143 replies to this topic

[bern@rd]

Michael Schumacher has an impressive list of achievements under his belt. He has won more championships than any other driver ever. Regardless of this, the Schu fans seem to have some urge to create this myth around him that he came and salvaged Ferrari. The Benetton car had already been built to suit Schumacher. The same people who built him his two championship winning cars moved to ferrari with him, and continued building him his custom cars.
I have for long been wondering what is with the false interpretion that Schumacher came to ferrari and spent years at the bottom before molding ferrari to the state it is in now?
He won the Championship in benetton in -94&95, after which he switched to ferrari, and ferrari had already been third in 95, with 73 points, Mclaren behind them, who got only 30 points.
In 1996, his first year at ferrari, Schumacher finished third, with 59 points, JV was second with 78 and Hill won with 97. Ferrari finished second in Constructors championship. So, far from working hard pushing ferrari forward at the bottom.
1997 He was second with 78 points, Villeneuve won with 81 points. Ferrari was second in the championship.
1998 everybody knows the deal, fighting with hakkinen, and so on.
So why build this myth around him that he built the team, he stuck to a crap team, he was there from the beginning, he has earned the state ferrari is in now? Ferrari was a top team even then. It was in a steady rise. 1994: 3rd, 1995: 3rd, 1996:2nd and so on 'till today.
The only people responsible for that final pinch to Championship were the people working behind the curtains, designing the car and the team.
Not to say Schumacher isn't an excellent driver, which he is, but he is still only human, though it's hard to see it from him nowadays when he has got a car he doesn't even need to drive seriously.

[w00t]

[Sakae]

Are you planning to visit us on this BB often?

[w00t]

btw bernard you're an antischumifighter impostor (sorry couldnt resist )

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by w00t
an antischumifighter impostor

Not to be picky or anything, but surely thats a double negative?

[bern@rd]

Originally posted by MiPe
Are you planning to visit us on this BB often?

Why, you think I'm just another Antischumifighter impostor?
I'm not. But I'm definately not a fan either.
Though I admit I have a healthy resentment towards Schumacher fans. You got me. Quilty as charged.
It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan. They all just seem too... obsessed with him. Fail to see any mistakes in him.

[baddog]

hello.

A hint. flame half of the bulletin board and you are likely to get two things.

1:flamed back. bigtime.
2: no sympathy from anyone including the moderators

Shaun

[Zawed]

Originally posted by bern@rd

It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan. They all just seem too... obsessed with him. Fail to see any mistakes in him.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion...

[TIPO61]

"Quilty as charged."

Quilty indeed.

"It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan."

You've got to read the instructions on your meds or this'll be your sig for the rest of your life...




"It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person"...

[Sakae]

Originally posted by bern@rd

...It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan...

Well, you met one now. Let me introduce myself...

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by bern@rd
Ferrari was a top team even then. It was in a steady rise. 1994: 3rd, 1995: 3rd, 1996:2nd and so on 'till today.

In the 'dark pre-Schumacher days' (well after the disillusionement of 91 anyway) Ferrari was challenging for best-of-the-rest and scrapping for the occasional win, a situation which it had been in for some time (the Prost year being a favourable exception).
If you draw out that timeline a little longer you'll see not a steady linear rise, but a more-or-less steady line of just-not-there.
Ferrari was not a top-team, it was aspiring to be a top-team not a state worthy of Ferrari in my opinion.
With Schumacher (and Todt and Ross & Rory) things finally came together at last.

He may not have single-handedly built the car and dragged Ferrari back to it's proper place at the top of the food chain, but he was a vital piece of the puzzle.




Btw: are you perhaps scottish or Irish?

[Arrow]

Originally posted by bern@rd
Michael Schumacher has an impressive list of achievements under his belt. He has won more championships than any other driver ever. Regardless of this, the Schu fans seem to have some urge to create this myth around him that he came and salvaged Ferrari. The Benetton car had already been built to suit Schumacher. The same people who built him his two championship winning cars moved to ferrari with him, and continued building him his custom cars.
I have for long been wondering what is with the false interpretion that Schumacher came to ferrari and spent years at the bottom before molding ferrari to the state it is in now?
He won the Championship in benetton in -94&95, after which he switched to ferrari, and ferrari had already been third in 95, with 73 points, Mclaren behind them, who got only 30 points.
In 1996, his first year at ferrari, Schumacher finished third, with 59 points, JV was second with 78 and Hill won with 97. Ferrari finished second in Constructors championship. So, far from working hard pushing ferrari forward at the bottom.
1997 He was second with 78 points, Villeneuve won with 81 points. Ferrari was second in the championship.
1998 everybody knows the deal, fighting with hakkinen, and so on.
So why build this myth around him that he built the team, he stuck to a crap team, he was there from the beginning, he has earned the state ferrari is in now? Ferrari was a top team even then. It was in a steady rise. 1994: 3rd, 1995: 3rd, 1996:2nd and so on 'till today.
The only people responsible for that final pinch to Championship were the people working behind the curtains, designing the car and the team.
Not to say Schumacher isn't an excellent driver, which he is, but he is still only human, though it's hard to see it from him nowadays when he has got a car he doesn't even need to drive seriously.

Go and have a look how many wins ferrari had in the years preceeding schumacher and then after michael joined them.From memory his 8 wins in 96/97 is close to equal ferraris tally from 90-95.
And if the recipe for utter domination and success is simply picking a driver and designing a car "for him",why havent any of the other teams caught onto it yet?

[amiga1]

First you run across Silverstone

Then you try and ruin the Olympic marathon

Now you join the Atlas BB...........

[kouks]

Originally posted by bern@rd

Though I admit I have a healthy resentment towards Schumacher fans. You got me. Quilty as charged.
It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan. They all just seem too... obsessed with him. Fail to see any mistakes in him.

People have been posting here for many years. We don't need someone joining for the sole purpose of bait other members. Go find another forum

[man]

The darkest days concerning recent Ferrari history, say 15 years, (Jerez 1997 aside) was the tailend of 1992. Jean Alesi and Ivan Capelli had a F92A that was fundamentally a midfield car. A V12 with typical V12 weight characteristics but lacking in relative power compared to V8's and and V10's. During the last couple of rounds a Suzuka and Adelaide they experimented with active suspension and the team were clueless as to how to develop it. The F92A chassis was a real pig too. But then the upward spiral began. Ferrari hired John Barnard, Gerhard Berger, Osamo Goto and Jean Todt. From being 3-4 seconds off the pace at the start of 1993, qualifying behind Minardi's and Footwork's on ocassions, Jean Alesi finished runner up at Monza, was leading the Portugese GP and Berger qualified particularly well at Suzuka. That is a fair bit of progress for the duration of just a single season.

In 1994 the progress continued, having been competing with Minardi and Lotus just a season prior, they were able to get three pole positions and one dominant win which could have been 3 wins. Alesi at Monza, Berger at Estoril & Adelaide. What's more the team scored plenty of podiums.

In 1995 another improvement was made although not as big as the step made between 1993-1994. Alesi scored a fortunate win at Montreal but Ferrari were very unlucky not to have won Monza, Suzuka and San Marino.

Ferrari then won 3 GP's in 1996, but unlike 1994 and 1995, they did not have bad luck at times when they were in strong, race winning positions i.e. Monza 1994 + 1995.

Schumacher has certainly played a significant role in Ferrari's revival, he was driving better than Alesi and Berger, but by no stretch of the imagination did he arrive at a Ferrari team that was in dire straits. The upward spiral began in late 1992 when Ferrari began to impliment a long-term, no quick-fix plan to improve the team step-by-step. If Ferrari were in such a terrible state in 1996, how could their condition be described for 1986 or 1992? I'm sure Johansson, Alboreto, Capelli and Alesi would have been more than delighted if the Ferrari team's they drove for were half as organised and talented as the Ferrari team of 1996.

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by bern@rd

The only people responsible for that final pinch to Championship were the people working behind the curtains, designing the car and the team.

How did those people behind the scenes do at Benetton in 96? How did Irvine do in 96,97, and 98?

I think saying the people behind the scenes were the only reason Ferrari got the titles is leaving out a key reason for their success. The fact Ferrari has made no move to win with another driver is also suggestive - unless you believe Ferrari is some sort of PR firm for MS.


You see MS fans (like myself) as being stupid, and unwilling to face the fact that Byrne, Brawn, Todt etc have been a huge help to MS. We know that. So to educate us you pretend the driver made no difference. In short you do exactly what you are accusing us of doing - missing the obvious to make some point.

[pkrashman]

Instead of turning this into a MS love in/bash, the post makes more sense than the MS lovers will admit. It touches on the point that F-1 today is more about the car than the driver. We have seen this in the recent year with the use of driver aids it is the engineering that counts most. We all know MS is a much better driver than Twobens, but he has and continues to be able to (when he wants to) beat the so called "Master". This is also why Ferrari is so much better than the rest.
The car is simply engineered better.

[boyRacer]

This thread has been brought to you by the makers of Nomex.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by bern@rd
It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan. They all just seem too... obsessed with him. Fail to see any mistakes in him.

Methinks you need to get out more.

Or you just don't think anyone who might be a Schumi fan is intelligent because you yourself aren't a fan of his?

Granted, all of the Schumi fans can be overbearing at some time and some of the Schumi fans are overbearing all of the time, still the man himself is a great driver.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by man

In 1994 the progress continued, having been competing with Minardi and Lotus just a season prior, they were able to get three pole positions and one dominant win which could have been 3 wins. Alesi at Monza, Berger at Estoril & Adelaide. What's more the team scored plenty of podiums.

In 1995 another improvement was made although not as big as the step made between 1993-1994. Alesi scored a fortunate win at Montreal but Ferrari were very unlucky not to have won Monza, Suzuka and San Marino.

Ferrari then won 3 GP's in 1996, but unlike 1994 and 1995, they did not have bad luck at times when they were in strong, race winning positions i.e. Monza 1994 + 1995.

Your very much inflating their performances.Monza and adelaide in 94 were very much gifted competative positions when michael and hill retired.
The same could be said for monza 95.Suzuka was a good race for alesi but michael was always in control and how were they unlucky not to have won imola when berger finished 3rd,40 seconds behind the winner hill?

Originally posted by man

I'm sure Johansson, Alboreto, Capelli and Alesi would have been more than delighted if the Ferrari team's they drove for were half as organised and talented as the Ferrari team of 1996.

Yeh blowing up on parade laps and having a 50% DNF rate is a great indicator of what you just said.So was irvine barely being able to qualify in the top 10 for the entire year. :
Imagine how ferrari would looked without michael in their car that year before you start making comparisons.

[ViMaMo]

There is no use trying to explain anything to you.

[umapathypon]

Originally posted by pkrashman
Instead of turning this into a MS love in/bash, the post makes more sense than the MS lovers will admit. It touches on the point that F-1 today is more about the car than the driver. We have seen this in the recent year with the use of driver aids it is the engineering that counts most. We all know MS is a much better driver than Twobens, but he has and continues to be able to (when he wants to) beat the so called "Master". This is also why Ferrari is so much better than the rest.
The car is simply engineered better.

Yeah.The car is more important today than it was in 1996.That's why we even see arguments as to why some drivers are oh so talented than Michael Schumacher and his family.

As for the original mug,yeah,quilty as charged.

[fisssssi]

The only way to solve this mystery is to have Schumacher join Minardi and see where they are in a few years time!

[Thunder]

Human beings forget too soon.

Michael overtook easily that slow red thing. Briatore 95.
They will wait anhother 21 years ... . Ron Dennis. 2000.

Those two quote show what achived Ferrari and Michael Schumacher.

[Rene]

Originally posted by amiga1
First you run across Silverstone

Then you try and ruin the Olympic marathon

Now you join the Atlas BB...........

Now that was funny!!

bern@rd great first post, you're going to last a long time around here.....I can tell

[HP]

Originally posted by fisssssi
The only way to solve this mystery is to have Schumacher join Minardi and see where they are in a few years time!

MS would be too told to try that. And don't forget about Benetton. MS made a difference at Benetton and at Ferrari, that much we know. How much that is open to debate.


Just one thing has become clear to me over the last few years. A lot of people seem not to have a clue what teamwork is, and how to make a team tick. A single person does not make a team, and nobody can make a race team work with driving skills only.

IMO MS at Minardi would not work. Minardi is a team whose main aim it seems is just to be there, but don't show the determination to be on top. Imagine any established driver like MS, Raikonnen, JPM there. Can't see that work out.

[black magic]

if you look at ferrari history...

oh sorry. you're being sarcastic right?

[Ventura]

Originally posted by HP
MS would be too told to try that. And don't forget about Benetton. MS made a difference at Benetton and at Ferrari, that much we know. How much that is open to debate.


Just one thing has become clear to me over the last few years. A lot of people seem not to have a clue what teamwork is, and how to make a team tick. A single person does not make a team, and nobody can make a race team work with driving skills only.

IMO MS at Minardi would not work. Minardi is a team whose main aim it seems is just to be there, but don't show the determination to be on top. Imagine any established driver like MS, Raikonnen, JPM there. Can't see that work out.

Correct, the deficit is too great and the team structure too inadequate.
I do believe MS could make a difference at places like BAR, Sauber and Renault though.
For example I would stake my life that MS would have won a race or 3 in this year's BAR (and Renault too)

[F1 Tor.]

Welcome to the forum. I have to strongly disagree with your opinions. I'm not sure if you've ever been to a Grand Prix before or visited the pits during a race weekend but if you walked into the paddock of any race and stated that, I'm almost certain everyone would laugh you up to your seat. Yes, he's had great people around him and the people focus on him but there's so much more going on. Like staying late and testing a part on the car, calling an engineer at 10:00 pm to talk about set up, visiting the mechanics late at night and hanging out with them and asking about their kids,NEVER criticising the tire people in public,etc. He CREATES the atmosphere of winning. Sure, some drivers are as fast but they are way off when it comes to team building and making sure everyone's role is appreciated. THAT'S what makes him truly great and that's what everyone in the paddock will tell you. He maximizes his opportunities and as a result will be the benchmark for a long time. Good luck with the other MS fans. I can assure you they won't be as nice.

[skinnylizard]

Originally posted by Ventura



Correct, the deficit is too great and the team structure too inadequate.
I do believe MS could make a difference at places like BAR, Sauber and Renault though.
For example I would stake my life that MS would have won a race or 3 in this year's BAR (and Renault too)

point is Minardi dont have the resources, Ferrari in 1996 did they were just in disarray. it took the whole of 1996 to come up with a halfway decent car, 1997 was wat MS called the 1st car which 'could' win a C'ship so it took them a while to find their way.

it is def team work, but the team is always built around a spearhead, MS was that spearhead,

[pUs]

Originally posted by Arrow

The same could be said for monza 95.Suzuka was a good race for alesi but michael was always in control and how were they unlucky not to have won imola when berger finished 3rd,40 seconds behind the winner hill?

Might remember wrong, but I think Gerhard had a looong pitstop because he ran out of fuel just before coming into the pits and lost a lot of time there. He qualified really close to Michael though, there was nothing separating them.

[xype]

I'm no big fan of Schumacher, either.

He didn't build the car, he didn't hire the right people, he didn't invest the money.

He can drive fast when people tell him to. Many drivers can, though.

But I bet when Schumacher arrives at the factory/garage/team he makes people feel better. He shows respect. He shows he is a part of the team. He leads them. When things go bad he likely cheers them up. He parties with them. He goes to the meetings and give his input, no matter if it helps or not at the moment. When things go really bad he is pissed - but makes it clear that he is not pissed at the team, he always finds a nice word or two for them. And that is what differentiates him. That's what's responsible for the many myths, true or not.

That is what makes him that good and that is what many drivers fail to realize and aren't doing. Ralf, Kimi, Jacques, Juab-Pablo are all more or less "That's my job, after I finish it – please don't disturb my nap at my motorhome...". They don't make the people around them feel any better, they don't provoke the feeling that one could go out of his way some more for them. They rarely pull the team up when things go bad. They're the typical arrogant coworker type who's really good at what he does, but does absolutely nothing for the team.

No fan of his, but after I started looking at him from a team-leading and working hard aspect there's nothing like respect for the man. He is the leader, with all the good and all the bad sides of being one, and he gets the job done. And because of that the people around him get their job done as well. And again because of that, Ferrari and Schumacher are just that good.

I have to agree that most of his fans are (at least a little) stupid, though.;) Because they just see him as God and discredit what he stands for, namely the team. Which is funny since he's making a big effort to always point out it's not his doing alone.

Schumacher is Ferrari's alpha male.

[CampioneFerrari]

Aaahhh i'm not even going to waste my time but next time you run across the tack at Silverstone run in front of the cars, that should do it.

[Deepak]

someone was trying to prove, what i had said in an earlier thread , i was wrong.

well you got your answers.

enjoy the show while it lasts.

[wagner]

Originally posted by w00t

What a great post and very fair

[bern@rd]

Well, not surpisingly I got all the ferrari and Schumacher fans hating me.
I didn't bash Schumacher. I didn't bash Ferrari. I in fact said Schumacher is a great driver. It's just that people try to create this myth that ferrari was like minardi when he got there. It wasn't. I agree, Ferrari sucked way back in the day. But when Schumacher joined ferrari, it had been for a couple of years third in constructors championship. That spells top team to me.
And by the way this was not my first post. And I'm not Irish nor Scottish. And definately not a priest, though your suggestion was somewhat amusing.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by bern@rd

It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan. They all just seem too... obsessed with him. Fail to see any mistakes in him.

First of all: Welcome in the tug of war called AtlasF1.

Secondly: Take my word for it: I've seen others out here who are obsessed with other drivers than MS: Senna, Jacques and Montoya in particular.
And a number of those obsessed fans of these three also fail to see any errors within their idols.
Take a better look around here at Atlas, You'll see cases of what you attribute to MS fans only among JPM, AS and JVi fans too.

Go and learn about that.....



Henri Greuter

[scs]

Originally posted by wagner

What a great post and very fair

yes your right..he should have said ,yes man your right , MS was really that lucky to join Ferrari..he was so lucky that they let him join them so he can win races finally..

or he could say ,yes Bernard ,your absolutely right ,we -MS fans are just plain idiots ,we are so not intelligent ..thanks for reminding us again..


back to the topic (if theres one actually ,rather than bashing) ,Ferrari of course a great team and they had the resources ,but i am asking topic starter ,do you really think Eddie Irvine or Alesi or Berger could achieve what MS did at Ferrari?

and about MS fans not being intelligent ,just one word comes to mind- Dan

[xype]

Originally posted by scs

and about MS fans not being intelligent ,just (snip)

Not to be an ass, but I always tought one makes a whitespace _after_ a period or comma. Like "word, word", "word - word", "word... Word" and "word. Word" in most languages.;)

As for my opinion about MS, well, read my previous post.

[Julli]

Hi,

Do you forget that Ferrari swiched from V12 to V10 in 96. The same time when everything else was going on. That is a major contributer to Ferraris current success also. The other big contributers are Rory, Ross and of course Michael the great. The others has done the car equal(or little better or worse) to other top cars and Michael has done the rest. And a man behind all of the winning changes is the big (but little) Jean Todt !

Julli

[HP]

Originally posted by bern@rd

I didn't bash Schumacher. I didn't bash Ferrari. I in fact said Schumacher is a great driver.

But you claimed theat MS fans are not intelligent, so what did you expect. Maybe you go and read the board rules.

[man]

It's rather aggressive on the Racing comments forum

Originally posted by Arrow

Your very much inflating their performances.Monza and adelaide in 94 were very much gifted competative positions when michael and hill retired.

At Monza 1994, Alesi was cruising to an easy win before car problems in the pits. Berger who was still shaken after a heavy crash in the warm-up was then promoted to P1 ahead of both Williams before his pitstop, where he was unfortunately bulked by Panis's Ligier. Adelaide 1994 was a fortunate for Berger in that Hill and Schumacher retired, however he was there to take advantage and should have won were it not for a mistake going on to the Brabham straight.

Originally posted by Arrow
The same could be said for monza 95.Suzuka was a good race for alesi but michael was always in control and how were they unlucky not to have won imola when berger finished 3rd,40 seconds behind the winner hill?

Berger was comfortably the leader in San Marino before stalling the car in the pits. Monza 1995, the only driver that could seriously compete with the speed of Alesi and Berger was Coulthard. Ferrari were in a easy p1 and p2 before the infamous Alesi on board camera hitting Berger's suspension incident.

Originally posted by Arrow
Yeh blowing up on parade laps and having a 50% DNF rate is a great indicator of what you just said.So was irvine barely being able to qualify in the top 10 for the entire year. :
Imagine how ferrari would looked without michael in their car that year before you start making comparisons.

I'm not denying Schumacher's driving has helped Ferrari, eventhough Irvine had very little opportunity to test in 1996, but if only you had the ability to appreciate history and place things into context, Ferrari have had far worse seasons than 1996 in terms of team personel and quality of car produced. Somehow you find this difficult to acknowledge, as if it devalues a certain Michael Schumacher as a driver.

1993 South African GP Qualifying:

1
2 Alain Prost Williams / Renault 1'15.696 - - 202.647

2
8 Ayrton Senna McLaren / Ford 1'15.784 0.088 100.1% 202.412

3
5 Michael Schumacher Benetton / Ford 1'17.261 1.565 102.1% 198.543

4
0 Damon Hill Williams / Renault 1'17.592 1.896 102.5% 197.696

5
27 Jean Alesi Ferrari / Ferrari 1'18.234 2.538 103.4% 196.073

6
30 J J Lehto Sauber / Sauber 1'18.664 2.968 103.9% 195.002

7
6 Riccardo Patrese Benetton / Ford 1'18.676 2.980 103.9% 194.972

8
26 Mark Blundell Ligier / Renault 1'18.687 2.991 104.0% 194.945

9
7 Michael Andretti McLaren / Ford 1'18.786 3.090 104.1% 194.700

10
29 Karl Wendlinger Sauber / Sauber 1'18.950 3.254 104.3% 194.295

11
19 Philippe Alliot Larrousse / Lamborghini 1'19.034 3.338 104.4% 194.089

12
25 Martin Brundle Ligier / Renault 1'19.138 3.442 104.5% 193.834

13
23 Christian Fittipaldi Minardi / Ford 1'19.285 3.589 104.7% 193.474

14
14 Rubens Barrichello Jordan / Hart 1'19.305 3.609 104.8% 193.425

15
28 Gerhard Berger Ferrari / Ferrari 1'19.386 3.690 104.9% 193.228


1986 Hungarian GP qualifying:


1
12 Ayrton Senna Lotus / Renault 1'29.450 - - 161.547

2
6 Nelson Piquet Williams / Honda 1'29.785 0.335 100.4% 160.944

3
1 Alain Prost McLaren / TAG 1'29.945 0.495 100.6% 160.658

4
5 Nigel Mansell Williams / Honda 1'30.072 0.622 100.7% 160.432

5
2 Keke Rosberg McLaren / TAG 1'30.628 1.178 101.3% 159.447

6
16 Patrick Tambay Lola / Ford 1'31.715 2.265 102.5% 157.558

7
28 Stefan Johansson Ferrari / Ferrari 1'31.850 2.400 102.7% 157.326

8
11 Johnny Dumfries Lotus / Renault 1'31.886 2.436 102.7% 157.264

9
25 Rene Arnoux Ligier / Renault 1'31.970 2.520 102.8% 157.121

10
15 Alan Jones Lola / Ford 1'32.401 2.951 103.3% 156.388

11
20 Gerhard Berger Benetton / BMW 1'32.491 3.041 103.4% 156.236

12
26 Philippe Alliot Ligier / Renault 1'32.575 3.125 103.5% 156.094

13
19 Teo Fabi Benetton / BMW 1'32.707 3.257 103.6% 155.872

14
7 Riccardo Patrese Brabham / BMW 1'32.956 3.506 103.9% 155.454

15
27 Michele Alboreto Ferrari / Ferrari 1'33.063 3.613 104.0% 155.275

[man]

Originally posted by Arrow

Yeh blowing up on parade laps and having a 50% DNF rate is a great indicator of what you just said.

Nothing compared to what Mansell and Berger had to go through in 1989.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by man


Nothing compared to what Mansell and Berger had to go through in 1989.

That car had legit pace and could match the mclaren/honda Senna/prost combination many a time.
The 1996 ferrari had nothing other than michael schumacher going for it.

[Tigershark]

Originally posted by bern@rd
It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan.

You sure have a interesting way of killing a discussion

[Group B]

Originally posted by bern@rd
Well, not surpisingly I got all the ferrari and Schumacher fans hating me.
I didn't bash Schumacher. I didn't bash Ferrari. I in fact said Schumacher is a great driver. It's just that people try to create this myth that ferrari was like minardi when he got there. It wasn't. I agree, Ferrari sucked way back in the day. But when Schumacher joined ferrari, it had been for a couple of years third in constructors championship. That spells top team to me.
And by the way this was not my first post. And I'm not Irish nor Scottish. And definately not a priest, though your suggestion was somewhat amusing.

Dude, your argument that MS didn't single handedly resurrect Ferrari is perfectly fair enough; the truth, of course, lies somewhere between "Schumi made no difference" and "Schumi is a God". To say that Schumi did nothing special because Ferrari had finished 3rd in previous years however is akin to saying Raikkonen should have won three races this season and Montoya 4 or 5. Equally, by your reasoning, Alesi and Berger sould have won a hat full of races in the current WCC champions' car in '96.

The real problem you have is with your attitude however, as demonstated by the line "It's just that Ive never seen, heard or met a single intelligent person that would be a Schumi fan". Rest assured you'll meet several here, and they'll be more than willing to expose your apparent ignorance of both F1 and human nature.

MS does of course have his share of mindless fanboy followers, but so do all the other drivers, as - once again - you'll soon discover if you spend much time here. The "myth" of Michael raising Ferrari from the dead looks thoroughly reasonable when compared to such entusiastically peddled garbage as "superior breed" KR or "never beaten by Ralf" Montoya.

[DaleCooper]

Once again Group B, I was waiting for you to respond so that I wouldn't have to bother

How do you dismantle an argument that has a basis in flawed assumptions?



Cooper

[kismet]

Well, to be honest, I didn't think the opening post of this thread was that bad.

[Group B]

Originally posted by DaleCooper
Once again Group B, I was waiting for you to respond so that I wouldn't have to bother

How do you dismantle an argument that has a basis in flawed assumptions?



Cooper

Sorry I was late, I was feeling a bit weary to start with then couldn't find a damn telephone box anywhere.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by man

At Monza 1994, Alesi was cruising to an easy win before car problems in the pits. Berger who was still shaken after a heavy crash in the warm-up was then promoted to P1 ahead of both Williams before his pitstop, where he was unfortunately bulked by Panis's Ligier. Adelaide 1994 was a fortunate for Berger in that Hill and Schumacher retired, however he was there to take advantage and should have won were it not for a mistake going on to the Brabham straight.

Michael retired from the lead at monza 1994,and if you remember that year then you will know that the odds of him being out raced were minute.
I dont remember his mistake at adelaide,all i remember is him stalking mansell but never quite having the pace.Considering he wasnt even in the same race as the contenders this performance holds as much value as herberts 2 wins in 1995.

Originally posted by man

Berger was comfortably the leader in San Marino before stalling the car in the pits. Monza 1995, the only driver that could seriously compete with the speed of Alesi and Berger was Coulthard. Ferrari were in a easy p1 and p2 before the infamous Alesi on board camera hitting Berger's suspension incident.

Monza 1995 was a dogfight with a bunch fo cars close to each other.Hill and Schumacher were 3 seconds behind berger when they crashed.But i guess that was a race where they were competative.

Originally posted by man
I'm not denying Schumacher's driving has helped Ferrari, eventhough Irvine had very little opportunity to test in 1996, but if only you had the ability to appreciate history and place things into context, Ferrari have had far worse seasons than 1996 in terms of team personel and quality of car produced. Somehow you find this difficult to acknowledge, as if it devalues a certain Michael Schumacher as a driver.

It wasnt the lowest ebb of ferrari but it probably would of been had michael not been there.You stated that ferrari were on an upswing and schumacher just caught the wave and continued.,and thats incorrect.Apart from one or two competitive showings per year they had consistently been upper mid fielders since alain prost vacated,and despite going backwards in car quality schumacher made them consistent challengers for wins for the first time since 1990.