2 votes
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 19:37
This is purely hypothetical.
Had Michael stayed with Mercedes through 2016, there is a good chance he would have won at least one title with them by now.
In turn this would have saved the German GP and probably helped boost worldwide audiences as well as F1 as a sport.
If Mercedes knew they were going to be this dominant, as has been suggested, did they make the right move in letting MSC retire?
Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 05 January 2017 - 19:38.
Racing Sims Forum Host
Posted 05 January 2017 - 19:42
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 19:43
Given his ski accident I find this question a bit.....ehm....very hypothetical. If you are argueing that Mercedes could have known that they will be dominant and keep Schumacher, you could also argue that they would have been without a 2nd driver in this scenario at the end of 2013 had they kept Schumacher
This is purely hypothetical.
Had Michael stayed with Mercedes through 2016, there is a good chance he would have won at least one title with them by now.
In turn this would have saved the German GP and probably helped boost worldwide audiences as well as F1 as a sport.
If Mercedes knew they were going to be this dominant, as has been suggested, did they make the right move in letting MSC retire?
Besides that I dont think that Schumacher would have won any title with either Hamilton or Rosberg (in form) as a team mate nothing would have changed with Schumacher as a WDC. And why should it even? He wouldnt have been a 'new' WDC which sometimes pushes F1 a bit. Quite the opposite actually. And while he has a big fandom this doesnt help either as we can see with Hamilton's championship wins.
Edited by Marklar, 05 January 2017 - 19:44.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 19:59
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:00
But would it have been "how good is Michael?" or would it have been "how easy is F1?"
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:07
Hamilton is amazing.
But can he save the German GP? You have to admit Michael would have done that.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:11
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:11
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:12
I can not see how that would saved the GP?
We still have Vettel a 4 times champion and a few other German drivers still on the grid?
How many UK drivers do we have and we still have a UK Grand Prix...
They do not carry the same popularity in Germany.
I would argue Vettel is not liked in Germany. Neither is Rosberg. A resurgent Michael could have ensured full grandstands in Germany. My view.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:12
We have a British GP for the next year or so...
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 20:15
Hamilton is amazing.
But can he save the German GP? You have to admit Michael would have done that.
He wouldn't.
The attendance figures further dropped for the German GP even after Schumacher's comeback. Sure, it would have been better with Schumacher instead of Rosberg (and to an lesser extend Vettel) winning races, but the German GP wouldnt have been saved in this way. The problems are much deeper than this.
Even assuming it would have saved the German GP, what about the other races?
They do not carry the same popularity in Germany.
I would argue Vettel is not liked in Germany. Neither is Rosberg. A resurgent Michael could have ensured full grandstands in Germany. My view.
Vettel is very popular in Germany. He isnt just anywhere near as popular as Schumacher was it 10-15 year ago, but neither would Schumacher be nowadays.
Edited by Marklar, 05 January 2017 - 20:18.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 21:15
Would've saved the German GP and I think it would've made a good story and the viewing figures might be slightly higher than they are now. It would've definitely made me think for certain that Schumacher is the best ever driver to have drove in F1. Would it be better for F1? Overall, I think yes.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 21:28
Wouldn't be any better no matter who won it imo.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 21:41
Wouldn't be any better no matter who won it imo.
It *might* have been better (for the *casual* fan) if it had every year different winners, so let's say Schumacher 2014, Hamilton 2015, Rosberg 2016. We got in the end twice Hamilton and once Rosberg,and the season where Rosberg won was largely dictated by Hamilton again.
But either way: Yes, it doesnt make a huge difference if someone else is dominating. It makes a small difference however, not noteworthy though. The only way this scenario could have noteworthy helped F1 is if this would have created a more genuine/exciting/terrific battle between the Mercedes drivers, because something was missing in the last three years for me which made his battle a bit bland, which is of course not optimal if this is the only championship worthy car.....had Schumacher vs. Rosberg been a 'better' battle? (Hamilton vs. Schumacher wasnt going to happen, unless you are spinning this scenario further): Perhaps.
Edited by Marklar, 05 January 2017 - 21:43.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 22:11
"Would F1 be better if Micheal Schumacher had won a WDC fairly?", would be a more pertinent question.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 22:16
Edited by George Costanza, 05 January 2017 - 22:16.
Advertisement
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 22:18
. Yup. Michael made it look easy.But would it have been "how good is Michael?" or would it have been "how easy is F1?"
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 22:35
They do not carry the same popularity in Germany.
I would argue Vettel is not liked in Germany. Neither is Rosberg. A resurgent Michael could have ensured full grandstands in Germany. My view.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 22:50
He managed 1 podium in 3 years didn't he? Even in a dominant car I doubt he'd have managed a title, he was showing his age.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 23:06
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 23:21
F1 would be better if Schumacher had been disqualified for life after 1997
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 23:26
. Yup. Michael made it look easy.
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 23:30
Hasn't the topic-starter forgotten a teeny little thing called... Nico Rosberg? You know...
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 23:45
Member
Posted 05 January 2017 - 23:45
A 41 yr old man doing battle toe to toe with an all time great.
Yes - 3 years of this would have been much better!
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 00:57
F1 would be better if Schumacher had been disqualified for life after 1997
Yeah just like senna after punting prost of at 91 or Alonso who wanted number 1 status or otherwise he would tell about them having Ferrari information.. not to mention crashgate wich im sure he knew about. Hamilton after lie gate.. list can go on..
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 03:09
Schumacher success couldn't even ensure full grandstands back in 2004. The novelty of a race winner and champion was already wearing off from the heights of the '90s popularity.
In 2004, here the stadium is almost full as far as I can see from that video, (7 sec in). And at least the GP would still be around. We don't even have a Germany next year......
Agreed it is less than 2000 Hockenheim which had some of the best atmosphere to any race I have ever seen, but it was still good even in the most boring dominant periods.
A Schumi Merc revival would have sent the place bonkers.
Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 06 January 2017 - 03:16.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 03:19
Start the video at the 2:00 minute mark. This is one reason I love F1. Unbridled enthusiasm at the peak of Michael's career. I miss this environment.
Michael was the reason.
Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 06 January 2017 - 03:19.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:32
I really don't think that Michael would have helped retaining an audience at all. The viewership has been declining for a long while and even though there always have been a lot of German drivers in F1, it didn't really matter that much.
Imho the racing got very boring and the rules to complicated and hence it lost it's appeal. Drivers being coporate muppets without character didn't help either. And honestly most of my friends have stopped watching F1 a long time ago and Mercedes being disliked by a lot of them as a brand didn't help either.
A few months ago I even asked jokingly: "What if Rosberg wins the WDC and nobody cares or notices....?" . And it really happened....even worse: Rosbergs retirement was even more of an anti-climax for a german audience and I guess wordlwide. A "german" driver in a Mercedes wins the WDC and nobody even cared.
Awesome racing in awesome cars with a ruleset that everyone can comprehend, that is what would help getting the viewers back. Not an aging star in a racing formula that has long lost its appeal.
Edited by Weyoun, 06 January 2017 - 06:33.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 06:55
Start the video at the 2:00 minute mark. This is one reason I love F1. Unbridled enthusiasm at the peak of Michael's career. I miss this environment.
Michael was the reason.
He was indeed. And that's the problem.
If you ask anyone in Germany what he thinks about F1 he will tell you that everything was better back then with Schumacher and so on. Schumacher was so much glorified back then (mainly by the press), that he set the standards so high, that it can't be ever reached again, even he himself couldnt it anymore.
We dont have the same enthusiasm as in Great Britain, even if Lewis retires tomorrow they will be able to have a reasonable audience. We are not paying a fortune (and this is one of the biggest issues) just to watch some cars driving around in circles. Schumacher wouldnt change much on this. Times have changed and until F1 will be a big thing in Germany again it will take many years.
A Schumi Merc revival would have sent the place bonkers.
The audience figures are in the decline since 2001, even Schumacher dominating didnt helped. And even Schumachers comeback in 2010 didnt helped.
Edited by Marklar, 06 January 2017 - 06:57.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:01
I like the idea of rephrasing the original post as "did Nico Rosberg kill the German Grand Prix?"
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:17
Hasn't the topic-starter forgotten a teeny little thing called... Nico Rosberg? You know...
Posted Yesterday, 23:45
A 41 yr old man doing battle toe to toe with an all time great.
Yes - 3 years of this would have been much better!
Funny thing is that Michael was replaced by Lewis... This it would have been three more years of Michael vs Nico instead of Lewis.
And somehow I have the feeling that a least '14 and '15 could have been more interesting seasions with Michael and Nico than the two seasons we got.
Henri
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:22
ch103 posted:
Posted Yesterday, 23:45
A 41 yr old man doing battle toe to toe with an all time great.
Yes - 3 years of this would have been much better!
Funny thing is that Michael was replaced by Lewis... This it would have been three more years of Michael vs Nico instead of Lewis.
And somehow I have the feeling that a least '14 and '15 could have been more interesting seasions with Michael and Nico than the two seasons we got.
Henri
Considering how Nico did against Schumi... how Nico did against Lewis... I think the empirical data seems to suggest that Nico would have won every year against Schumi. And that it would have been far less competitive than between Lewis and Nico.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:33
And somehow I have the feeling that a least '14 and '15 could have been more interesting seasions with Michael and Nico than the two seasons we got.
What was wrong with the 2014 season? It was a thrill ride throughout the season, and went to the last race. I fail to see how the addition of Schumacher would make it any better. I suspect that Nico would have had the WDC wrapped up before Abu Dhabi, and without that much bother.
Schumacher was so much glorified back then (mainly by the press), that he set the standards so high, that it can't be ever reached again, even he himself couldnt it anymore.
Probably true, but they occasionally bashed him. They dubbed him "Rambo" in 2005 after the Heidfeld incident, and they were critical of him over Jerez 1997.
Advertisement
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:36
I found myself reading this thread. Imagine, there are books, there are newspapers with well written stories from the reality. There is TV, Netflix. I read this. Now I am talking about it. Help!
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 08:42
Considering how Nico did against Schumi... how Nico did against Lewis... I think the empirical data seems to suggest that Nico would have won every year against Schumi. And that it would have been far less competitive than between Lewis and Nico.
That I'm not sure.
Performance wise Schumacher was in 2012 closer to Rosberg than Rosberg was in any 2014, 2015 or 2016 to Hamilton. Of course if the difference was going to be like in 2010 then it would have been more one-sided. It's too hypothetical, because nobody knows how Schumacher would have adapted to the 2014 rule changes, could have possibly stopped the momentum he started to gain over Rosberg.
I also believe that Rosberg would have won in all three occasions (and I believe all titles would have been decided before the final), but likewise Hamilton would have done the same against Rosberg if not for reliability, so I dont think that it would have been much worse than in the last three years. Dynamics would have been different in any case, given that the background story of Rosberg and Hamilton might have turned things to be a bit awkward in my opinion.
The Schumacher/Hamilton scenario someone mentioned above (which was never going to happen) is a bit more complicated: Performance wise it would have been more one-sided probably. This would have been much more interesting in terms of dynamics, because Schumacher is a character who can play the games Hamilton does.
Probably true, but they occasionally bashed him. They dubbed him "Rambo" in 2005 after the Heidfeld incident, and they were critical of him over Jerez 1997.
This is true, but I didnt meant that (though these were exceptions from the rule). They focused the sport too much on Schumacher, F1 was basically Schumacher (and before someone is saying this: No, the British coverage is nowhere near this level regarding Hamilton)
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 09:19
That I'm not sure.
Performance wise Schumacher was in 2012 closer to Rosberg than Rosberg was in any 2014, 2015 or 2016 to Hamilton. Of course if the difference was going to be like in 2010 then it would have been more one-sided. It's too hypothetical, because nobody knows how Schumacher would have adapted to the 2014 rule changes, could have possibly stopped the momentum he started to gain over Rosberg.
I also believe that Rosberg would have won in all three occasions (and I believe all titles would have been decided before the final), but likewise Hamilton would have done the same against Rosberg if not for reliability, so I dont think that it would have been much worse than in the last three years. Dynamics would have been different in any case, given that the background story of Rosberg and Hamilton might have turned things to be a bit awkward in my opinion.
The Schumacher/Hamilton scenario someone mentioned above (which was never going to happen) is a bit more complicated: Performance wise it would have been more one-sided probably. This would have been much more interesting in terms of dynamics, because Schumacher is a character who can play the games Hamilton does.
This is true, but I didnt meant that (though these were exceptions from the rule). They focused the sport too much on Schumacher, F1 was basically Schumacher (and before someone is saying this: No, the British coverage is nowhere near this level regarding Hamilton)
Reading your post (a good one!), I think Schumi staying on and being in the dominant Mercedes would have been a lose-lose situation. Personally, I like the current F1-regulations but both with the anoraks (give us back the screaming V8's!) and with the general public there seems to be a declining interest in F1 and in motorsport in general, and evena kind of... tiredness around the sport. A kind of: okay, what is new?
If Schumi (by some very clever politics) would have beaten Rosberg: the story would be (one of many negative): 'Geez, it is only about the car. Even an old geezer can win it. By the way: when he was young he 'only' won because of the Ferrari-dominance and the FIA-ferrari assistance.
If Schumi (by some miracle) would have beaten Hamilton the story would be (one of many negative): 'Geez... The new generation of F1 drivers is half as good as the Senna-Schumi-Prost-era... look how a past his shelf-live driver beats the supposed best of his generation.
If Rosberg wins: Schumi was never that good. Or Rosberg is lucky to have an old geezer as a teammate in that dominant car.
And so forth, and so forth.
So, no, what we have to put our hope in is drivers like Verstappen and Ricciardo, perhaps Ocon... A fantastic bloody battle between them and Hamilton would be more than excellent. We have to attract a new audience and rekindle the interest in tired existing fans (who complain too much, in my view).
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 09:29
It's not a question to ask. Not because it's not interesting (I think it is), but because it attracts all the haters like flies on ****.
Edited by bogdan27, 06 January 2017 - 09:30.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 09:35
That I'm not sure.
Performance wise Schumacher was in 2012 closer to Rosberg than Rosberg was in any 2014, 2015 or 2016 to Hamilton. Of course if the difference was going to be like in 2010 then it would have been more one-sided. It's too hypothetical, because nobody knows how Schumacher would have adapted to the 2014 rule changes, could have possibly stopped the momentum he started to gain over Rosberg.
I also believe that Rosberg would have won in all three occasions (and I believe all titles would have been decided before the final), but likewise Hamilton would have done the same against Rosberg if not for reliability, so I dont think that it would have been much worse than in the last three years. Dynamics would have been different in any case, given that the background story of Rosberg and Hamilton might have turned things to be a bit awkward in my opinion.
The Schumacher/Hamilton scenario someone mentioned above (which was never going to happen) is a bit more complicated: Performance wise it would have been more one-sided probably. This would have been much more interesting in terms of dynamics, because Schumacher is a character who can play the games Hamilton does.
You have beaten me in replying to Nemo, I was exactly thinking along the same lines hence why I made my comment on which Nemo replied.
Another thought that crossed my mind as well for '14 (and maybe '15) , with MS in the cockpit instead of Lewis, there is also a chance that some of the races that now fell to Lewis not automatically ended up as won by Nico and we might have seen more other Non-Merc race winners than the three victories by Ricciardo that we eventually got in '14.
And perhaps a few less double victories in those cases that Nico was ahead of Lewis.
Henri
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 09:51
Considering how Nico did against Schumi... how Nico did against Lewis... I think the empirical data seems to suggest that Nico would have won every year against Schumi. And that it would have been far less competitive than between Lewis and Nico.
True ... but you can never tell which of them would have been the victim of the ole Brackley unreliability ... hard to see anyone winning three on the trot coming out of that factory.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:08
. Yup. Michael made it look easy.
And then he got paired with Nico. While the actual Dream Team was off fishing.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:31
"Would F1 be better if Micheal Schumacher had won a WDC fairly?", would be a more pertinent question.
He won plenty of his titles fairly. Some people just can't get past 1994.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:38
Considering how Nico did against Schumi... how Nico did against Lewis... I think the empirical data seems to suggest that Nico would have won every year against Schumi. And that it would have been far less competitive than between Lewis and Nico.
No chance at all. Mercedes, under Ross Brawn's leadership, would have hired Lewis and fired Nico.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 11:46
True ... but you can never tell which of them would have been the victim of the ole Brackley unreliability ... hard to see anyone winning three on the trot coming out of that factory.
Their reliability has been among the best of hybrid era F1. From 2014 to 2016, the race-ending retirements of all teams who competed in 3 seasons are:
1. Lotus/Renault - 27
2. Toro Rosso - 25
3. McLaren - 24
4. Sauber - 16
5. Red Bull - 12
6= Williams/Manor - 10
8= Mercedes/Ferrari/Force India - 8
So to say Merc are more unreliable than others is wrong.
But indeed Michael got the worst of the reliability from 2010-2012 but that's not to say it would have continued that way.
Overall I think Rosberg would have had the edge on Michael all 3 years, but that's just because Nico is at peak age whereas Michael would have been in his 40s - no amount of talent can surmount the ageing process. In all probability, had they remained teammates those years, it would be 3 championships to Nico (and Michael would have got 100+ wins).
But this is all completely hypothetical.
Member
Posted 06 January 2017 - 12:18
Wouldn't be any better no matter who won it imo.
This^
However, if it would have kept Michael off the damn ski slopes, I would have welcomed it and cheered loudly when he was champion.
© MOTORSPORT NETWORK 2025. All rights reserved. Community Forum Software by IP.Board
