Button Predicts Ferrari Decline

[Jenson_Rules 0]

U wish, it will be williams under attack by toyota! Now u mark my words, that is if toyota can actually be bothered to put effort into their team!

[AutoRacer5 0]

"offs" refer to excursions off the track.  due to spins, crashes, accidents and other errors etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not many of those champions have had many opportunities to drive as long as MS has.

[Max Mosley 2]

There are lots of reasons as to why it might be the case such as the fact that if you crashed half as many times as modern drivers do you'd already be dead in other eras but this debate is surely completely pointless. Of all the statistics I can think of about MS I can't say that the number of offs he's had is the most important and going to help me decide whether he's better than another "great". If anyone wants to decide greatness on the basis of records alone I still think I know who's going to win. Otherwise we should look at all the evidence each way and make a choice and I don't think this statistic will feature very highly. I'll spare you this evidence as I've said it so often recently...

PS. How often has he had offs and gone on to win the race? More often than any other champion?

[nojvnof1 0]

probably, hey, don't shoot the messenger, just stating what I read OK, then here are my reasons as to why M$ is a great. Statistically he's the best, no doubt about it, but his fitness, dedication and attitudes to teamwork hold him in good stead. His fitness and dedication are unrivalled, he lives and breathes the sport moreso than any other driver.

As you have said, statistically he's the best, but a driver can't be judged on stats alone. Explain how Ralf has as many wins as Gilles? Explain how Moss has no title and others do?? You can't explain that, but statistics shows Mansell has 1 title and Moss none, which surely is not a true reflection of their capabilities.

His ability to rally a team behind him has lead to many of his successes. Without Todt, Brawn and Byrne, M$ would never have been as successful as he is, I can think of others, but Im not gonna turn this into an M$ bashing session, just trying to dispel the notion that we think M$ is all bad and no good. He is able to grab victory from the jaws of defeat and is able to improvise and make use of the teams strategy very well, Hungary 98 as an example, the perfect example of teamwork at its finest.

Now, on Senna, Im of the opinion Prost had him off in 1989, Ive seen their incident at Suzuka many times from different angles and I'll always state Prost drove into Senna, and it didn't help that the governing body were anti-Senna and pro-Prost. What happened the following year is a blight on F1, but I understand why he drove into Prost, he got shafted in terms of grid position and wanted his revenge over having lost the title the previous year, it all boiled over and their shunt was the end result. I don't approve of it, but I understand why he did it.

And I do have an opinion as to who is better out of the two (Senna/Schumacher), and in my mind, it's Senna, but I won't go into that here, that's for another thread.

[Taku 0]

although this should be started in a new thread, but out of senna/schumacher i think senna is better.

and this is without having actually seen very much of senna's career at all. for 2 simple reasons:

1) the highlights of senna that i have seen, eg monaco quali or race any year, that donnington 'race in the wet' etc have been nothing short of breathtaking, mind-boggling if you will.

m$' highlights produce no such feelings of admiration. only his robotic ability to peel off fastest laps in between pit stops to leap frog opponents leaves me in awe, and that says something in itself; and

2) senna allowed another world champion to be his team mate and actually raced against him in the quest to prove who was best. m$ never taken up such a challenge so far in his career, and that will forever taint his greatness in my opinion.

and i'm sure others here can give enough additional reasons to fill a book!

[Max Mosley 2]

Sorry for shooting you nojvnof1! I just can't understand how we spend so much time having a go at MS instead of admiring his talent/approach to racing. I agree we shouldn't just judge drivers purely on the no of wins they have etc. you have to look at their whole career including what other drivers say about them.

As to who is the best ever it depends whether you mean pure natural driving talent in which case its difficult and may be neither Senna nor Schumacher or whether you mean the most efficient winning machine in which case I'd go for MS any day (followed immediately by Senna of course!). I haven't seen much of Senna's career either and I don't particularly support MS so I won't give you a detailed list of all his greatest moments but I think he has driven pretty amazing races too, especially in the wet like Senna.

Finally I think people often look back with rose-tinted glasses. I would not be surprised if in ten years time people look back on MS and say there's no one who can live up to his standard (so I wish we could enjoy it while it lasts!). Modern F1 is heavily sanitised and I reckon the overall standard is far higher even than 10 years ago (partly driven by MS) so there isn't as much scope for drivers to show off their brilliance. All the driver aids etc unfortunately just exacerbate this. Nevertheless, despite the fact that he's often had the best car, MS has been imo one of the most dominant champions. The fact that he's been so far ahead of his peers for so long makes me think if F1 were the same as ten years ago he would have had as many amazing drives as Senna.

PS I still don't understand how people say MS is a cheat but don't say it about Senna, Prost, Fangio. It seems to me that F1 is unusual in sports in that the way to win is often to bend the rules and all the greats have done this.

[AutoRacer5 0]

Well said MW, and also, Schumacher had good races, remember France 04? also, Indy 2003 (I was in the UK watching that). Also, remember that Schumi's first win came in the rain.

[Senna 0]

No one has said Michael hasn

[ecapdeville 0]

although this should be started in a new thread, but out of senna/schumacher i think senna is better...

Dear Taku...

I think that too, Nobody like Senna...

Just look the way he had to control his car (like in monaco video), a master!

I miss him...

When he died, the F1 changed forever.

[xenna 0]

When he died, the F1 changed forever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did it?

[Jenson_Rules 0]

I wouldnt say changed, but a great blow was felt! However i was only 6 at the time so ive never had the pleasure of watching him race live!

[Shadow 0]

It did in the sense the safety regulations were changed drastically. And no doubt that he left a hole that remains unfilled

[Max Mosley 2]

No one has said Michael hasn

[nojvnof1 0]

as JV said when the driver aids were brought in (and JV was and is against them, like Senna and Gilles) that they bring the mediocre closer to the elite drivers. Why M$ is in favour of all these gizmos with his obvious talent staggers me.

Just on the greatest driver, on raw speed, Id say Gilles is my no.1, but raw speed alone very rarely gets drivers a title.

I'd say F1 has changed greatly due to Senna's death in terms of safety as Shadow says. Senna's death, and the whole Imola '94 weekend shook F1 to the core and woke it up from its thoughts that F1 was very very safe.

[Senna 0]

Why Michael likes and excels with driver aids is really quite obvious to anyone with a shred of gumption. He drives a Ferrari. Ferrari produces the best car and the best systems hence Ferrari win and it is not simply down to Michael for if he wasn

[ksajoe 0]

Why Michael likes and excels with driver aids is really quite obvious to anyone with a shred of gumption.  He drives a Ferrari.  Ferrari produces the best car and the best systems hence Ferrari win and it is not simply down to Michael for if he wasn

[Senna 0]

Eddie left Ferrari before they became totally dominant. If Michael had not been entered into the 2002 or 2004 championships, Rubens would have won the title (assuming Michael was not replaced by a better driver than Rubens). My general point, which you have obviously failed to recognise, is that Ferrari is dominant because of their car which is due to their incredible team it is not just down Michael for if he wasn

[ksajoe 0]

Eddie left Ferrari before they became totally dominant.  If Michael had not been entered into the 2002 or 2004 championships, Rubens would have won the title (assuming Michael was not replaced by a better driver than Rubens).  My general point, which you have obviously failed to recognise, is that Ferrari is dominant because of their car which is due to their incredible team it is not just down Michael for if he wasn

[Senna 0]

Well, I