Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:31 PM
Perhaps, Jean-Pierre, but I'm just not so sure.
I don't read much into what drivers say over the radio. To me, complaints aren't desperate cries for help out of an incompetence; it's just being competitive. Different people motivate themselves and their teams in different ways. Some people lose the plot if they stay too calm. Others make silly mistakes if they get too frustrated. One driver staying calm does not mean he is handling it better than the one getting angry. It just means he is handling it better for himself.
The fact remains that Vettel dominated Sébastien Bourdais, who is a marvelous driver (a winner in Champ Car, stock cars, V8 Supercars, and sports cars of many varieties...I can't think of any modern day driver who has proven to be so versatile) and won a race in a Toro Rosso that was a better car than any Toro Rossos have been, but still not a winner. He's won seven races not from pole (26.92% of his wins), which admittedly pales in comparison to Alonso's 16 (53.33% of his). Nevertheless, can we really fault Vettel for winning so many poles, and winning races in what we think is the best car (how much better, we've never really known)?
I think it's a shame that Vettel is not being praised as a legend of our time. I was his biggest detractor from day one (there are many forum posts from me in 2007 calling him useless), but it's just not possible for someone who is not very, very special to win so many races and two, maybe three, titles. Yes, a mediocre driver can win races in a good car. A mediocre driver can put together a good season in a good car. But the flaws will be obvious. Those flaws are not there with Vettel, and the F1 field as a whole is so much closer than it ever has been, so any deficiency becomes so pronounced that Vettel could not possibly win if he were not very, very good. The Red Bull is the best car, sure, but not by enough to carry anyone to the title. Even if he were number one, Webber would not win two, potentially three, championships. Neither would Massa or Kobayashi or Karthikeyan.
I, too, think Alonso is a very, very good driver. At the same time, has Alonso ever lost a title in the best car? Arguably in 2007. Has Vettel? Not yet. Has Alonso ever won a title not in the best car? No, not yet. Has Vettel? No, not yet. So I don't really see how we can use "best car" to differentiate the two. I could only make the case, but not assert as fact, that Räikkönen won in 2007 without the best car (the Ferrari and McLaren were very even that year, though, so it is not a great one), and that Hamilton won in 2008 without the best car (in a very weird season where it was hard to gauge the performance of either car as all four of the team's drivers had great inconsistencies, but perhaps you could say the Ferrari was the best car and was utilized least efficiently in backing Massa, hence it did not win).
Even then, I cannot think of a recent World Champion who won in a car that wasn't very close to the best if not the best. So are all the World Champions no longer legitimate? I'd think not. A car cannot drive itself, and a driver cannot defy what is physically possible to do in a car. I find it fair to say the guy who scored the most points was the year's best driver, and give recognition to others who did well. We have so few measures of what the best car is and who the best driver is, and without a better one, I won't reject Vettel's 26 race wins and two-bordering-on-three titles as not being great demonstrations of driver and car united, as any other Grand Prix win or championship must have been.
I do hope for rain and a good race, but even more, I hope for respect for what Red Bull and Vettel have done because it's well-deserved.
Eric