planetf1.com

I can assure you he isn't.

But have you every tired to explain why Schumi DNFed so many times? Some of them weren't his fault, but I can recall many times where he was involved into some crash, dropped many places and later stopped in pitline etc. I would rather look at mechanical faliures/team faults and count other DNFs into account. One of skills that Schumacher had, but lost after his comeback was to stay on track and see chequered flag. Look what Kimi did in Brazil after start for example, to see how he avoided crashing. The other driver can be wrong, but it's still up to Schumacher to survive and stay on track. FIA can only penalize the other driver. Any potential wins, podiums and points are gone.

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

Good example!

It would have been quite different at Red Bull if Vettel had Alonso or Hamilton as team-mate.

Vettel's win-rate would not have been as good, but nor would Hamilton's. Alonso would have improved his win rate, the Red Bull being faster than his Renaults 2008-2009 and his Ferraris 2010-2012.

If Senna and Prost had not had each other as team-mates in 1988-9, they'd each have scored another ten or twelve more wins. No matter how good the driver, with a near-equal team-mate, and no team orders, his results are watered down. EG Moss with Brooks in 1958 for Vanwall, Peterson-Fittipaldi at Lotus in 1973, Prost with Lauda in 1984 for McLaren-Porsche, Mansell and Piquet for Williams in 1986-7, etc.

That is why Michael Schumacher consciously and shrewdly had team-mates he intimidated/did/could dominate and who would not take many wins from him. He would not have accepted Hakkinen, Raikkonen or Alonso as a team-mate. Michael was unopposed in his years at Benetton and Ferrari, so his results were exceptional. Same with Fangio and Clark: they had no in-house opposition, so their stats are so high. Ascari and Surtees in Fangio's and Clark's teams would have reduced their wins considerably, just as an Alonso/Raikkonen/hakkinen would have done to Schumacher's.

Which is why pure, numerical race wins or championships cannot be used as absolute driver comparisons.

However, back to the OP: I still maintain that Vettel is one of the great drivers and hope he contunues to get a fast enough car for a few more seasons. Reading what team members/experts have to say about Senna though, I think Seb still has a way to go to be compared or quite equal.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

You must take into account that not many drivers can convince team to resign the contract (look at Kovi) let alone dictate teams lineup. It wasn't because team liked him, it was because he was seriously skilled driver. So good that Ferrari placed bet on him and even allowed him to bring his own people to Ferrari. Look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtaV_cOGgTM Beside that many of "dream" lineups proved to be failure in long term. Look at Alonso and Hamilton or Button and Hamilton.

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

ok first 7 races i recall schumi qualifying well, gearbox i think give him that, wheel wasn't done right and Drs flap stuck other than those 3 the other 2 were of his making ran into the back of senna and Monaco shouldn't have been a retirement his car was still drivable they retired him because the race was going so badly and could then change the gear box etc if needed without penalty.

so first seven races how many points did rosberg really get only because Schumacher got dnfs that weren't of schumis making? You can discount china because nico dominated even had schumi not retired nico would have beat him schumi would probably have third. As for aus rosberg didn't finish in the points so cant count that which leaves Canada his only other retirement in the first seven races that wasn't his making or that rosberg didn't benefit from and he went out in 9th i think rosberg was already ahead of him. So this argument that rosberg only scored his points because Schumacher didn't finish doesn't hold up especially the first 7 races anyway.

oh and as for your stats i may be mistaken but i think Bahrain was the 4th race not 3rd.

How many points did he lose when he didn't ram into other cars and retire? I doesn't matter whether Roeberg finished or not. I doesn't matter what Rosberg did. I can recall Monaco, Canada, China and Australia where Schumacher had to retire not due to his fault. In Hungary he made mistake at start and we don't know if he would have been able to score anything.

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

I meant as a member of the human race

_________________
I AM THE THREAD KILLER.

he was out of the points when he retired in Monaco, 9th in Canada, 3rd China. Aus is debatable he was 3rd and ran wide and then lost a lot of places before actual retirement with a gearbox issue.

So at most from those races 32, in aus he was being caught by vettel anyway but for arguments sake 32 points. So even with them schumi would be on 81 rosberg 93

Fair enough, thought for most of time since 2010 he was nowhere near his pre 2006 form. I still rate him as one of the best in history if not the best, but his comeback wasn't successful. His age played big role, but he deserved better car. Mercedes was best of the rest at best. It was wrong team. Beating Rosberg or not doesn't change my opinion about his comeback.

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

i agree totally, after senna died i became a Schumacher follower not quite a full supporter but admired him and his dedication to win, i still rate him he showed flashes of his old self like his Monaco quali and fighting wheel to wheel with kimi. But on the whole i think rosberg has been the more consistent driver, i still cant believe it is the same schumi that rear ended 2 drivers this season, and drove his car into a wall because he wasn't paying attention.

I wouldn't say it like that, Ayrton had to deal with Alain Prost as his teammate in 88 and 89 so he had a tougher challenge not to mention Nigel Mansell in the Williams. While Vettel had to fight against Mark Webber in 2011 and Fernando Alonso in 10' and 12' but it's just my opinion..

..............

rubbish. apart from 2007(neither won the title btw) what great teamamates have alonso or hamilton had?
kova? rubbish
button ? lost to him anyway
massa? rofl

Which great teammates has Vettel had?

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

i count that as 3 championships between Hamiltons team mates & Alonso has come up against a WDC & 1 of the top three drivers there is right now

how many champions has Vettel had as his team mate? 0 that's right, his only opposition has been Webber, who is lets face it a journeyman, no better than 60% of the grid.

Without wanting to overly simplify this (actually, sod it, you seem to love over-simplifying arguments)...
Number of titles Hamilton's teammates have won: 3
Number of titles Alonso's teammates have won: 1
Number of titles Vettel's teammates have won: *Fill in the gap*

_________________
"Braver than a bullfighter with no knickers on!"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

number of titles hamilton won = 1
number of titles alonso won = 2
number of titles vettel won = 3

This good point. It's not that Hamilton won his title in slow car and beat very competitive teammate in 2008.

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

Number of titles Senna won = 3
Number of titles Prost won = 4

Now which one of the two invariably comes out on top whenever anyone compiles a 'greatest of all time' list?

Even better.

Stirling Moss, Gilles Villeneuve and Juan Montoya = 0 Championships Combined

Jacques Villeneuve = 1 Championship

Will clearly Jacques is better than all 3 right

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg

If your standard is title wins, then yes. It all depends on what your criteria for judgement is.

_________________

Exactly, I am sure there is a reasonable argument for saying Vettel is better than Lewis or Alonso, even if I do not agree. But to judge that argument on amount of titles won, is very flawed.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg

No it isn't. Nobody's criteria for judgement is wrong, as its used to make a personal opinion. Its just different.

If I don't like really dry wine and you do, which of us is right when I say the award winning bottle doesn't taste the best to me and you say it does?

_________________

I never said it was wrong, I just said it was flawed in my opinion.

To blindly say based on Championships won that one driver is better than another is flawed, as it overlooks over variables.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg

And saying a driver who hasnt won a title is better than one who has overlooks the title as a variable. An argument can be made for all, there is no such thing as flawed opinions if one is free to choose how he evaluates something.

_________________

I just said the argument is flawed in my opinion, if I came on here and just said "Alonso is better than Vettel" and just kept stating that point, it would be flawed because I would not be backing it up with any analysis as to why. Like that argument that the Vettelmessi used is flawed because it overlooks a lot of circumstances.

Titles can indeed be used as valid arguments for who is better. But to just state that is why Vettel is better and not expanding, is a flawed argument in my opinion. It is not what they are arguing it is how they are doing it. If he stated it is because it shows Vettel does not choke then fair enough, but to state the amount of titles and nothing else as grounds is a bit silly.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg

See this is where your true colours come through... We were talking about how competitive each of Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel's teammates were and you still subvert the argument back to "Vettel's won more titles", arguing like that is as productive as gnawing off my own foot, I KNOW THAT! The point I was making (which, to be fair, I probably put in overly simplified terms) is that Vettel has never been paired with a teammate as successful as Alonso or Hamilton. If you have a better teammate, it will be harder for you to win the title since you'll be taking points off each other.

_________________
"Braver than a bullfighter with no knickers on!"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Vettel can be better than Hamilton without ever being paired with any WDC winning teammate. This is relative metric. With or without successful teammate he is the same driver.What is wrong with Vettels driving that makes him inferior to Hamilton or Alonso?

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

I guess my point is that if you are paired with a stronger teammate there's a much bigger chance you'll take points off each other. Anyway, it's not me who started this argument. VettelMessi said all of Hamilton and Alonso's teammates were crap and I put it in simple terms that both of them have had WDCs for teammates while Vettel hasn't.

_________________
"Braver than a bullfighter with no knickers on!"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Honestly, seeing threads like this sometimes makes me embarrassed to call myself a Vettel fan on here. lol

I don't agree with all points that VettelMessi made, but I've seen about 80-90 races with Hamilton and I know that he is class of field. Button took points of Hamilton, but I know that for vast majority of his career Hamilton was able to extract maximum of the car he had. Vettel didn't have teammate with titles, but you can barely find anything wrong with Vettels driving style. Simiallry the teammate argument is wrong in Schumacher case. He never had good teammate, but I have no doubt that at his prime he would have trashed every driver had they ever been in the same team. Irvine almost became WDC champion anyway, but he still left team, because he couldn't keep up with Schumacher. Similar analogy may be made about Vettel.

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.

All I can say is that, having tried hard to scroll through this train wreck of a thread... I think statistics are valued way too highly, and the role of the driver is also overvalued. F1 is very much a team sport.

I say that as someone who believes that Vettel is (just, by a hairs breadth) the best driver in F1 right now. I'm sure, however, that he owes almost all his success to his excellent cars, as do virtually all drivers with a similar level of success to him.

_________________
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

About Michael's shrewdness, he was planning to move to McLaren in late 90's.... so it wasn't that he didn't want competitive teammates, it is just that he was so much better than anyone who he was paired with. Then there's another matter of his not being the team principal, which further ebbs away at claims to effect that Michael controlled who he was paired with. There's a reason why his name is uttered in the same sentence as other giants of F1, and it is not just his wins, but how he did it all.

I didn't mean to be rude, but merely stating what I know, and apologize if what I said ruffled feathers at your end.

_________________
My Top 5 drivers of all times:
1) Prost/ Schumacher
3) Fangio
4) Lauda
5) Brabham

if you don't like it, too bad! There's a reason why it says "My Top 5"