104 replies to this topic

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Recent happenings regarding Red Bull driver reshuffle got me thinking.

A magnificent teammate can destroy ones carrer, BUT ones carrer can also blossom alongside magnificent teammate.

For example carrer of father Verstappen was destroyed by Schumacher. Also JJ Lehtos and he finished off ex greats Piquet and Patrese. On the other hand the carrer of Felipe Massa blossomed alongside that same Schumacher.

Over at WRC Xavier Pons was destroyed by the greatest driver ever while they were together at Kronos. But Seb Ogier blossomed alongside that same driving semigod.

Miko Hirvonen blossomed alongside Marcus Grönholm.

And one could argue that Moss became the greatest ever non champion because he grew up as Fangio's teammate

So go on. Discuss. And write down your own examples. There Isnt much to do anyways during long and hot summer brake. And even Pocono is rained out it seems

[Collombin]

DC was worried about Lewis starting his F1 career with Fred as a teammate. Worked out OK iirc.

[Pimpwerx]

If a driver has the talent, they will survive or thrive that trial by fire. With so few seats available, it's inevitable that some will have to enter that cauldron, and there are bound to be casualties.

[Spillage]

The guys who are really good rise to the top even if paired with an excellent teammate early on - see Hamilton with Alonso, Hakkinen with Senna, Stewart with Hill.

I suspect the guys who suddenly don't look so good when next to an excellent teammate - Fisichella, for example, or Barrichello - haven't been so much 'destroyed' as found out, and probably weren't that good in the first place.

[Kalmake]

For example carrer of father Verstappen was destroyed by Schumacher. Also JJ Lehtos and he finished off ex greats Piquet and Patrese. On the other hand the carrer of Felipe Massa blossomed alongside that same Schumacher.

Massa was someone who Ferrari wanted to win championships in the future. Verstappen and Lehto were there because Briatore had to run two cars. Testing crash played a big part in Lehto's failure.

[Touchdown]

The guys who are really good rise to the top even if paired with an excellent teammate early on - see Hamilton with Alonso, Hakkinen with Senna, Stewart with Hill.

I suspect the guys who suddenly don't look so good when next to an excellent teammate - Fisichella, for example, or Barrichello - haven't been so much 'destroyed' as found out, and probably weren't that good in the first place.

This

[PlatenGlass]

Massa was someone who Ferrari wanted to win championships in the future. Verstappen and Lehto were there because Briatore had to run two cars. Testing crash played a big part in Lehto's failure.

This. A lot of it is down to what goes on in the team. Do not think for one second that a Hamilton or an Alonso, or even a Schumacher clone would have done anything but fail in the 1994 Benetton alongside Schumacher.

It's also not just down to the physical equipment a driver is given but also the internal politics in the team and how a driver is treated. Some drivers will get through being the unfavoured driver better than others, but it's not just down to how good someone is as a driver but how well they can thrive mentally in certain conditions.

[PlatenGlass]

I suspect the guys who suddenly don't look so good when next to an excellent teammate - Fisichella, for example, or Barrichello - haven't been so much 'destroyed' as found out, and probably weren't that good in the first place.

Button was beaten by quite a bit by Fisichella (himself "not that good in the first place") early in his career. But whereas many drivers would never have been given another chance, Button was and proved quite good in the end. A lot of it is down to opportunity.

There are many drivers who made it but might not have done and drivers who didn't but might. It's very easy to just say that we found out how good all these drivers were in the end but with slightly different opportunities, champions would have been nobodies and nobodies champions.

[sopa]

Well, surely facing a top-notch team-mate is the ultimate test of a driver. It would expose any limitations the driver has, if they weren't properly evident beforehand.

[Yamamoto]

The guys who are really good rise to the top even if paired with an excellent teammate early on - see Hamilton with Alonso, Hakkinen with Senna, Stewart with Hill.

I suspect the guys who suddenly don't look so good when next to an excellent teammate - Fisichella, for example, or Barrichello - haven't been so much 'destroyed' as found out, and probably weren't that good in the first place.

 

I agree. It also tells you something about the other driver. For all that Alonso was clearly very good, 2004 had been a more testing year after a very impressive 2003, which was a bit of a honeymoon. In 2005 he showed the level that we have come to take for granted. This probably played its part in distorting the expectations around Fisi, too.

[PlatenGlass]

Well, surely facing a top-notch team-mate is the ultimate test of a driver. It would expose any limitations the driver has, if they weren't properly evident beforehand.

Yes, if everything is equal in the team. I do think though that "one car teams" aren't as common now.

[noikeee]

The guys who are really good rise to the top even if paired with an excellent teammate early on - see Hamilton with Alonso, Hakkinen with Senna, Stewart with Hill.

I suspect the guys who suddenly don't look so good when next to an excellent teammate - Fisichella, for example, or Barrichello - haven't been so much 'destroyed' as found out, and probably weren't that good in the first place.

But I think some drivers respond much better to being "found out" by teammates than others. Some don't give a ****, work hard, and sometimes even recover to eventually beat said team-mate (ex: Nico Rosberg, Coulthard who probably wasn't that talented but still eventually beat Hakkinen in 2001). Others completely melt mentally once they realise someone's quicker than them, and tank in performance big time (ex: Fisichella or Frentzen).

Also there very much is a thing such as being given the chance too early. What if Hamilton had been given the chance 2 years before? 5 years before? Whilst a young teenager? Sebastian Vettel was pretty slow in his first race for BMW and turned out alright. Jaime Alguersuari was awful when given his first chance mid-season aged 19, he recovered alright but ended up retiring from the sport altogether very early as he burned out, what if he had been given more time to mature before being thrown to the wolves? What if nobody had given Button a chance after his awful 2001 season with Benetton?

[SenorSjon]

Verstappen Sr. was very young (and was lined up for McLaren test role due to Marlboro sponsorship), but fell for the race seat charm at Benetton when Lehto had his testing crash.

Edited by SenorSjon, 18 August 2019 - 18:25.

[PayasYouRace]

Sure, if by “fell for the race seat charm,” you mean, “was Benetton’s test driver and so was doing his job by substituting for the injured race driver.”

[Risil]

Sure, if by “fell for the race seat charm,” you mean, “was Benetton’s test driver and so was doing his job by substituting for the injured race driver.”

 

And his career was destroyed to such an extent that he hung on in F1 for only another 9 years

[PayasYouRace]

And his career was destroyed to such an extent that he hung on in F1 for only another 9 years

He survived Simtek going under too.

[r4mses]

Button was beaten by quite a bit by Fisichella (himself "not that good in the first place") early in his career. But whereas many drivers would never have been given another chance, Button was and proved quite good in the end. A lot of it is down to opportunity.

There are many drivers who made it but might not have done and drivers who didn't but might. It's very easy to just say that we found out how good all these drivers were in the end but with slightly different opportunities, champions would have been nobodies and nobodies champions.

 

Indeed. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the grid would have won the 2009 WDC if they had Brawn's car. Not taking away anything from Button, he made the most of it when the had the opportunity of his F1-lifetime.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Indeed. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the grid would have won the 2009 WDC if they had Brawn's car. Not taking away anything from Button, he made the most of it when the had the opportunity of his F1-lifetime.

And at least 3-4 would become champion in 2009 driving for Red Bull.

Dont forget that Red Bull caught Brawn and was dominant car from Silverstone onwards.

[Spillage]

Verstappen Sr. was very young (and was lined up for McLaren test role due to Marlboro sponsorship), but fell for the race seat charm at Benetton when Lehto had his testing crash.

But at no stage in his career would Verstappen have given Schumacher any trouble. This is what I mean about guys getting found out when they get as good teammate. Similarly, I suspect if Fisichella had been paired with Schumacher or Hakkinen in the late 1990s he would have looked about as good as he did against Alonso in 2005-06.

I do fully take the point that drivers mature at different speeds however. I guess Button could easily have been dropped after being beaten by Ralf and Fisichella in his first two seasons, but he did show plenty of promise in 2000. Even the guys we think of as late bloomers - like Nigel Mansell or Nico Rosberg - showed flashes of promise early in their careers, which kept them in the sport even if their teammate generally had the upper hand. Damon Hill, for example, had a pretty tough task making his (competitive) debut in 1993 alongside Alain Prost, and indeed was outperformed by Prost over the course of the season. But he stil won three races and was able to demonstrate his considerable skill. The guys with innate talent can usually demonstrate something.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Thread went slightly off

Point is would D. HILL, Massa, Hirvonen etc... be as good as they were if they never drove alongside magnificent teammate?

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 19 August 2019 - 05:52.

[Rodaknee]

Depends upon the character of the magnificent team mate.  For example, Barry Sheene didn't want his team mates to have better machinery than him.  Engines would be swapped around if he thought he wasn't getting the fastest.  At lesser events he'd hang around behind his team mate to give the impression they were fighting for the win, only to disappear off into the distance a couple of laps from the end.

[Anderis]

Button was beaten by quite a bit by Fisichella (himself "not that good in the first place") early in his career. But whereas many drivers would never have been given another chance, Button was and proved quite good in the end. A lot of it is down to opportunity.

That's one of the reasons I wish the grid would be exapnded to 12 teams.

 

Between all of the Buemis, Vergnes, Nasrs, Vandoornes and Wehrleins we could have had another Button who would emerge as a top or near-top driver later in his career, had there only be some more seats (at decently funded and independent teams I want to add) those competent but not "next Verstappen" drivers would sometimes inevitably be wanted at.

[Heyli]

Thread went slightly off

Point is would D. HILL, Massa, Hirvonen etc... be as good as they were if they never drove alongside magnificent teammate?

That´ll be very difficult to judge. How cna you judge what made them good...? Maybe they would´ve been better if they hadnt faced magnificent teammates. Maybe not.

 

I think in general the succes in one´s career is very much down to a long list of circumstances. Innate talent is only a very small part of it. 

[NixxxoN]

Some drivers grow and get better on adversity, some just don't and get crushed and depressed

Examples: 1) Rosberg 2) Vandoorne

[noikeee]

Thread went slightly off

Point is would D. HILL, Massa, Hirvonen etc... be as good as they were if they never drove alongside magnificent teammate?

Probably not but this type of situation where a driver sort of gets "mentored" by his most senior team-mate, is pretty rare I think. Most of the time teammates are in vicious competition with each other.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

That´ll be very difficult to judge. How cna you judge what made them good...? Maybe they would´ve been better if they hadnt faced magnificent teammates. Maybe not.

I think in general the succes in one´s career is very much down to a long list of circumstances. Innate talent is only a very small part of it.

Hirvonen was horrible and completely lost before he joined Grönholm at Ford

Hill also, although its hard to judge him based on his Brabham "performance" .

And Massa according to J. Villeneuve couldnt even drive straight during his early Sauber days

[absinthedude]

When it became clear that Michael schumacher was going to be a great, I recall Jonathan Palmer likening his appearance on the scene against an ageing but still fast Piquet to his own races as team mate to Jean Alesi. Palmer said (paraphrasing) 'I make no bones about it, Alesi was faster than me and that ended my time as an F1 racer". 

 

It is very much dependent on circumstances though....Piquet was towards the end of his F1 career whatever happened. He'd had an Indian summer at Benetton, and recaptured respect he'd lost at Lotus, but he wasn't going to be racing for more than another year or two whatever happened. JP was more your "promising young driver" who was ultimately dropped in favour of the latest "Wunderkind". 

 

But what about those guys who *could* have made it, if they mentally handled things better when up against a great team mate? Or those who were given a poisoned chalice placing at a team only interested in their #1 driver? Some handled that better than others. Also, there are guys like Brundle who's own prowess was reassessed years after his season alongside Michael Schumacher. With the benefit of hindsight, Brundle did very well against someone who we now know to be a great. But at the time, not everyone saw that in Schumacher....had the cards fallen differently  Brundle might have been in a top car for the rest of the 1990s. 

 

And then some drivers who have hitherto not shown that special spark are inspired to better things by a great team mate. Rosberg Jr for example....I doubt many people genuinely think he's as great as Lewis but he pushed himself to be as close as he possibly could, finding the advantages where he could and taking the knocks when Lewis beat him.  Partnered against a fading Michael Schumacher, that kind of fight wasn't really evident. 

 

Would Nigel Mansell have unlocked his potential to be a winning machine if he hadn't faced Piquet in his prime? Was being partnered with Prost part of the making of Senna? Did that same Senna become part of the destruction of Michael Andretti? 

 

 

Lots of factors in play, including how well a team supports a driver and how much support they need. 

[PayasYouRace]

Hill also, although its hard to judge him based on his Brabham "performance" .

Hill was very much on it when he started racing for Williams in 1993. He had been their test driver for a couple of years and was actually the senior member of the team compared to Prost. Did he learn a thing or two from Alain? Almost certainly. But I don’t think you could say that was what made him as a driver. Hill himself seems to credit being up against Schumacher was the factor which made him dig deepest and find out what he was about.

I don’t think he gets enough credit for actually qualifying that terrible Brabham, which his teammate couldn’t. He also brought it home both times he started in it. But it was really an aside from his duties at Williams.

[AnR]

Some drivers grow and get better on adversity, some just don't and get crushed and depressed

Examples: 1) Rosberg 2) Vandoorne

 

What are they examples off? Rosberg reached his goal and took off?

Vandoorme got a bad McLaren?

[EvilPhil II]

Hardest one for me is why Benetton didn't retain Brundle in 93, 94, 95. I think he would have been extremely competitive and even might have been a contender overall in 96, 97.

Such a waste.

[NixxxoN]

What are they examples off? Rosberg reached his goal and took off?

Vandoorme got a bad McLaren?

Rosberg managed to beat his more talented team mate, Vandoorne just couldn't get near Alonso nor progress in the same car

[maximilian]

I always thought that Gerhard Berger's stint at McLaren alongside Senna didn't do his career much good...

[taran]

Hill was very much on it when he started racing for Williams in 1993. He had been their test driver for a couple of years and was actually the senior member of the team compared to Prost. Did he learn a thing or two from Alain? Almost certainly. But I don’t think you could say that was what made him as a driver. Hill himself seems to credit being up against Schumacher was the factor which made him dig deepest and find out what he was about.

I don’t think he gets enough credit for actually qualifying that terrible Brabham, which his teammate couldn’t. He also brought it home both times he started in it. But it was really an aside from his duties at Williams.

 

I believe Autosport at the time mentioned that Hill was lucky to have Alain Prost as his teammate in 1993. Against Mansell or Senna, he would have been slaughtered in qualifying and neither would have willingly given up race wins (both did as thank you's to team mates after their titles had been won).

 

Alain Prost was ably doing the percentage game in 1993 and didn't feel threatened by Hill or the occasional success he had. It allowed Hill to look better than he was.

 

Some people claim Ivan Capelli was unduly flattered by an Adrian Newey rocketship. I think that describes Hill's entire career. I consider Damon Hill a class act as a human but very average as a driver.

 

He lucked into the Williams drive in 1993 because all other drivers Frank wanted were unavailable. It wasn't because he had impressed them with his F3000 and Brabham drives or his testing.

Frank Williams, admittedly not the best judge of drivers, wanted Hill out and Coulthard to stay in 1995.

In 1996, he was just, just able to defeat rookie Villeneuve for the title. If the Ferrari had been just a little bit less worse, Schumacher would have shown him a pair of heels again.

In 1997, Diniz was snapping at his heels.

In 1998, Schumacher jr. was actually the more impressive driver except for Spa and TO's.Had Ralf and Damon been allowed to fight, my money would have been on Ralf.

In 1999, he checked out but still cashed in Jordan cheques.

 

Nice man, excellent ambassador for F1, mediocre driver.

[messy]

I believe Autosport at the time mentioned that Hill was lucky to have Alain Prost as his teammate in 1993. Against Mansell or Senna, he would have been slaughtered in qualifying and neither would have willingly given up race wins (both did as thank you's to team mates after their titles had been won).
 
Alain Prost was ably doing the percentage game in 1993 and didn't feel threatened by Hill or the occasional success he had. It allowed Hill to look better than he was.
 
Some people claim Ivan Capelli was unduly flattered by an Adrian Newey rocketship. I think that describes Hill's entire career. I consider Damon Hill a class act as a human but very average as a driver.
 
He lucked into the Williams drive in 1993 because all other drivers Frank wanted were unavailable. It wasn't because he had impressed them with his F3000 and Brabham drives or his testing.
Frank Williams, admittedly not the best judge of drivers, wanted Hill out and Coulthard to stay in 1995.
In 1996, he was just, just able to defeat rookie Villeneuve for the title. If the Ferrari had been just a little bit less worse, Schumacher would have shown him a pair of heels again.
In 1997, Diniz was snapping at his heels.
In 1998, Schumacher jr. was actually the more impressive driver except for Spa and TO's.Had Ralf and Damon been allowed to fight, my money would have been on Ralf.
In 1999, he checked out but still cashed in Jordan cheques.
 
Nice man, excellent ambassador for F1, mediocre driver.

I honestly think the ‘Damon Hill was really average’ thing (which is quite a common view to be fair) is a myth peddled by the British media who love to 1. Do their heroes down, and 2. Paint them as the gritty underdog.

To them, Schumacher was the mega talent and Hill was this bloke in his mid thirties who was plucked from Pizza delivery or whatever (notwithstanding World Champion Dad) and thrown in at the deep end. Roy of the Rover. He was driving a Williams, and that was why he won - but he was the relatable F1 driver, the Everyman, the guy who’d make people think they too could be an F1 star. Not this chiselled, plastic German victory robot he was up against. But it meant that Hill never got a great deal of credit, really, aside from that narrative from the press.

Ok, he wasn’t as talented as a Michael Schumacher. Sure. But he won races in his first year and gave Prost a hard time on occasion. He rose in tragic circumstances in 1994 to team leader, was arguably moral champion and produced drives like Suzuka. In 1996 he dominated and had Villeneuve handily beat, then he moved to driving an absolute pile of sh*t in 1997 and nearly won in it, and in 1998 edged Ralf Schumacher and won another race. He packed more into what, six years in F1 (not counting ‘99) than most to be fair.

I think he’s under appreciated really.

[ElectricBoogie]

This. A lot of it is down to what goes on in the team. Do not think for one second that a Hamilton or an Alonso, or even a Schumacher clone would have done anything but fail in the 1994 Benetton alongside Schumacher.

It's also not just down to the physical equipment a driver is given but also the internal politics in the team and how a driver is treated. Some drivers will get through being the unfavoured driver better than others, but it's not just down to how good someone is as a driver but how well they can thrive mentally in certain conditions.

I met a key engineer/designer of Benetton recently, got some good one on one time during a car transfer. He expressed regret about what had been done to Jos, considering his outright speed.
Something about not being allowed his own setups until after the Hockenheim fire. After which he got more on top of the car, but too late.
 

[taran]

I honestly think the ‘Damon Hill was really average’ thing (which is quite a common view to be fair) is a myth peddled by the British media who love to 1. Do their heroes down, and 2. Paint them as the gritty underdog.

To them, Schumacher was the mega talent and Hill was this bloke in his mid thirties who was plucked from Pizza delivery or whatever (notwithstanding World Champion Dad) and thrown in at the deep end. Roy of the Rover. He was driving a Williams, and that was why he won - but he was the relatable F1 driver, the Everyman, the guy who’d make people think they too could be an F1 star. Not this chiselled, plastic German victory robot he was up against. But it meant that Hill never got a great deal of credit, really, aside from that narrative from the press.

Ok, he wasn’t as talented as a Michael Schumacher. Sure. But he won races in his first year and gave Prost a hard time on occasion. He rose in tragic circumstances in 1994 to team leader, was arguably moral champion and produced drives like Suzuka. In 1996 he dominated and had Villeneuve handily beat, then he moved to driving an absolute pile of sh*t in 1997 and nearly won in it, and in 1998 edged Ralf Schumacher and won another race. He packed more into what, six years in F1 (not counting ‘99) than most to be fair.

I think he’s under appreciated really.

 

I think we'll have to disagree but I do find it funny that you seem to have a very different recollection of 1996, 1997 and 1998.

Especially Hill handily beating Villeneuve?

[absinthedude]

I met a key engineer/designer of Benetton recently, got some good one on one time during a car transfer. He expressed regret about what had been done to Jos, considering his outright speed.
Something about not being allowed his own setups until after the Hockenheim fire. After which he got more on top of the car, but too late.
 

 

That was known at the time. Jos wasn't given a decent chance, it probably ruined his entire F1 career. Nice to hear someone involved admit it and show some feelings of guilt.

 

They did the same to Johnny Herbert in 1995 too....though that was only imposed after JH outpaced MSC at their first test together. Additionally Flav had a clause in Johnny's contract that he could be dropped if he hadn't won a race by mid-season.....it was widely believed that Flav wanted to drop Herbert, hence hobbling him. There were lots of statements to the effect that "Both drivers have identical machinery".....by which he meant JH had to follow MSC's setup. As previously discussed, MSC had a driving style which favoured oversteer and a snappy turn in. It certainly worked for MSC, but isn't how most other racers drive. It didn't suit Jos or Johnny. 

Of course Herbert lucked into the win at Silverstone and again at Monza....note the video where Johnny and Damon Hill watch a replay of the 1995 British GP many years on and Johnny points out that Flav's congratulations after the race are fake and "we weren't friends". 

 

No team-mate of Michael got a fair crack of the whip from 1993 onwards. Brundle probably did, but we didn't know just how good Michael was then. 

[absinthedude]

Re Hill in 1995, read his autobiography. He was going through mental hell that year, suffering from what would eventually become deep clinical depression. We didn't see the same Hill in 1995 as we'd seen in 1994 or would see in 1996. 

 

All the rumours, ultimately true, flying around that Williams had replaced him with HHF for 1997 didn't help. Williams once again showing how well they tend to handle drivers.....great team and I love them but they've treated more than one driver like a piece of dirt.

[PayasYouRace]

I think we'll have to disagree but I do find it funny that you seem to have a very different recollection of 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Especially Hill handily beating Villeneuve?

Yeah, messy’s recollection is more accurate.

[PlatenGlass]

I think we'll have to disagree but I do find it funny that you seem to have a very different recollection of 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Especially Hill handily beating Villeneuve?

I think Hill "suffered" from having a too dominant car in 1996 so he was unable to put cars between himself and Villeneuve even when there was quite a gap between them. Prost in 1984, Mansell in 1987 and Senna in 1989 arguably lost titles because of this. The fact that it went down to the last race probably doesn't reflect their relative performances, although as the gap then went up to 19 points, it became a bit more representative in the final reckoning.

[alframsey]

I think Button's performance next to Hamilton increased his standing significantly tbf, everyone expected him to be put in the shade by Lewis. He only lost out to Lewis by 26 points in 2010, beat him by 43 points in 2011, and lost out to Lewis by 2 points in 2012 (albeit Lewis having 5 retirements to Button's 1). He performed brilliantly as Lewis' teammate and as I say imo increased his standing no end. It seems Lewis' standing compared to teammates is only ever damaged unless he truly hammers them.

 

Vettel has been damaged by his standing re his teammates too it appears, with Ric and now Lec.If Lec beats him this season he will take a further hit. Quite and interesting topic this tbf.

[messy]

I think we'll have to disagree but I do find it funny that you seem to have a very different recollection of 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Especially Hill handily beating Villeneuve?

He won the Championship and scored eight wins to Villeneuve’s four, nine poles to his three, 97 points to 78.

But yeah, happily agree to disagree on Hill.

Edited by messy, 19 August 2019 - 23:34.

[Junky]

Hardest one for me is why Benetton didn't retain Brundle in 93, 94, 95. I think he would have been extremely competitive and even might have been a contender overall in 96, 97.

Such a waste.

 

I am not completely sure of this, but I think I recall someone from Benetton (Briatore? Symonds?) after that weak 93 season of Patrese saying it was a mistake not retaining Brundle.

[Reddington]

That was known at the time. Jos wasn't given a decent chance, it probably ruined his entire F1 career. Nice to hear someone involved admit it and show some feelings of guilt.

They did the same to Johnny Herbert in 1995 too....though that was only imposed after JH outpaced MSC at their first test together. Additionally Flav had a clause in Johnny's contract that he could be dropped if he hadn't won a race by mid-season.....it was widely believed that Flav wanted to drop Herbert, hence hobbling him. There were lots of statements to the effect that "Both drivers have identical machinery".....by which he meant JH had to follow MSC's setup. As previously discussed, MSC had a driving style which favoured oversteer and a snappy turn in. It certainly worked for MSC, but isn't how most other racers drive. It didn't suit Jos or Johnny.
Of course Herbert lucked into the win at Silverstone and again at Monza....note the video where Johnny and Damon Hill watch a replay of the 1995 British GP many years on and Johnny points out that Flav's congratulations after the race are fake and "we weren't friends".

No team-mate of Michael got a fair crack of the whip from 1993 onwards. Brundle probably did, but we didn't know just how good Michael was then.

Next to that, Michael was the only one who had the illegal traction control. Something his team mates didn’t have.

[messy]

I don’t think Joe Verstappen was a complete disaster in 1994, but very little went his way that year. He only really got half a season, didn’t he? Herbert was a little bit closer to Schumacher but not as much stronger as the table made him look, the sea parted for him in 1995 to take some very big results without the underlying pace, not least those two wins.

Both though were very, very clear number two driver signings, and I think that’s where you’re always utterly doomed to look useless next to your team-mate. Drivers specifically signed as number twos, maybe Irvine and Barrichello are actually the best examples of drivers overcoming that to make a success of their time in that setup. Mostly - Giancarlo Fisichella, Heikki Kovalainen, Jos Verstappen, Piquet Jr...they struggle and do nothing to enhance their reputations in that circumstance.

David Coulthard, Mark Webber, Felipe Massa and Nico Rosberg were different. They weren’t signed as number two. They were either already established in the team when their ‘magnificent team-mate’ rocked up, or they were specifically signed to learn from them and pick up the baton longer term in the knowledge that the number one was on their way out soon. But no massive surprise that all of those stood up rather better to their team-mates than the first group did. A bit of belief in a driver makes a difference obviously. You just sign someone as a #2 backup, it’s hardly a ringing endorsement and Briatore especially treated them with contempt.....

Daniel Ricciardo 2014 is a funny one and I can’t work out which group he fits into really.

[absinthedude]

I am not completely sure of this, but I think I recall someone from Benetton (Briatore? Symonds?) after that weak 93 season of Patrese saying it was a mistake not retaining Brundle.

 

I do recall Patrese being quoted either in Autosport or Autocourse at the end of the year saying he hadn't done as good a job as Brundle "but fifth is fifth" - referring to finishing one place further up the table to Brundle. It was a few years later when journalists began realising just how good Brundle probably was given that he'd sometimes given Schumacher a run for his money. And Brundle was probably the last of Michael's team mates to be given a fair chance until Rosberg 18 years later. 

 

I really hope that the truth about Benetton and traction control surfaces one day. The titles are won, the dust settled....let's know who - if anyone - had TC. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that had Button won in the Braun then retired or faded away, he'd be remembered as a one trick pony who lucked into a title. But the fact that he then signed to be at McLaren alongside Lewis, already recognised as a great driver.....went toe to toe with Lewis and showed himself to be almost equal.....demonstrates that Jenson was a lot better than many people thought. It also shows that Lewis isn't afraid to pit himself against some of the very best....Alonso, Button, Rosberg....

 

Not that Vettel will ever quite be a one trick pony but his performances post-2013 against his team mates have not exactly been convincing. Meanwhile poor Daniel Ricciardo hasn't had a title challenge.

[SolalMS]

I always thought that Gerhard Berger's stint at McLaren alongside Senna didn't do his career much good...

If I recall, he also been beaten by Nigel.

[sopa]

The thing with Herbert is that while prior to joining Benetton he looked promising, after the Benetton season he got beaten by other drivers too - Frentzen, Alesi, Barrichello, Irvine. So it's not like his "handicapped" Benetton season was an outlier. 

[PlatenGlass]

The thing with Herbert is that while prior to joining Benetton he looked promising, after the Benetton season he got beaten by other drivers too - Frentzen, Alesi, Barrichello, Irvine. So it's not like his "handicapped" Benetton season was an outlier.

There was definitely a pre and post Benetton phase for Herbert. The time at Benetton might have affected his motivation. But it's difficult to know really.

[SpeedRacer`]

I don’t think Joe Verstappen was a complete disaster in 1994, but very little went his way that year. He only really got half a season, didn’t he? Herbert was a little bit closer to Schumacher but not as much stronger as the table made him look, the sea parted for him in 1995 to take some very big results without the underlying pace, not least those two wins.

Both though were very, very clear number two driver signings, and I think that’s where you’re always utterly doomed to look useless next to your team-mate. Drivers specifically signed as number twos, maybe Irvine and Barrichello are actually the best examples of drivers overcoming that to make a success of their time in that setup. Mostly - Giancarlo Fisichella, Heikki Kovalainen, Jos Verstappen, Piquet Jr...they struggle and do nothing to enhance their reputations in that circumstance.

David Coulthard, Mark Webber, Felipe Massa and Nico Rosberg were different. They weren’t signed as number two. They were either already established in the team when their ‘magnificent team-mate’ rocked up, or they were specifically signed to learn from them and pick up the baton longer term in the knowledge that the number one was on their way out soon. But no massive surprise that all of those stood up rather better to their team-mates than the first group did. A bit of belief in a driver makes a difference obviously. You just sign someone as a #2 backup, it’s hardly a ringing endorsement and Briatore especially treated them with contempt.....

Daniel Ricciardo 2014 is a funny one and I can’t work out which group he fits into really.

 

Coulthard definitely doesn't belong in your second list - Hakkinen had already been in McLaren for 3 years when he signed, and was clearly Ron's favourite when he turned up. He was just someone to drive the second car at a higher level than Blundell has managed.