44 replies to this topic

[rock]

"Not even he is the next Senna! No way. Senna was miles ahead of everyone; this was a guy who had 61 poles, and the next was 30 or something, Schumacher is not on his level."


It may come as a surprise or even shock to the MS brigade but it doesnt surprise the righteous among us who always knew it. Schumacher never had the intensity, the charisma and the talent to come near Senna. What a pity for Michael fans, they must be kicking themselves for believing their hero was 'Senna'.


Thank You Mr. Gerhard Berger.

[Todd]

And yet, Schumacher in a Benetton v. Berger in a Benetton and Schumacher in a Barnard Ferrari v. Berger in a Barnard Ferrari is a much bigger humiliation for the old child molester than Senna in a McLaren-Honda v. Berger in a McLaren-Honda. I wonder how that could have been? Berger was a journeyman hack.

[whiplash]

you can't make that comparison todd, as berger and schumacher never drove the same cars. besides, berger was a better and more motivated driver when at mclaren than he was with either ferrari 93-95 or benetton 96-97.

[Todd]

Originally posted by whiplash
you can't make that comparison todd, as berger and schumacher never drove the same cars. besides, berger was a better and more motivated driver when at mclaren than he was with either ferrari 93-95 or benetton 96-97.

whiplash,

Do you have any idea how absurd it is for you to tell me that I can't compare '92 to '93-'97, but you can tell that Berger wasn't motivated by being out from under Senna and having teams that work around him? Think about it.

[Antony]

What year was that quote taken from?

ANd also,i have an interview with berger where he is asked very DIRECT question about senna v schuey.

One of them asks if schuey is at the same level senna,and berger says YES,he says in terms of level of perforance he is very close and that he is at the same level.

It was in 98 F1 racing ill post the interview tommorrow.

[The Swerve]

Can't you debate something without being unpleasant about it?

[whiplash]

well berger definately wasn't up for it in 97 (except hockenheim), was woefully inconsistent in 96, and the ferrari's of 93-95 weren't the pick of the bunch.
so berger was driving ok at ferrari but the car was bad, the car was good at benetton was berger was bad, at mclaren berger had a good car and was driving relatively well. therefore, imo, 90-92 berger was a package than berger 93+. is such a supposition that absurd?

[jimm]

Todd

sure I'll think about it. The only race in '97 when Berger had his motivation, he creamed everyone including MS. Berger was never the same after Senna's death. He hever had the motivation or the commitmentafter Imola.

In the same team with Prost or Senna MS would not win over th course of the season EVEN IF he was quicker because he makes too many mistakes under pressure.

Todd, I understand you really really really like MS but why do you have to insist on always being so religous about it. Yea, he is the best of the current drivers, so what? I still hate the bastard. JV does not have the natural pace of either MH or MS but I don't care. I like his personality, commitment and his tenacity. Should I make untrue claims that MS is not good enough to hold his helmet just because I prefer to have him win?

[Turbo]

I would agree with Berger than nobody was a match for Senna on qualifying. As far as race, I think he would have some competitors who might be better on some days and not as good on others, including Schumacher. Indeed, Schumacher was a match for Senna on several occasions 92-94.

[Todd]

whiplash,

The supposition isn't absurd, but proceeding it by telling me that I couldn't compare Berger's success relative to Michael in teams Michael drove for to his success next to Senna seems absurd. Couldn't I just as easily suggest that driving against a teammate that could crush him without working up a sweat put a damper on his efforts over time at McLaren? Eddie Irvine has commented on the dispiriting effect of getting drubbed by Schumacher. Couldn't Senna have effected a lesser driver like Berger similarly?

The real point is that Berger's quoted comments are meaningless. He has contradicted them in the past. Senna contradicted them before his death. And Berger is in no real position to make a judgement anyway.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by jimm
The only race in '97 when Berger had his motivation, he creamed everyone including MS.

Yeah, the same MS who had an extra pit stop because of a bad fuel rig? the same MS who had knackered tires after running behind Alesi so hard? The same MS who drove the last half of the race without 5th gear?

The claim that:

a: Berger 'Creamed' anything but his shorts is bullsh**
b: That Berger should have even been racing if he wasn't 'Motivated' is disgraceful, and reflects even MORE poorly on him!

[selena]

Do not bother about Berger's comments. As far as I am concerned, Senna is the best in qualifying but as for the races, I would rank Senna, Prost, Schumacher and Hakkinen on the same level, and in no particular order. (I have not watched the former greats like Stewart or Fangio and the rest of them and that is why I omitted their names.)

[jimm]

Smooth,

Berger was fastest the whole weekend
Berger out qualified MS by 3/10
Berger's fastest lap was 8/10 faster than MS
Berger won by 17 s

MS would have finished 3rd if not for Fisichella's retirement

MS's gears where working fine in practice and qualifying and yet he was still slower.

Berger did not have to worry about getting caught behind anyone because every one was looking at his butt as he disappeared into the distance.

MS has never been good at watching his tires. Good thing they have fuel stops now.

Berger was quick enough on occation to beat alot of people in his youth. Maybe you were not watching races then. He deffinatly slowed with age (as do they all).


I'll ask you the same questions I asked Todd (that he never responded to:

1. Just because you favor a driver, do you always have to thing he is the best at everything all the time? Or are you one of those people who always has to pull for the best? I have given the example that I like drivers that I know objectively are not the best. Is there not something that someone else who has driven a race car can do better than MS ?

2. Even if a guy is the best do you think there are never times when they can get beat? Sometimes a less talented guy is just at the top of his game and beats everyone.

[vroom-vroom]

Who does Berger think he is? Or is this an Austrian thing? Lauda also flaps his lips at the slightest opportunity to sound pontifical.

[theMot]

In qualifying terms no one was as good as Senna but in a race both Prost and Schumacher are better. Do you get points for qualifying? NO!

Todd, LOL child molester hahahahah

"Old enoughz to bleedz old enough to breed." -- Gerhard Berger

[Smooth]

Originally posted by jimm
.Berger was quick enough on occation to beat alot of people in his youth. Maybe you were not watching races then. He deffinatly slowed with age (as do they all).

I was at a lot of races. My dad worked a lot of races, so I spent a few summers on the circus tour with him, spending countless hours at the tracks.


I'll ask you the same questions I asked Todd (that he never responded to:

1. Just because you favor a driver, do you always have to thing he is the best at everything all the time?

What a stupid way to word a question. Probably why Todd didn't bother. No, every driver is going to have good days and bad. MS has more good than most, but I wouldn't in a million years argue that MS is the best at everything, certainly not every weekend!

Or are you one of those people who always has to pull for the best?

Have to? No. I am a MS fan because of his driving, and what it does for me on an emotional level. Same with Senna, and at times Alesi. I didn't know what the future held for Schumacher when I saw him come almost sideways onto the front straight in Mexico in 1992. Hell, I thought Senna was in a Bennetton! He went on that weekend to out qualify and outrace my fav, Senna. The next race I saw was MOnaco that year, and I was hooked. Of course, he was being touted as a future star, but that was just icing for me. F1 is, at least for me, still an escape from reality. Entertainment. I will not apologize to anyone for being a fan of anyone!

I have given the example that I like drivers that I know objectively are not the best. Is there not something that someone else who has driven a race car can do better than MS ?

If you want to cheer for the underdog, fine.... I personally don't get a nut seeing some never was like Berger trudging around, never living up to his 'Potential' or never being properly 'Motivated'. These one-off races that so many seem to like so much are fun, but I like drivers who are consistent. Someone who will put on a show for me every race. So while Verstappen may be an emotional choice for some, he is not for me. Different strokes, eh?

2. Even if a guy is the best do you think there are never times when they can get beat? Sometimes a less talented guy is just at the top of his game and beats everyone.
Isn't this why the run the races? Schuey can, and has been outright beaten on several occasions, all things being as equal as they can be in F1. Mika Hakkinen is someone who benifited form several thing being right, and exploited it to 2 WDC's. The car, his driving, his team, everything lined up, and he took advantadge. In 98, Schuey really never had a shot at the WDC (in my opinion) as Goodyear didn't show up for racing until it was too late. McLaren built a stunning car, had great rubber and a consistent driver. In my eyes, it was a testament to MS's talent that he (once again) made it a race. '99, I think, was the first realistic shot at a Schuey/ Ferrari WDC, as the car was good, very close to the Macs, and there was at least parity with the rubber. We missed out, though you probably got a thrill watching Eddie take it to the wire.... So yes, clearly a lesser talented driver can, and will, beat a more talented driver on occasion. But that is why they run a season!

[jimm]

Smooth,

I think you missed the point of my question. I think you will have to agree, reading some of the comments on this or other BB, that for some reason it someone is a MH, MS or fan of anyone else, they never admit that another driver could have a better race or sometimes even beat their choosen hero even with equal equipment. If you are a MS fan then he has to be the best always even better than legends like Senna and G. Villinuve (by the way the benneton must have been a better car at mexico unless you consider Brundle a better qualifier than Senna:) )

I was a big Senna fan but on occasion he was beaten in a straght fight (read equal equipment) by lesser drivers. Does this diminish his stature? No. The same goes for MS or whomever. I just get tired of the lack of objectivity.

Maybe I miss read your point of view but I read alot more posts than I actually respond too. It has seemed that you think that in equal equipment that MS was unbeatible.

By the way, I was pulling for Irvine but only because my mother's family is Irish.;)

[Donny]

End of discussion - WE WILL NEVER KNOW what would have been. Who know's MS might have kicked AS butt, but even MS GRACIOUSLY has given all rights to the title of all time best to AS.

However, since we want to take the opinion of a team-mate of three years to AS and use that as a guide, then we need to allow for a fair is fair comparison. While AS and GB were teammates GB won thrice and one was gifted to him by AS - AS won 16 times and had countless poles. Does that not sound similar to the MS - EI relationship. (MS gift to EI in Malaysia) Well here's what EI has to say and if we accept what GB says then lets accept what Ei says since they have the same credentials.

Michael Schumacher's former team-mate Eddie Irvine was also kind enough to comment about Ferrari and Michael Schumacher.
"The car definitely got better. The first Ferrari I drove was really the worst F.1 car I have ever driven", Eddie Irvine said. Asked about
Michael Schumacher's current form the Irish Jaguar driver said: "He has his best season so far! Without problems he would have
won all of the nine Grand Prix races which have been held so far. That's how good he is! And do not forget that Michael won 40
races in a second rate car."

[tom]

yeah well , irvine doesn't know what he's talking about, he's the same guy that said 'he is the 2nd best driver, 2nd only to schumi'

and i think after we've seen that guy lap 2 seconds slower than his championship rival at suzuka 99....we'd all agree that eddie's full of it.

rock,
as for the berger quote , i read in an f1racing magazine, berger said schumi isn't the next senna, but then he said "i think in terms of speed he might be equal with senna, but not as a person"

so you've just taken part of a quote i think.

------------------------------------

irvine = w@nker

[Daemon]

So we are basing all this on Bergers personal opinion. So that must mean that its true. Hey, i think Coulthards a D***head, but that does not make it so...so Bergers comments mean didly squat!

[Smooth]

Originally posted by jimm
Smooth,

I think you missed the point of my question. I think you will have to agree, reading some of the comments on this or other BB, that for some reason it someone is a MH, MS or fan of anyone else, they never admit that another driver could have a better race or sometimes even beat their choosen hero even with equal equipment.

I don't see that at all, at least not with the folks who are level headed F1 fans, first, and a fan of a driver, second (like myself). It seems like human nature to have a favorite, for a race, or a season, or whatever. I have seen Montoya drive, and I get the same feeling about him. He is exciting and confident, and I hope will do well in F1. But besides the Antony's, and some other myopic Schumacher fans, most here seem to know everyone has good days and bad.

If you are a MS fan then he has to be the best always even better than legends like Senna and G. Villinuve (by the way the benneton must have been a better car at mexico unless you consider Brundle a better qualifier than Senna:) )

See above. Best always? no. Best most of the time? yes. Better than some drivers from another era? Who knows. Enjoy what you got. To qoute Wayne Campbell from Waynes World: 'Live in the now!'. And as fas as Mexico, I didn't say the car didn't play a part, though the Benetton wasn't a real front runner yet, I was making the point that even had he qualified 13th, I still got a kick out of seeing him drive. His results are gravy to me.....



Maybe I miss read your point of view but I read alot more posts than I actually respond too. It has seemed that you think that in equal equipment that MS was unbeatible.

Most days, yes. If I were a betting man, and Schumacher was up against any of todays drivers in equal equipment, I would bet Schumacher every time. Does that mean I believe he would win every time? Probably not, but the I feel the odds are he would win more times than not.

[jimm]

smooth,
" I was making the point that even had he qualified 13th, I still got a kick out of seeing him drive. His results are gravy to me..... "


Then you must like watching Villinuve drive???

[C F Eick]

Well Smooth, IMHO your posts in this thread are some of the best I've ever read. Great arguments!

/C F Eick

[Smooth]

Originally posted by jimm
smooth,
" I was making the point that even had he qualified 13th, I still got a kick out of seeing him drive. His results are gravy to me..... "


Then you must like watching Villinuve drive???

Ya know... I am not sure how I feel about JV. I respect his natural talent, probably one of the most naturally gifted drivers on the grid. But I never got as much of a spark, or at least was unable to 'sustain' a spark. I only got to three races in 1996, and four in 1997, so in a competitive car I haven't seen him live enough to convince myself to love him or hate him ;). My big beef is his lack of building on what he learned in his first couple of years. He came on pretty well towards the end of '96, and started to combine his skill with some racing smarts, and looked great. But then in '98, with a car not at the pointy end, he looked a bit lost as far as what to do on the track. He would at times run hopelessly little wing to compensate for top end speed, but would look well over his head at times on the brakes. I am all for the bravery, it seems cool, but in the end he comes across too often like he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about something, and we can all speculate about what that may be. I am not trying to knock on JV, I wouldn't mind seeing him in a better ride, as I think this year he is getting back to learning where he left off in '97. But for some reason he never hit me.......

[jimm]

smooth<
"But I never got as much of a spark, or at least was unable to 'sustain' a spark. "

I know this is jsut a matter of opinion but I think he has got the biggest spark of all current drivers or at least the largest set of balls:)

I like 2 things about him 1) He drives to acheive not just to win. In this way he is like his father. He wants to get out of the car knowing that he got all from it. 2) He is a pure racer through and through and has his own mind. He is not afraid of taking risk or say what he thinks. Because of this I think in the same team with equal status all the current drivers on the grid including MS would have trouble beating him even though he is not the fastest guy out there.

Until DC had his recent epiphony, no one else on the grid ever took the fight to MS and pulled it off. And remeber MS has never put a pass on JV in the dry. which actually brings up his glaring flaw and that is his wet driving. Oh well, most of the races are dry anyway:)

[molive]

My two cents:

Berger is right.



MS is no Senna.

never will be.

no matter how many records he breaks.

Senna was the best in a time when Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Alesi were around.

MS is compared to DH, MH, DC, JV...hey, completely different league if you ask me...;)

[baddog]

so you are saying that if ayrton had entered F1 in the 90s instead of the 80s, that senna would have been no senna.

isnt that self defeating?

Shaun

[Smooth]

You beat me to it, baddog!

[Sting]

Senna was without doubt in a league of his own before his untimely passing.

However, the thought of Senna and Schuey in the rain, in different but equally competitive rides, with the experience Schuey now has, would be incredible.

How sad it can only be left to our imagination.

What's Berger's agenda in this BS anyway??

[Nomad]

Sting: re1992/3

[MichaelL]

Originally posted by Sting
Senna was without doubt in a league of his own before his untimely passing.

1994, MS 30 points, Senna 0 points. In the 92 and 93 seasons the results were also very close. Senna in a league of his own????? I do not agree with you, I think they were very close.

[MichaelL]

baddog,
You hit the right note there.

[Peeko]

And remeber MS has never put a pass on JV in the dry.

source:jimm
I guess you weren't watching Monza 98 ;)

Anyway, I'd really like to know when the quote was taken from. Either it's from the 1993 season, in which Schumacher would have only contested in some 40 GP's, or we can't take Berger seriously, since Senna has 65 poles, not 61.

[Sting]

Don't get me wrong, I have enormous respect for Schuey, and what he's done/will do.

Senna had a natural 'intensity' which screamed intimidation to his competition. Even in a secondary grid starting position, you know everyone ahead feared him.

It's as though Senna could impose his WILL on the car and make it do things it shouldn't.

[TMG]

Actually, when Schumacher and Senna raced 'head-to-head' in '92, '93 and '94, I reckon Scumacher outscored Senna by 135 points to 123.

Doesn't prove anything very much one way or the other I know, but's it's at least as interesting as Berger's slightly fatuous statement!!

[Rogue]

Interesting TMG, do you have a transcript for those results ? (I hope you did it race by race and not on a season basis);)

Regards,

[magic]

dear friends,

i hate statistics when being used as prove of greatness.
i give you 2 excamples.
mansell better than stewart, 31 vics to 27?
rosberg better than moss, 1 wdc to 0?

i think ms is very close to senna and in my 20+ f1 years he ends up in third spot, behind prost second and senna first.
ms is a senna fan himself and looked up to him since he saw the '80 kart-wdc, senna vice-champ but dominating.
like senna looked up to prost and then went after him, finally succeeding beating him.
ms might have had the same plan with senna but as we all regret it never even started.
us fanz wuz robbed.
the great fighters clashing for many seasons, both driving competitive cars.
not hill vs ms but senna, not dc vs ms but senna.
i cannot picture ms winning, senna in the '95/'96/'97-williams.

magic.


here some statistics anyway, senna vs ms:


Their careers really only overlapped for 40 races, and neither of them were at their peak.
only 40 races. that's like 2 1/2 seasons.
what didn't peak were the cars they drove.
but between spa '91 and imola '94 we saw enough proof of who was best when senna was alive. the facts. senna-vs-scummi. 41 races.
senna 8 poles only ( which underlines the notsogoodcarsclaim) scummi zero.
senna-scummi 8to0.
senna was 31 times in front of scummi on the grid, scummi was 10x quicker.
senna-scummi 3to1.
racewins.
senna 10. scummi 5 (including the imola '94 racewin he inhereted).
senna-scummi 2to1.
finishing in front of the other.
senna-scummi 20to17.
in four races they both dropped out. for instance in france '92 when scummi used senna' car as his brake.
fastest laps.
senna-scummi 16-25.
senna 16. scummi 25. remember they didn't drive superior cars in '92 and '93.
laps led.
senna-scummi ??to??
senna won more races so i dare to presume senna also has the upperhand in this one.
ratings by alan henry.
senna '91: 1 '92:2 '93:1
scummi '92:3 '93:3 '94:2
senna-scummi 2to0.

interpret them anyway you like, gerhard.

[TMG]

Nice one 'Rogue'...awesome 'Magic'!
I agree, stats can be used to prove or disprove just about anything...and have either of you ever actually met a statistician?...well just imagine being trapped in a lift for 24 hours with Nigel Mansell, and multiply it by 10!

[Chris G.]

I wonder what prompted Berger to make the statement? It wasn't MS saying he was better than Senna. In fact, MS has said the opposite. So, why the sour-grapes?

I suppose this is just another media-generated out of context quote.

The interviewer prolly said "Gerhard, many people say MS is better than Senna. How would you respond to that?"

[Diff-Light]

Berger just tries to find a reason why he never made it to the top.He can always say: You know, there was Senna!

[Nathan]

Originally posted by whiplash
[B]you can't make that comparison todd, as berger and schumacher never drove the same cars. besides, berger was a better and more motivated driver when at mclaren than he was with either ferrari 93-95 or benetton 96-97.

That is not correct. When the Berger/Schumacher swapped spots before 96, both driver tested each others 95 car, in which MS had the better times in both cars compared to Berger. Not to mention the 96 Benetton was very similar to the 95, which was designed around Mikes driving style.

As for saying he was motivated, he was about as motivated as Irvine was at Ferrari. Berger was the #2 at McLaren pure and simple same as EI and RB.

I think this whole comparision is very bad. Berger drove with Senna, never MS. Berger and Senna were good friends, if Im not mistaken, Berger was the only teamate Senna ever got along with. Secondly Senna is dead. Whose going to say MS is better? Senna was considered the best before he died, what kind of respect is it to say, "well now he isnt?" Thats one thing about this whole Senna thing. I bet if he retired after 94, and never died, not as many of you would say "oh for sure no one can compare" Plus the cars were different. Its just like comparing MS and Senna with Clark, Fangio and the rest. Look at the cars in 88 and 93 and compare them to now. Totally different in almost everyway.

Not to start a fight, but the 61 poles thing doesnt have much merit when you consider bewteen 1988 and 1991 Senna was in the car. I think this is the first year MS has had the best car. Now I'll grant Senna did get poles in rather shitty cars, so I will say he is the best qualifier, but comparing 60 to 30 isnt right when you look at cars. And cars are really what wins poles. Look back over the years, the best car of that year was always on pole the most.

I dont think its fair to say this person is the best ever. Thats impossible. But to say a person is miles ahead of the next person is BS. I think if Senna is better than MS its not by much and vice versa. I realize they are both "damn good driver" but people who say that have to realize that some of us do compare. SO PLEASE DONT BRING IT UP

[magic]

the early '94 williams would never have poled 3 times in a row without senna at the wheel.

[Billy]

Senna was outqualified 18 times in 162 GP (11%)

1984 Zolder, Cecotto
1984 San Marino, Cecotto

1985 Jacarepagua, de Angelis
1985 Gilles Villeneuve, de Angelis
1985 Osterreichring, de Angelis

1988 Paul Ricard, Prost
1988 Estoril, Prost
1989 Gilles Villeneuve, Prost
1989 Paul Ricard, Prost

1990 Phoenix, Berger
1990 Hermanos Rodriguez, Berger
1990 Paul Ricard, Berger
1990 Hungaroring, Berger
1991 Estoril, Berger
1991 Catalunya, Berger
1991 Suzuka, Berger
1992 Hermanos Rodriguez, Berger

1993 Estoril, Hakkinen

Senna has 65 Pole Positions
33 Prost
25 Hakkinen
12 Berger
3 de Angelis
0 Cecotto

Schumi has been outqualified 8 times in 138 GP = 6%

1991 Adelaide, Piquet

1995 Spa, Herbert

1996 Melbourne, Irvine
1997 A1-Ring, Irvine
1998 Hockenheim, Irvine
1999 Catalunya, Irvine

2000 Silverstone, Barrichello
2000 A1-Ring, Barrichello

Schumi has 27 Pole Positions
24 Piquet
3 Barrichello
0 Irvine
0 Herbert

[magic]

yes billy,
and now?
any conclusions or interpretations?
or should i?

[baddog]

My first reaction to sennas stats was that sennas teammates were better than MS's so youd expect to see them outqualify him sometimes.. however, I was VERY suprised to see that 8 of those, in only 2 years, were by gerhard berger, who was even at his peak in no way a better driver than Irvine, Piquet, Brundle, Verstappen or Barrichello (just my opinion) and never known for his blazing speed, also he was a clear number 2 at all stages.

I dont really draw anything from that, its just a surprise

Shaun