297 replies to this topic

[RandomG]

Assessing their performances from when they were both in F1 (1991 Belgian Grand Prix-1994 San Marino Grand Prix), who was better?

[chunder27]

Schuey was only doing what Senna did before him, ruthless, selfish and arrogant to the point of cocky

 

Senna didn't like it up him at all as the incidents between them showed.  First time really anyone did the self same to him as he did to hundreds.

 

But in 94 it was all about cheating, as we now know.

[kayemod]

Schuey was only doing what Senna did before him, ruthless, selfish and arrogant to the point of cocky

 

Senna didn't like it up him at all as the incidents between them showed.  First time really anyone did the self same to him as he did to hundreds.

 

But in 94 it was all about cheating, as we now know.

 

All very true. Whilst fully recognising the huge talents of both, as men and sportsmen, I had very little regard for them. If I ever did a list of my "greatest ever", neither would feature highly, purely because of their "Let me through or we crash attitude, I'm the great Senna/Schumacher, rules don't apply to me". It's always been a surprise to me that both appear to have had religious beliefs. Their "God" must be a right bastard if he'd condone the on-track behaviour of either of them.

[Duc-Man]

IMO was Senna the more talented driver. He was fast in everything you gave him to drive. Schumacher was fast in all kind of formular cars. Gr.C not so much and dont even mention his horrible appearance in the DTM.

If you talk about driving attitude: today both of them would be constantly 'under investigation'....

[kayemod]

IMO was Senna the more talented driver. He was fast in everything you gave him to drive. Schumacher was fast in all kind of formular cars. Gr.C not so much and dont even mention his horrible appearance in the DTM.

If you talk about driving attitude: today both of them would be constantly 'under investigation'....

 

Again, very true. Some of us have memories long enough to remember Senna's behaviour in the very first Mercedes 190 2.3/16 "celebrity" race. After Alain Prost had been nice to the young upstart and given him a lift to the track, didn't he punt Alain off at the first corner?

[jtremlett]

...If I ever did a list of my "greatest ever", neither would feature highly, purely because of their "Let me through or we crash attitude, I'm the great Senna/Schumacher, rules don't apply to me". It's always been a surprise to me that both appear to have had religious beliefs. Their "God" must be a right bastard if he'd condone the on-track behaviour of either of them.

Whilst the criteria for your own 'greatest ever' list is entirely up to you it is hard to see how whether you like a driver's attitude or not would relate to their greatness.  Just to be clear, I absolutely do not condone some of the tactics of either man.  Indeed it always seemed extraordinary to me that both should be so concerned about safety on the one hand yet would turf an opponent into a wall without a second thought.

 

IMO was Senna the more talented driver. He was fast in everything you gave him to drive. Schumacher was fast in all kind of formular cars. Gr.C not so much and dont even mention his horrible appearance in the DTM.

If you talk about driving attitude: today both of them would be constantly 'under investigation'....

I really can't recall Schumacher in DTM but the likes of Tom Walkinshaw rated him highly enough from what he did with Mercedes in Group C to rush him into Benetton and so, I gather, did those on the inside at Sauber Mercedes at the time.

 

I wonder if they would both be constantly 'under investigation' if they were driving now or was it that both were pushing absolutely to the limit including with the rules and if the rules were different then where they pushed to would be different too?  

 

Jonathan

[Charlieman]

Right and wrong aren't just about rules. There's this thing called self discipline and neither of them paid attention to it. And if the participants don't behave respectfully to others, they're not sportsmen.

 

So you can assume that Senna and Schumacher aren't on my list of great drivers.

[Vitesse2]

I really can't recall Schumacher in DTM but the likes of Tom Walkinshaw rated him highly enough from what he did with Mercedes in Group C to rush him into Benetton and so, I gather, did those on the inside at Sauber Mercedes at the time. 

 

Jonathan

Yet at the time most outside observers rated Frentzen higher than Schumacher, having pretty much out-driven him in German F3, where they finished equal second in the 1989 championship. Behind Karl Wendlinger. In a crunch race at Zeltweg, Frentzen accused Schumacher of punting him off ...

[Henri Greuter]

I don't think I want to know how the duel between these two ruthless "unsportsmen" had continued should it have been possible.

I think that some of the nastiest accidents between two drivers ever within F1 would ahve been between them, and hopefully only between them and not involving a luckless innocent fellow driver who got involved because of being at the wrong place at the wrong moment.

Having said this, this doesn't mean that I am happy that it never wend beyond Imola '94 for them because of what happened there.

 

 

It's always been a surprise to me that both appear to have had religious beliefs. Their "God" must be a right bastard if he'd condone the on-track behaviour of either of them.

 

I was not aware of religious feelings of MS though I do know that behind the scenes he was donating a lot to charity.

But if both were religious: think about what eventually made them disappear from (public) life....

Their God didn't show that much mercy all the time, I wonder who's fate was more merciful.....

 

 

Henri

[Duc-Man]

I really can't recall Schumacher in DTM but the likes of Tom Walkinshaw rated him highly enough from what he did with Mercedes in Group C to rush him into Benetton and so, I gather, did those on the inside at Sauber Mercedes at the time.

 

Jonathan

 

Schumacher in the DTM: he only started once at the seasons finale in Hockenheim 1990. He qualified 15th and took out the championship leader in the first corner. He was a friggin gueststarter and the championship was still open...

 

Group C: he was the slowest of the Mercedes junior-team from what I remember. Frenzen and Wendlinger were constantly faster then him.

[F1matt]

I don't think I want to know how the duel between these two ruthless "unsportsmen" had continued should it have been possible.
I think that some of the nastiest accidents between two drivers ever within F1 would ahve been between them, and hopefully only between them and not involving a luckless innocent fellow driver who got involved because of being at the wrong place at the wrong moment.
Having said this, this doesn't mean that I am happy that it never wend beyond Imola '94 for them because of what happened there.



I was not aware of religious feelings of MS though I do know that behind the scenes he was donating a lot to charity.
But if both were religious: think about what eventually made them disappear from (public) life....
Their God didn't show that much mercy all the time, I wonder who's fate was more merciful.....


Henri

If the Imola crash had never happened and Senna could have turned the points defecit around I don’t think he would have stuck around much longer, after Prost quit was he really the same? He was the wrong age to keep going toe to toe with Schumacher.

[E1pix]

But if both were religious: think about what eventually made them disappear from (public) life....

Their God didn't show that much mercy all the time, I wonder who's fate was more merciful.....

 

 

Henri

 Senna, without question IMO.

[jtremlett]

Schumacher in the DTM: he only started once at the seasons finale in Hockenheim 1990. He qualified 15th and took out the championship leader in the first corner. He was a friggin gueststarter and the championship was still open...

 

Group C: he was the slowest of the Mercedes junior-team from what I remember. Frenzen and Wendlinger were constantly faster then him.

Sounds like he was using the DTM as practice for his F1 career then!

 

Without actually checking back for lap times, reports etc. my memory of Group C is that Schumacher looked the most promising of the three and I do recall being at Le Mans in 1991 when he set the fastest lap in the dark and that I wasn't surprised.  I have certainly read (although can't recall where offhand) that those inside the Sauber Mercedes team rated him highest and it seems clear that his opponents at the time (the likes of Tom Walkinshaw, Ross Brawn, Martin Brundle) did too, both from what they have said and from their actions. Indeed I have heard that first-hand from Ross Brawn albeit that it was not so long ago and with many years of success together in between.

 

Jonathan

[chunder27]

I dont think the religion thing has any part in MS's driving style, but I do with Senna, he believed he had a a God given right to be the quickest, and his self belief was rooted in religion.

 

As for Michael, he was simply a machine, a ruthless competitor but a dream to have in your team.  I watched a youtube thing with Derek Warwick years ago and he has not got a good word to say about him after his GpC expoints one race.

[midgrid]

Of the Mercedes junior drivers, IIRC Frentzen was the fastest initially at an event, but then his progress would plateau relative to Schumacher.

[HistoryFan]

nice thread.

 

does anyone remember how often they had real tyre to tyre fights together?

[D-Type]

nice thread.

 

does anyone remember how often they had real tyre to tyre fights together?

I don't recall any as their careers barely overlapped.

[john aston]

I first saw an F1 race in 1971 and whilst Niki Lauda would be my hero if I went for such things, Senna was undoubtedly the best driver I ever saw from trackside. I knew he was extraordinary from my first sight of him in FF1600 in '81 and nothing since has changed my mind - I just wish he had not tarnished his legacy by some of the wilder stunts he pulled. Schumacher? A great driver with another tarnished image - but his bag of Grands Prix is as indicative of the superiority of the Brawn/ Byrne steamroller and compliant teammates as his raw talent . A (flawed)  great, but not in the league of Clark ,Fangio, Stewart  or Prost.  

Edited by john aston, 28 January 2018 - 07:51.

[Henri Greuter]

I don't recall any as their careers barely overlapped.

 

Brazil '92. Schumacher was faster but Senna blocked him ruthlessly. If I recall correctly, Senna did drive the genuine '92 McLaren that year for the first time but the car was pushed forward and not really entirely ready yet.

But I vividly recall that race since I saw it in the presence of three Brazilian students who worked on their MD's. They had invited me to come by and watch the race with them. All three of them were Senna fans of course but two of them agreed with me that this kind of defensive driving was too aggressive and a sign of utter frustration and unsportsmanlike.

 

 

Henri

[Collombin]

Assessing their performances from when they were both in F1 (1991 Belgian Grand Prix-1994 San Marino Grand Prix), who was better?

Just within that specified timeframe Senna was clearly superior, although there were signs that Schumacher would be the Herr apparent.

Even taking their whole careers into account I don't think Schumacher was ever quite in the same class talent wise, although he certainly maintained the Senna standards for dirty driving.

[Gabrci]

Maybe it's time to move this to RC before more fanboys and fanmen get the chance to embarrass themselves? 

[kayemod]

Maybe it's time to move this to RC before more fanboys and fanmen get the chance to embarrass themselves? 

 

nice thread.

 

 

You're right. Any thread with a title like this one is bound to attract the undesirable element, even on TNF.

[Henri Greuter]

Just within that specified timeframe Senna was clearly superior, although there were signs that Schumacher would be the Herr apparent.

Even taking their whole careers into account I don't think Schumacher was ever quite in the same class talent wise, although he certainly maintained the Senna standards for dirty driving.

 

 

Concentrating on their drivers talents only: I think it is difficult to rate them

Personally I tend to believe that the McLarens of Senna in '92 and '93 were better cars than the Benettons of Schumacher in those years so I feel Senna had a slight advantage.

For example: Both men had basically the same engine in '93 but the McLaren had Traction control from race one that season unlike the Benetton that got it later on in the season. Certainly in the two wet races of the first three races of the season that was an advantage for Senna.

Senna ended the '93 season with 21 points more than MS, but 14 of those were scored in thase two rain affected races that season alone.

 

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

Maybe it's time to move this to RC before more fanboys and fanmen get the chance to embarrass themselves? 

 

 

You're right. Any thread with a title like this one is bound to attract the undesirable element, even on TNF.

 

 

I understand what you are hinting on.

 

But it looks to me that, at least up till this moment, thre has been no posts yet in which the bad sides of either driver are denied and nullified compared with the other.

So in that respect the posts have remained kind of objective.

As long as this happens, I see no reason in closing or moving this thread, at least for the time being.

But if moderators think different???

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 28 January 2018 - 11:44.

[PayasYouRace]

Maybe it's time to move this to RC before more fanboys and fanmen get the chance to embarrass themselves?

If and when we set up a recent history subforum somewhere, this thread could go there. But it’s not an RC topic.

[Gary Davies]

Right and wrong aren't just about rules. There's this thing called self discipline and neither of them paid attention to it. And if the participants don't behave respectfully to others, they're not sportsmen.

 

So you can assume that Senna and Schumacher aren't on my list of great drivers.

I agree. The components adding up to 'great' are more than just speed. 

 

And while I'm unloading bile, may I say when I heard Senna saying to Stewart, in the interview below, that "... if you do no longer go for a gap that exists, you're no longer a racing driver." I felt affronted. Stewart's question (We're talking about 1:57 in) was certainly confronting but I maintain the point he was making was entirely fair.

 

 

No... in the case of both Senna and Schumacher, I was forever disappointed that they allowed their boorishness on track to debase their exquisite talent.

[jtremlett]

You're right. Any thread with a title like this one is bound to attract the undesirable element, even on TNF.

Given we're talking of something almost 24 years ago, I doubt it would come within too many people's definition of recent!

 

What is undesirable?  I don't see anything above that is.  We can disagree but be civil about it can't we?  And if anyone can't then that's why you have moderators.

 

Getting back to the original question, personally, I abhorred some of the tactics of both men but nevertheless admired and appreciated their skill.  Obviously in the time period both were in F1 they were at different stages of their careers and I would find it hard to argue other than that Senna was the better at that point.  But over the whole of their careers it is more difficult.  

 

Jonathan

[Collombin]

If and when we set up a recent history subforum somewhere, this thread could go there. But it’s not an RC topic.

Exactly. TNF began in 1998 didn't it? Would a thread back then that related to 1972 be dismissed as "too current" for TNF?

[BRG]

Any thread with a title like this one is bound to attract the undesirable element, even on TNF.

I thought it was a thread about the undesirable element?

 

No... in the case of both Senna and Schumacher, I was forever disappointed that they allowed their boorishness on track to debase their exquisite talent.

That is exactly how I feel about both of them - sublime talents terminally compromised by thuggery.  It goes for Mr Jason Plato in touring cars too.

[pacificquay]

If and when we set up a recent history subforum somewhere, this thread could go there. But it’s not an RC topic.

It absolutely belongs in TNF. Senna has been dead for 24 years - it’s a stretch to even think of that as recent

[D-Type]

It absolutely belongs in TNF. Senna has been dead for 24 years - it’s a stretch to even think of that as recent

'zactly.

[chunder27]

Who really cares where it should be, pedantry really.

 

I think they are both clearly shining lights for some, with a weak side for both.  

 

I never warmed to either of them, even though Senna could be remarkably humane at times.

 

Schumacher was to me a machine, would do anything to win, but he brought with him a new regime and that has to be respected.

[PlayboyRacer]

They were both so alike in their approach that you just wonder how brutal it may have become had Imola 1994 not intervened.
Senna was already getting seriously frustrated and disgusted at the thought of Schumacher beating him in an (allegedly) illegal car, it was already brewing thats for sure.

Both were totally unsportmanlike... but possessed the sort of huge talent and application mere mortals dream of. Both unbelievably fast, even moreso in average equipment, both from another planet in wet conditions... both utterly ruthless. They were very similar. Senna seems to get away with it more as people take it that he was thinking with his heart, that latin temperament. Whereas Schumacher came across much more calculated. The truth? Who knows really.

Their rap sheets are something else, a mile long. Was Suzuka 1990 worse than Jerez 1997? Schumacher was literally being unsportsmanlike up until his first retirement (Monaco 2006) and even when he returned (squeezing Barrichello at Hungary). Its an interesting debate as to who was worse in that aspect.

For who was ultimately the greater Formula 1 driver? For me, Senna. Simply based off him taking on Alain Prost within the same team. Who at the time was the greatest driver in the world. Michael would not contemplate having a Hakkinen, Villeneuve... then later a Raikkonen as teammate... for me thats a big stain on his career. Others may not care.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 January 2018 - 03:05.

[TecnoRacing]

Maybe it's time to move this to RC before more fanboys and fanmen get the chance to embarrass themselves?

You're right. Any thread with a title like this one is bound to attract the undesirable element, even on TNF.

 

Sorry, TNF doesn't belong only to 'haters' and stuffy moralists only

[PlayboyRacer]

I agree. The components adding up to 'great' are more than just speed. 

 

And while I'm unloading bile, may I say when I heard Senna saying to Stewart, in the interview below, that "... if you do no longer go for a gap that exists, you're no longer a racing driver." I felt affronted. Stewart's question (We're talking about 1:57 in) was certainly confronting but I maintain the point he was making was entirely fair.

 

 

No... in the case of both Senna and Schumacher, I was forever disappointed that they allowed their boorishness on track to debase their exquisite talent.

For a comparison, an eerily similar interview between Martin Brundle and Schumacher in 1998.... note the disgust he has for Jacques' forthright comments...

 

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 January 2018 - 03:26.

[john aston]

'undesirables'...? Maybe we ought to think what a newcomer's reaction would be to reading some of this thread, let's suppose a thirty something who is starting to take more interest in the history of the sport  . It would feel like walking into a strange pub , finding that all conversation stops as you are glared at by the regulars who then  ignore you the rest of the night. Of course there is no room for abuse or vitriol on here but even though many of us are old farts maybe we should try not to act  like them ?

 

As said , we are talking of events over a quarter of a century ago   and whilst 1994  might feel  not that long ago to me now  , 1969 felt a helluva long time ago in 1994   

[Henri Greuter]

 

As said , we are talking of events over a quarter of a century ago   and whilst 1994  might feel  not that long ago to me now  , 1969 felt a helluva long time ago in 1994   

 

 

I know what you mean..... same here.....

 

 

 

 

 

Another arguement why i think it is difficult to rate/compare both drivers as a driver, excluding the other things they share:  Senna rarely raced in races allowing refuelling, MS on the other hand did most of his race in years that allowed refuelling.

Because of that, Senna had to deal with car which went through a greater transition in weight and the resulting difference in track behaviour than MS had. On the other hand, MS drove cars within a mmore narrow window of performance which allowed him to race closer to the edge within that more narrow window.

 

Senna had less sophisitcated cars, MS narrow track and grooved tires cars......

 

We will never know how the other would have dealt with all of that......

 

 

But I do agree with playboyracer's first paragraph of comments in post 33.  This battle could have become so brutal between both and then hopefully between both them alone, no innocent drivers at the wrong place at the wrong time getting involved as well.....

Senna mellowing early 1994?  Ask Hakkinen how he was treated when he wanted to apologies for the incident when Senna was pushed off the track in the Pacific GP by him....

Or ask his manager Keke Rosberg about that moment.....

 

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 January 2018 - 09:50.

[Doug Nye]

Well said John - I have my own reasonably well-advised gut opinions about Senna and Schumacher - well developed in period through a degree of personal witness experience - and probably more about the apparent public regard in which they may - or may not - now be held.  But just for once I am going to keep them to myself.  I wouldn't want to inflame anybody.   

 

DCN

[as65p]

That's bold, athread about the two most despised drivers in TNF... .

 

There can be no doubt about Schumachers qualities, but ultimately I think Senna was better, especially during the period in question. My guess is, within different teams the fight would have been close (as it shaped up to be in '94), within the same team Senna would be further ahead, mainly because Schumacher wasn't willing or prepared, as his later career proved, to go head-to-head in the same team. IOW, Schumacher worked best with everything molded around him, whereas Senna, as Ron Dennis once said, was capable of excellent performances with little or no emotional support.

[Ibsey]

Well said John - I have my own reasonably well-advised gut opinions about Senna and Schumacher - well developed in period through a degree of personal witness experience - and probably more about the apparent public regard in which they may - or may not - now be held.  But just for once I am going to keep them to myself.  I wouldn't want to inflame anybody.   

 

DCN

 

Given your personal witness experience, I wondered if you might be willing to contribute to a book I am currently working on?

 

The book will explain all the politics surrounding the 1994 F1 season, particularly those behind the Benetton cheating allegations. Essentially giving readers the facts and probing into events, thus allowing them to decide from themselves what really happened that year. PM me if you are interested. I did try send sending you a message but it didn't work.

 

 

The book does cover some of this subject and gives a fresh perspective on 1994, with contributions from Frank Dernie, Paul West (williams mechanic) and others. Not least what Senna heard on Schumacher’s Benetton at Aida which is supported by Willem Toet and and a well respected F1 figure, who I hope to name in the book. Also worth noting Senna's mindset in 1994;  

 

 

Perhaps the last person to talk with Senna before he got into the car for the race was Adrian Newey. “I was getting my notes together and, about two minutes before the cars were due to leave the garage to go to the grid, Ayrton came running in, peeled his overalls down and we had a quick chat. He reiterated the fact that he felt he was going into a race against an illegal car. At the previous race in Japan, he had been eliminated at the first corner and spent quite some time watching Michael’s Benetton, convinced that it had traction control. Much has been written about Ayrton’s mindset going into Imola. For me, the most important thing was he was absolutely determined to win that race because he felt he was racing against a car that was illegal. That’s obviously quite an emotional place to be.” [1

 

]

[1] F1 Racing February 2018 – Page 86

 

 

 

Like Doug I don't really want to get involved in this debate, for the reason Doug mentioned. But I will say during my research I uncovered by Imola 1994 bookmakers no longer had Senna as favorite to take the 1994 title Schumacher was (source Autosport 28/4/94).

Edited by Ibsey, 29 January 2018 - 10:45.

[Charlieman]

But I will say during my research I uncovered by Imola 1994 bookmakers no longer had Senna as favorite to take the 1994 title Schumacher was (source Autosport 28/4/94).

Bookmakers' odds are the mechanism that bookmakers use to attract bets and to try to avoid losing money on an event. They shouldn't be used as opinion data! 

 

Let's assume a two car race between two sports people who won't try to punt the other off. Our bookie is only taking bets for the fun of it and knows that s/he is unlikely to make a profit. There is no way for our bookie to lay off bets and s/he carries all of the risk.

 

One hour before the start, 100 people have bet on Dr Blue and the bookie will have to pay out £800 (gross) on a win. 100 people have also bet on Dr Purple and the exposure is £1,000. We don't need to think too much about the opening odds -- they have been set to allow something between a non-catastrophic loss or the bonus to buy a healthy dinner.

 

The bookmaker has to tweak the odds to reduce the pay out gap -- s/he wants more bets on Dr Purple at lower winnings/stake ratio, and more bets on Dr Blue at higher winnings/stake ratio. 

 

At the time when the odds are changed, each driver is backed by the same number of gamblers. But the bookie's favourite is Dr Purple.

 

Edit for clarification: In old fashioned horse racing vernacular etc, "low odds" refer to the ratio between pay out and bet size (winnings/stake ratio). A "low odds" winning bet generates a smaller return than "high odds". Isn't the English language wonderful?

Edited by Charlieman, 29 January 2018 - 12:37.

[Ibsey]

Bookmakers' odds are the mechanism that bookmakers use to attract bets and to try to avoid losing money on an event. They shouldn't be used as opinion data! 

 

 

That may be so, but it striked me as being significant because it was reported in the news section of Autosport (i.e. at the front of the magazine). I don't recall another time they reported bookmaker odds there. Remember Senna was supposed to be the overwhelming favorite for the 1994 title pre-season. 

 

Having re-read all the magazines from early 1994, it was clear that opinion at the time was divided as who was better between the two. 

Edited by Ibsey, 29 January 2018 - 12:52.

[Charlieman]

One has to wonder how or whether Senna's racing attitude changed in response to the different management style at Williams. Most of the reported interviews from early 1994 tell how Senna and Damon Hill struggled with the "new rules" car, and Senna's disbelief about Schumacher's performance in the Benneton. Senna didn't deliver fluffy PR-managed interviews, so I presume he was getting his head down and working with the Williams team to improve performance. Or maybe he was sizzling below the surface. 

[Charlieman]

That may be so, but it striked me as being significant because it was reported in the news section of Autosport (i.e. at the front of the magazine). I don't recall another time they reported bookmaker odds there.

We're getting further into the territory of cognitive errors, to which journalists succumb like the rest of us. 

[as65p]

That may be so, but it striked me as being significant because it was reported in the news section of Autosport (i.e. at the front of the magazine). I don't recall another time they reported bookmaker odds there. Remember Senna was supposed to be the overwhelming favorite for the 1994 title pre-season. 

 

Having re-read all the magazines from early 1994, it was clear that opinion at the time was divided as who was better between the two. 

 

Pre-season, he "angst" was overwhelming that with Senna in the supposedly dominant car there would be incredible boredom at the front of F1. So when it turned out differently at the start of the season it was more than welcome, which is naturally reflected in the publications. Schumacher and Benetton were the loveable underdogs sticking it to the Empire, at that time. Turned sour quickly of course, but that was the vibe up until Imola.

[Ibsey]

We're getting further into the territory of cognitive errors, to which journalists succumb like the rest of us. 

 

Certainly don't want to waste time going down that territory given I've a book to write. But Tony Dodgins also reported on those William Hill bookmaker odds in a separate article about whether Senna could overcome the points deficit after Aida (in that 28/4/94 Autosport). I personally wouldn't class Tony Dodgins as a journalist who would try to distort things. Like I said before I was just putting it out there really as a teaser to the book. Further views on the matter will be in the book (backed up with evidence).

 

 

Pre-season, he "angst" was overwhelming that with Senna in the supposedly dominant car there would be incredible boredom at the front of F1. So when it turned out differently at the start of the season it was more than welcome, which is naturally reflected in the publications. Schumacher and Benetton were the loveable underdogs sticking it to the Empire, at that time. Turned sour quickly of course, but that was the vibe up until Imola.

 

In a mid March Autosport (i.e. before Brazil) when they were doing the pre-season predictions it was also asked whether in equal machinery Schumacher was better than Senna. So it wasn't just after Brazil & Aida that publications reported things that way.  

[as65p]

In a mid March Autosport (i.e. before Brazil) when they were doing the pre-season predictions it was also asked whether in equal machinery Schumacher was better than Senna. So it wasn't just after Brazil & Aida that publications reported things that way.  

 

Didn't I write "pre-season"? It was hoped very much someone would make life difficult for the supposed dominators Williams and Senna. And obviously, the question which driver is exactly how good is legitimate at all times and with all names. You get the same musings in every era, it's one of the themes that always sells.

[Louis Mr. F1]

Star Wars

 

Look at Flavio Briatore in the first picture, he even allowed another driver to lecture his own star driver before the re-start (French GP 92) and didn't dare to stop Ayrton.

[ensign14]

Whilst the criteria for your own 'greatest ever' list is entirely up to you it is hard to see how whether you like a driver's attitude or not would relate to their greatness. 

 

There's a difference between best-ever and greatest-ever.  Maradona may have been better than Pele, but Pele wasn't a drug-using snide diving handballing cheat.  So Pele is greater.
 

[ensign14]

Exactly. TNF began in 1998 didn't it? Would a thread back then that related to 1972 be dismissed as "too current" for TNF?

 

This is the frightening thing.  We are as far away from Senna v Prost at McLaren, as Senna v Prost at McLaren was from Fangio still being a Grand Prix driver. 

 

And there are those here who remember Fangio.  We are now as far from Fangio, as Fangio was from Levassor...