualified in Brazil.

Prost retired in Silverstone due a handling issue.
Prost's engine failed him at Monza.

Prost shoulda won the championship in 1988, not Senna.

Edited by Kingshark, 11 June 2013 - 00:26.