I actually found these three quotes of yours interesting for different aspects.
RunningMan wrote:
I disagree with the part about youngest stats. If anything, those are some of the most trivial. For example. Take Button and hamilton. Hamilton won his WDC when he was relatively young. In fact, he took the record from Alonso. Whereas Button won it when he was relatively old. But as we have seen in the last 3 seasons. They're very close in terms of actual skill and on track performance and abilities. Showing that age, once again, isn't really that telling.
All age statistics tell you is how old you were when you got into a fast car.
You'd make a fair point about age if you had put it in context of different periods, for example showing that Vettel's young age achievements mean nothing if compared to Fangio for example who started racing in F1 in his forties. However, nowadays age is very telling because all drivers start racing professionally very early so the fact that Hamilton won the championship in his second year while Button took almost a decade is very significant. Sure, we need to factor in the cars but we also need to factor in the experience and maturity which was basically the only reason why Button beat Hamilton last year or more exactly why Hamilton beat himself with his poor decisions. That's why I consider Hamilton a clear winner over Alonso in their year together despite scoring the exact same points. Alonso had a lot of experience over Hamilton about strategies, running the race, the workings of F1 and the team, calculating the risks and so on and yet his talent and his experience combined were barely enough to match Hamilton's talent. It's for the same reason that I consider Schumacher better than Senna because he gave him a great challenge in 92-93 despite the discrepancy in experience.
So going back to Vettel, while I agree that young age success isn't the most amazing achievement, it is very significant because of the implied lack of experience and maturity. Think of Hamilton's signs of maturity this year (even though I have to remark that strangely he has a very slow maturity process) and ask yourself: "Would 2012 Hamilton win in 2007?". Now ask yourself again: "Would 2012 Vettel beat Button in 2009?"
RunningMan wrote:
Whilst, I'm not saying statistics should be completly disregarded. I feel as if statistics like these are 1, trivial, and two, meaningless without context.
For example. Vettel has averaged 10 points per race. That may seem good. But if you look at it in context, you realise that, a) we've had different points systems so some drivers would consequently have lower averages. If you take the exact same set of results, and put them on different point systems, you get different averages. Does this mean Vettel is worse of a driver? No, it just means that the stat is useless for comparison purposes.
Another stat that you used "Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate"
The key to that stat is in that Alonso has double the starts. That means he would, as a result have a lower ratio of wins to race starts. Also, that doesn't even take into account the type of machinery they have driven in that time. Vettel has undeniably had better machinery in his relatively short career compared to Alonso, which makes his stats look better.
I could go through each and every stat and analyse them individually, but it isn't really worth the time. Before people start accusing me of Vettel bashing. I'm not, I just don't agree with your use of statistics to back up Vettel's inclusion on the list.
For what it's worth. The only current driver I think that should be on the list is Schumacher. That's not to do with talent, it's just that he's been here for long enough for us to have time to judge his career as a whole. Alonso for me, would be just outside, based on the fact his career isn't over yet.
I fully agree with your point about length of career, but this only affects the percentages, in other words, Schumacher still has 7 titles and 91 wins, despite his return but he doesn't have basically a title every other year of his career anymore, he's now down to about a title every three years.
So back to Vettel and Alonso, I find it significant that they have very close numbers, not percentages but the numbers themselves. Sure Alonso has had some lousy machinery more often than Vettel but it's not like he posted those numbers with that kind of machinery though, is it? He did it when he had great machinery and to be fair he's had that more often than Vettel. And this is what makes Vettel's achievements significant compared to Alonso.
RunningMan wrote:
Again I need to point out that I have no problem with including stats, I just do not agree with your use of some to support Vettel here. Vettel has been in F1 for a really short space of time, and yes he has achieved alot, but that could all change when the regs change. For all we know come 2014 on the new regs, Vettel will be nowhere. All great drivers have withstood the test of time. If you want examples. Look at Alonso. He has won races and fought for championships on the V10's, V8's the pre 2009 aero rules, the post 2009 aero rules. He's won races and fought for championships for different teams. Compare that to Vettel. Who has only dominated one set of regulations, in one team.
Vettel's machinery has been unquestionably good yes. That is why I think we should wait until longer before judging him as a true "great". Fangio dominated a different kind of F1 back then. Which makes comparison with him difficult because things were so different.
Again, I agree that length of careers should play a large role but what should play an even larger role is the winning rate over winning chances because this way we can discount the low quality years. In other words, to date Vettel has had 4 championship chances (2009-2012), he was a runner up once, won twice and is leading currently. Meanwhile Alonso has had 5 championship chances (2005-2007, 2010 and 2012), he won twice, finished third once, a runner up next and is currently a runner up again. If Vettel wins this year he'll be 3 wins and a second out of 4 chances while Alonso will be 2 wins, 2 seconds and a third out of 5. In this case it'll be hard to argue against Vettel. However, if Alonso somehow wins this year (3 out of 5), he will definitely leapfrog Vettel (2 out of 4). It's not exact science but I find it very significant because after all, the best we can ask of drivers is to seize their opportunities.
As for changes in regulations and teams, you still have a good point but let's not forget too that many changes target the winners and Schumacher before and Vettel now have suffered more that Alonso in this aspect. Also the different teams thing should be taken with some consideration because Alonso's career was panned to be Renault - McLaren - Ferrari, three of the 4 best teams of the last decade. It was Alonso's own fault that he cut his stint at McLaren short. Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, just not completely right but other than that I fully agree and that's why I consider Schumacher to be the best driver when you look at his first career and the consistently great results he achieved each year (controversies aside).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
