First Total F1 Debate

[mikathegreat2 2]

Mark Webber arrived at a midfield, though aspiring Red Bull team. Now, quite clearly, Red Bull has outgrown Mark Webber, and he is becoming their weakest link. The problem isn't just his outright lack of pace compared to Vettel, that part is pretty clear to see. What is worse is his very poor racecraft after so many years in the show, a knack of either getting involved in incidents or provoking them and harming his own and his teams chances in the process. He has been flattered by poor teammates at different stages of his career, like Pizzonia and David Coulthard. He does put some decent drives in, but consistency is always always a big problem, he just doesn't can't drive at that level through a championship season. With their vast car superiority, Red Bull should have two good drivers, so they can steamroller through both championships, so that both drivers are pushed by each other.

Webber has huge personality issues, so he can't be a cerebral Button like driver who can overcome his minor lack of pace compared to some of the outrageously talented drivers with some clever driving. It was very telling when Williams were quite happy to let him go. Or remarks like "Well it's kids, isn't it. Kids with not enough experience, doing a good job then they **** it all up," - guess who the kid he was referring to here (back in 2007)? Sebastian Vettel.

Do Red Bull really want a 35 year old Webber driving for them next year, when they could hire anyone on the grid, in particular a certain Robert Kubeetza?

Thought I'd prevent some confusion!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Alright, I'm up. I'll post mine tonight or early tomorrow (PST).

[mikathegreat2 2]

Well?

[Autumnpuma 0]

Well, life happens. I'll get to it when I have a moment to spare.

[Autumnpuma 0]

The definition of 'deserve' is to be worthy of something as a result of one's actions. Also to earn something through one's actions. Earning. Has Mark Webber earned the right to sit in the best car on the grid? Has he proven his skill and worth in other cars?

Since coming into F1 in 2002, his finishing positions have been: 16th, 10th, 13th, 10th, 14th, 12th, 11th, 4th and is currently in the top 5. That might not look to be a good record, but he managed 2 points in a Minardi and 17 points in a Jaguar. There's no arguing he has talent. But talent in F1 is a rather common trait. Prior to last year, most people regarded Webber as unfulfilled potential. Unfulfilled mostly through errors on his part. The prevailing attitude about Mark, outside of Australia, has been 'Wow, great qualifying! Too bad he'll lose it all in the race".

Mark's debut for Minardi was spectacular and earned him a drive with Jaguar when they had more arrogance than talent. Despite that, he did a pretty good job for them in a crappy car and earned a drive with Williams. Up until this point, Mark had clearly earned better drives. After two years with Williams, and despite one podium, he was widely regarded as a disappointment. We all expected him to be the new Alan Jones didn't we? The quick driver who could finally pull Williams back up to where they should be, right? We all guessed wrong. Mark wasn't a driver who could put in a stellar drive to consistent podiums and he wasn't a driver to rally a team behind him. After two lack-lustre seasons he was tempted by Red Bull's money and jumped Sir Frank's ship.

One must remember Red Bull circa 2007. They were a midfield team and certainly not a step up from Williams (more lateral than anything else as Red Bull only scored 5 more points than Williams). Webber was set to partner David Coulthard (a driver way past his expiration date). Having started with bottom-of-the-barrel drivers and dropping them in favor of better ones as the car improved, Mark and DC at Red Bull were...safe...choices. Neither one would set the world on fire but they wouldn't be green either. They fit the car's midfield status. The car continued to improve under Newey and Red Bull eventually grew out of David Coulthard, retaining Webber largely because of his contract and a lack of other choices. Vettel came onboard as a rising star and was just the sort of energetic, quick, race-winning driver Red Bull needed. We all waited to see if Webber could compete with this German sensation.

In 2009, Mark scored 2 wins to Vettel's 4. Webber only decisively beat Vettel once, in Malaysia (scoring 6th to Vettel's 15th but that was a strange race) while Vettel beat Mark in Bahrain (by 9 places), Spa (by 6 places) and Japan (by 16 places). It is at this point we must stop and ask ourselves if Webber earned that seat going into 2010. Had he proven himself a better candidate for that seat than Nick Heidfeld, Rubens Barrichello or Robert Kubica, all of whom were available? Rubens alone has a record and a reputation that blows Webber's into the weeds. Kubica is fast, solid and rarely makes mistakes and had one win and four podiums. Heidfeld had blown away some highly-regarded teammates.

If we say Webber earned deserves his spot at Red Bull based on his record, then we're ignoring the other drivers with better records who were available to replace him at the end of 2009. Despite Mark's good record, I can't watch Kubica stick his middling Renault on the podium in Australia and barely miss the podium in Malaysia without thinking that the wrong man is driving that Red Bull.

[JHS 1]

Mark Webber. After the last eight days, to me, it is not a case of whether he deserves a Red Bull anymore. It's whether Red Bull deserves HIM.

Sure, it was a long time but a few times in Williams he'd been in a good position to score highly or even win before the car let him down. Now he seems to have a car that is good, and matched with his driving style they seem to be a very strong force. In 2009 for example, unlike his team mate he didn't have a single DNF through a crash. At Barcelona and Monaco, he's been Button-esque in terms of his dominance. Nobody has had a look in. People may say that's down to the aero or it's hard to overtake but what you can't argue about is the facts. You have to be damn talented to win so convincingly in Formula One.

The thing is, he's been rewarded a good car and he is winning in it. Sure, he he may not have won as many races for RBR as his young team mate, but he seems to be finishing more races and he's not exactly a million miles away from Seb's pace. Considering that Seb is widely regarded as a future world champion, he's seriously giving Sebastian something to think about at night, seen in Barcelona and now Monaco. Sebastian, in equal machinery, couldn't touch him. Using Seb as the yard-stick for how good he's going, that's a great effort.

Maybe in Australia he was a bit agressive in terms of dealing with Hamilton. That shows he was giving it his all. If I was a team owner, I'd much rather see that fight, that desire in a driver to succeed infront of their home crowd than for them to trawl around all weekend and not seem like they really care what race it is.

It seems that like Webber's efforts have not gone unnoticed. Rumours have it that now Mark Webber is on the wish list of Ferrari, should they choose to replace Felipe Massa. The only mistake Red Bull can make now is by NOT signing him up, as it seems like many more teams might be a-nocking on Webber's room over the next few days.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Does Webber deserve a Red Bull?

On tracks that require a high level of downforce, Mark Webber has been king. He's put in 2 dominant performances and is now leading the Driver's Championship Standing with his teammate. Poster's on the yes side like JHS will be quick to point out what has happened in the last eight days and justify Mark's seat with Red Bull. But is'nt that what was expected of Mark? Was'nt Markie the guy who set pre-season testing alight, blazing the field while his teammate had less luck with the rain-affected testing. Together with Alonso, they seemed the ones to beat. Came qualifying Bahrain, what happened? Yet another mistake, you guessed right, with more to come during the following races. Mark Webber is 34 years old and is suppose to be leading the team, yet it seems the other way around, while ppl can't believe when Markie actually wins. With the vast experience he has, and being the qualifying king, this year's format fit's him like a glove. You qualify first, and lead from the front till the end of the race, pretty much processional, as everyone knows. We were quick to point out that Vettel is still a little immature for the title and makes too many mistakes. Excuse my short-term memory loss, but has he made any this year? Bad call on tyres once during inclement weather, was it then a team decision or not? You can't have one teammate suffering from unreliable engine woes while the other one then throws points away with mistakes. Everybody knows I don't like the Alonso guy, but Mark can take a cue from him on how to be consistent, and placing you car where you could gain most advantage from. Consider this, the margin of performance that Red Bull has over their competitiors are greater than that of Brawn last year. Red Bull is suppose to be dominating! Cav stated ..."consistency is always always a big problem, he just can't drive at that level through a championship season". I'm fully expecting Vettel to bounce back and show Mark who's boss again come the following races, while Markie has another good race or 2 in the future. You should have 2 capable championship winning prospectives in a dominating car.

The rumours about Ferrari seeking his services is'nt a good one. This is the reason why they are interested in Markie, how a top team views him. "...the most important thing is to get the right driver to partner Alonso, because it’s very clear that they have hired the Spaniard to win things for them. What they need alongside is an uncomplicated, unpolitical but very fast driver to push him." Basically a nr 2 driver.Red Bull should wait till near the end of the year to even consider him again, otherwise they'll sign him up and he does disappointment again, as his history suggest. Mike has named a few suitable candidates, I hope they look to those....

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Congrats to both team but the yes team had won. Why? let´s face it Webber is now driving like er... Vettel! After both back to back wins the discussions is over, he is leading the WC with near perfect performances! As a predator he is smelling blood... he realised is now or never for him and is going to give his best to became WC. Until now he succeding...

[cavallino 2]

A summary of the no team arguments:

1) Mark Webber is 34 years old and will be 35 next year. Any top team would have to take that into account while hiring him. If a driver has accomplished a lot by the time he is 34, there are good reasons for hiring him, but with Mark Webber you have to question whether his peak is already behind him.

2) A lack of consistency over a season - Mark has put in many blazing drives, including some very recently. However, he has never consistently performed like a top driver an entire season. This can be called the Fisichella syndrome. It means that when you are in a lower midfield or bottom team, you receive attention for your good drives, however for your bad drives, since noone expects much from your team anyway, the fact that you weren't driving all that well isn't that obvious, especially if your teammate isn't that good. Whereas, in a top team, with a good car, inconsistency over a season is painfully obvious - this is why people like Fisichella and Webber looked so good when driving Minardis and Saubers, and everyone thought they deserved better cars.

3) A tendency to make mistakes - howlers more like it. Especially, a lack of racecraft, Mark does much better in race where he has the car underneath him to be fast enough to not have to deal with other cars around him. Mark Webber is not a racer, he is not a great overtaker, and he is not a great rain driver - a big sign of driver skill.

4) A personality that isn't suited for being a team's leading driver - a tendency to mouth off, criticize teammates when it sohuld be your driving doing the talking. HE isn't a team player and is completely unable to rally a team around him, therefore he has always been dispensable for the teams he drove for.

5) He has inherited a great car in Red Bull rather than earning a top drive, he was hired when Red Bull was going for safe options. Now there are better options around, more than one.

[yurp 0]

WELL DONE TEAMS! (But you're not done yet)

Just thought I'd jump in and remind everyone (team members, judges and other users) that you can send any challenging questions for either team to Andres now. He will collate them and then post them for the teams to answer in part 2 of the debate.

Get ready teams - you can make 1 post each in answer to the questions given by Andres (you may do this in any order). The 'Yes' Team will go first, then the 'No' Team.

Personally - I'm pleasantly surprised at the tone of the debate so far. I think, just by existing Andres has done his job admirably.

(I thought I should use a gay purple colour so as not to usurp his power. )

[mikathegreat2 2]

Do all members of the jury have to send a question to Andres??

[yurp 0]

Do all members of the jury have to send a question to Andres??

No - only send a question (or more than one) if you want to.

[Quiet One 15]

Ok, everybody, hi and welcome back to another round of the first TF1 Debate! Here I have some questions for you contestants of the red and green teams. Did I say green? Go, go GOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Ooops. Nope, sorry.

*Shuffles through some cue cards*

You know, something funny happened on my way here...wait, wrong card. *shuffle shuffle* Ahhh, here's the first question:

Do you spit or swallow?

Wait, that wasn't meant for this Forum...

*shuffle shuffle*

Here! Some questions for the Yes team.

To all members:

YT1) Red Bull are currently leading the WCC and came 2nd in the WCC last year. Wouldn't you agree that to deserve the best car on the grid, you should be one of the top 2 drivers currently in F1? If so - can you explain how Webber is better than at least 7 of the following 8 drivers Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Kubica, Rosberg, Massa, Button and Schumi?

YT2) Isn't it just a money issue? If Red Bull could pay Ferrari wages, they'd choose a driver far more deserving of their car. It's just they can't afford to, so they settle for the slow Aussie. [Almost an ad-hominem (circumstantial) argument. But no quite according to my interpretation. I choose to interpret that "the slow Aussie" is not meant as equalling being Aussie withbeing a slow driver but just as a mean to say "Mark Webber, the Aussie guy, who is also slow". It is still a case of sneaking in a personal attack on the guy as the question seems aimed at the money issue and then suddenly adds the "slow Aussie" bit. However, both speed and driver's wages are usually connected so the question is still valid)

YT3) [QUESTION OVERRULED] Vettel has dropped points through car failures. Mark has dropped them through his own bad driving. Which one deserves the seat more? [Warning: this is both a red herring and a false dycotomy. A red herring is an argument that is not directly connected with the debate. In this case, we are not discussing whether Vettel deserves the seat more than Mark or viceversa, but just Webber. A false dycotomy is when you are presented with two or more choices as if they were mutually exclusive when in fact they are not. Vettel and Mark are not competing for the same seat so the question makes no sense. Please rephrase or withdraw it]

YT4) Neither team has mentioned the injuries carried by Webber into the 2009 season. When comparing his relative performance to Vettel do they think that this should be taken into account?

To Argento:

AR1) You said he deserves a 'competitive car' but does he really deserve the best car on the grid? Why not give him a merc?

[Warning:

When Vettel hasn't had car problems he's finished 1, 2, 3 & 5 (average 2.75).

Webber's has a perfect car and finished 1, 1, 2, 8, 8 & 9 (average 4.83).

Ergo Vettel is almost twice as good as Webber, he's just been unlucky with his car.] This reasoning is just a bad case of statistical juggling (and obsolete since the last race, the questions were made before Monaco). The base for calculation is not the same for both drivers so the averages are meaningless. Team does not have to answer to this one. Or do it at your own risk

To Steph:

ST1) Your case is that Webber is the perfect team mate for Vettel - equally matched and a good team player. Doesn't that just mean...

ST1.1) Vettel simply isn't fast enough to mix it with someone like Alonso or Hamilton. [Comment: IMHO Irrelevant to the debate. We are discussing Webber's place at RBR, not Vettel's. But I guess that question is based on the fact that Steph herself based her defence on Vettel's qualities, which also implicitly stated that Vettel actually deserves a RBR seat. The question is thus kept as it is consistent with Steph's post, but I just wanted to point the shifting of the debate axis this line of argument produced]

ST1.2) Vettel is being held back in developing himself as a racer, because his team mate is just too easy to beat.

ST1.3) Mark is simply too stupid to be selfish and will never have what it takes to grab that WDC for himself.

Any which way - I can't see how that makes him deserving of his seat.

To James:

JH1) JHS said "In 2009 for example, unlike his team mate he didn't have a single DNF through a crash." Isn't that just because Webber was going so much slower than Vettel? When he "gives it his all" as you claimed he did in Aus this year, we can see what happens.

MESSAGE FROM THE ALMIGHTY MODERATOR (to be read in a booming voice): Behold and despair, thee mortals! *clears throat - back to squeaky girlish voice* I suck at structuring stuff. I tried to format questions with a code (YT for all Yes team members and the first two letters for questions aimed at single members) You can add the code to your replies so we can know what question you are replying to, or just quote the relevant part. Your choice.

Rgearding the other comments I made, please note that they are not meant to disrupt the debate itself and pointing some inconsistency or fallacy or whatever does not automatically invalidates the question. There are many and I won't mention every single fallacy there is because would be tiresome, I don't know them all and it is hard enough to spot some, then look for the corresponding name in English. I am overlloking some on purpose and probably many on just my ignorance on thsese things (I am just a guy that knows a little bit of many things, but not much about anything, actually) I just like to point our some of the pitfalls we usually fall into when discussing things. They are for you to consider some other time if you like when discussing things the "normal" way. As we pointed many times before this is not a new format for discussing things at this forum but just posed as an excercise and a game, if I may call it like that. Sorry for my usual ramblings.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Well. If its Ok. I'd like to ask if I can address question one first, and then the points Andres has raised to my own submission. Andres?

[Quiet One 15]

Well. If its Ok. I'd like to ask if I can address question one first, and then the points Andres has raised to my own submission. Andres?

Be my guest. As long as we know hwhat questions are you replying to you can do it any way you like it!

[JHS 1]

Thanks for the questions, I'm already planning a response to my individual question but seeing as I'm third in command behind Steph and Argento, I'll let them pick whatever questions they want and I'll go with what's left. Also, I'll be around this week but thanks to A Level exams and some other issues, I might not be able to respond as promptly as before. I'll see what I can do though, I don't want to hold up this debate.

[yurp 0]

Argento, Steph, JHS - 1 more post each guys - come one, you can do it

[JHS 1]

Argento, Steph, JHS - 1 more post each guys - come one, you can do it

Fine, I'll go against what I said (seeing as my A Level exams are over) to help this move along. Sorry guys if you were going to go for this one.

Neither team has mentioned the injuries carried by Webber into the 2009 season. When comparing his relative performance to Vettel do they think that this should be taken into account?

Absolutely it was a factor. Mark himself made the comment that his broken leg affected the early part of the season. And yet, he was still up there, giving his team mate a bit to think about. China ’09 anyone? He finished second in terrible conditions, at a time when his leg was still causing him issues. And that was a Mark Webber with an injury who could finish strongly in those conditions. And remember the Mark Webber with the injured leg who secured a crushing first victory at his team mate’s back yard in Germany.

It was only a matter of time before the fully fit and fired up Mark Webber showed us what he could really do, and we’ve had an early glimpse of that in Barcelona and Monaco. And the results have taken everyone aback. Just look at the previous successful Grand Prix drivers who have backed Webber for the title this year, not all of them Australian.

So, to conclude, you DO have to take his injury into account when comparing him to team mate Vettel. Sure, remember Vettel was the one who was the dominant winner for Red Bull’s first victory, but also take into account you had an injured Mark Webber who had horrifically broken his leg in the winter who didn’t finish many miles behind him.

As for my individual question.

JHS said "In 2009 for example, unlike his team mate he didn't have a single DNF through a crash." Isn't that just because Webber was going so much slower than Vettel? When he "gives it his all" as you claimed he did in Aus this year, we can see what happens.

No. What is the popular saying in motorsport? ”To finish first, first you must finish.” The fact is, in the DNFs Webber did have that season, such as in Monza and Singapore, neither were his fault. In Monza, he was taken off by close friend Kubica, whilst at Singapore, his brakes failed. You don’t generally regard Webber as a “crasher”, unlike maybe Sutil. Perhaps it is another quality of Webber showing through, his experience. He knows when to push and when to risk it, unlike his team mate who may still have his inexperience as a reason of why he does seem to crash more. The ability to win championships is based on speed, consistency and the ability to keep it out the hedge, and on the latter two especially, you’d have to say that Webber had the upper hand on Vettel.

Sure, Webber did make mistakes in Australia, there is no easy way to defend that, but what can you expect? It was the first time in Mark’s career that he’d gone to his home race knowing he had a car underneath him with the capability to win. Starting on the front row just exasperated his desire to win that weekend. Show me a driver who doesn’t want to win in front of his home crowd and you aren’t looking hard enough.

I personally thing he’s already put those wrongs right in the last few races. You cannot say that Mark was not “giving it his all” at the last two races, and just look what giving his all awarded him with. Two poles, two dominant race victories and the lead of the championship on count back of wins.

[monza gorilla 1]

May the jury ask when the teams will conclude their cases? I'm getting old.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Sorry. Life or worry of it thereof has been in the way. Steph is working on her answers. Begging forgiveness.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Sorry I´m late but lots of work! I´ll be back (tomorow with my answers). My apologies

[JHS 1]

Come on team!

Just a question, if Andres has left, who's the deputy? Who takes over Andres' role?

[Rainmaster 7]

Whoever replaces Andres, the judges seat will certainly need cleaning (unless it's Pablo, naturally).

[Autumnpuma 0]

Heloooooo? Anyone in here? This thread is as forgotten as Webber's sense of teammanship (I just invented a word! That must count as bonus points for the prosecution, right? Right?)

[monza gorilla 1]

Here I am, waiting for summings up and rested cases and you waltz in with your home made words and echoey typing. I thought everybody had gone home. But, as you at least turned up, I have to declare you the winner.