Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

yurp

Driver Of The Day - Turkey

YOU CAN PICK MORE THAN 1!!!!!!!  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Who was/were the Driver(s) of the Day?

    • Massa
      20
    • Hamilton
      24
    • Raikkonen
      5
    • Kubica
      4
    • Heidfeld
      5
    • Alonso
      11
    • Webber
      9
    • Rosberg
      5
    • Coulthard (at least he didn't crash)
      1
    • Other
      6
    • My favourite driver - he always is
      2


Recommended Posts

you may be right,i may be missing your point but you seem to missing mine as well! :P i think that what you say-that fernando didn't defeat michael,because he was behind him in japan-does not make sense!anyway,it's true that ferrari and consequently michael made a great comeback,but fernando had done a superb job during the first half of the season.the championship is not decided in the last races.on the contrary,it is won by the fastest and the most consistent driver!anyway,i hope that you can get what i want to say!

p.s:as far as the teammate issue is concerned,i won't bother to talk about it!and it's not because i don't know what to say,but i think that it has been discussed one thousand times in the forums!let's move on! :D

You will soon learn that hypothetic scenarios are appliable to Schumi/Lewis but not to Nando. Only then will you achieve illumination :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have the opportunity to look at the pass again, you'll see that Massa was taken completely unawares by Hamilton. You can see on the overhead shot that Massa was already starting his turn-in when Hamilton was suddenly there, late-braking like a madman. Massa's car jinks to the right at the apex to avoid nailing Hamilton. All I can credit Massa for during that pass is having the reactions to avoid slamming into Hamilton during a fair pass (by contrast, DC would have hit Hamilton).

Yep. That's my take too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you may be right,i may be missing your point but you seem to missing mine as well! :P i think that what you say-that fernando didn't defeat michael,because he was behind him in japan-does not make sense!anyway,it's true that ferrari and consequently michael made a great comeback,but fernando had done a superb job during the first half of the season.the championship is not decided in the last races.on the contrary,it is won by the fastest and the most consistent driver!anyway,i hope that you can get what i want to say!

p.s:as far as the teammate issue is concerned,i won't bother to talk about it!and it's not because i don't know what to say,but i think that it has been discussed one thousand times in the forums!let's move on! :D

Not at all, Alonso wasn't the fastest driver in 2005, kimi was and he wasn't the fastest driver in 2006, Schumi was, reliability was the key in thoses tittles, not speed.

In the last race Kimi had the fastest lap and Lewis was faster than Massa most of the race so sometimes speed is not enough to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed Up said something similar to this once, and I'm going to say it today.

The driver of the day should ALWAYS be the winner of the race. ALWAYS. You can be a self-proclaimed expert and make up all this "theoretically" s##t, but that's all it is, a theory. "Oh, well Lewis fell out of his crib this morning and got a boo boo, and still got a podium," or "Fernando had no rear wing and was on rain tires in the dry, but he still scored points" is just theorizing. Do you really know if it is any more difficult to do anything until you've been in that situation? No. The fact is, the winner is the driver of the day by the FIA's rules. If he wasn't, why would he get more points than everyone else? A win is a win. There's no asterisks in history books.

And no, I have not followed this policy in the past, but I will now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all, Alonso wasn't the fastest driver in 2005, kimi was and he wasn't the fastest driver in 2006, Schumi was, reliability was the key in thoses tittles, not speed.

In the last race Kimi had the fastest lap and Lewis was faster than Massa most of the race so sometimes speed is not enough to win.

Yeah, we all know that... When Fernando wins races he's driving the fastest car (he's never the fastest one, it's allways down to the car) when the rest have a car which is half a second or a whole second faster per lap (we saw that in the 05 season sometimes) the driver, doens't matter whether is Kimi or Michael, is the factor not the car. <_<

s##t, i promise to myself i was not going to answer to more crap... guys you get the best of me :bangin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to propose a "sandwich of the day", choose your top three fillings in descending order.... :)

This overcomes any partisan votes....

My vote is for tuna and sweetcorn; bacon and corned beef and tomato ketchup..... mmmmm

:D Bacon butty, chip butty, anything butty.

Does your tampon need changing? If ait aint broke, don't fix it. Stop trying to be the second coming of Bob the builder.

I tried monza - I posted a long, polite and point-filled post. I took time to clarify my stance. I even apolygised for taking pot shots. I asked for people to read the previous posts and discuss the points in hand and that's what I got in return.

Admittedly, I was rather confrontational at times, but I have (and do again) apolygise for that.

Dribbler my dear boy - please, please, please can you argue with the points I've made?

I humbley ask that you spare the time to check all the posts below from me and others.

this one - http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...mp;#entry251548

and this one - http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...mp;#entry251549

and this one - http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...mp;#entry251550

That last one is from monza gorilla - we were able to discuss the issues in a logical fashion and both came out of it happy.

I'm truly sorry if I come off rude and arrogant/obnoxious/s##tty (I could go on) sometimes (often), but I really get fed up with people picking fault then ignoring / not discussing any answer I give.

Then again I don't like upsetting people and during the course of this thread, I've let my annoyance get in the way of my manners - which I was wrong to do.

And hey - if you aren't going to discuss the points, then at least leave my lillets out of it (yes, I use sanitary towels rather than tampons - my "flow" is rather intermitent). ;)

I hope that was polite enough - sorry if not.

EDIT - here are a few more for dribbler from the first 3 pages...

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251369

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251373

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251456

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251482

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251483

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251562

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251571

END EDIT

Any way - this is all by the by - I accepted earlier that the multi choice system hasn't met with a number of people's approval - so never mind. It was worth a try. I will fully support the return to single choice DoD threads in future.

If you have the opportunity to look at the pass again, you'll see that Massa was taken completely unawares by Hamilton. You can see on the overhead shot that Massa was already starting his turn-in when Hamilton was suddenly there, late-braking like a madman. Massa's car jinks to the right at the apex to avoid nailing Hamilton. All I can credit Massa for during that pass is having the reactions to avoid slamming into Hamilton during a fair pass (by contrast, DC would have hit Hamilton).

Yep - I agree - I think Massa was indeed surprised that Hamilton was attempting at that corner. Previously on the start of the straight he must have though Ham was too far back. Then when Hamilton dropped to the left, you could see Massa pull away again. So I think you're right to say Massa was surprised that Hamilton still managed to get up along side. And indeed he did start turning in.

That, of course, doesn't mean that Massa didn't know that Hamilton would be passing him at some point over the next few laps though - and that he wasn't prepared for that happening in the end (yes, it probably came earlier than he was expecting, but I think he still expected it).

Equally - I give him credit for the reactions it took to avoid a DC moment. As you say. It's easier to avoid catastrophy if you see it coming and are expecting to take evasive action - which is what I think happened here.

Forknowledge of the outcome doesn't negate surprise at the occurance - so I'm essentially agreeing with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D Bacon butty, chip butty, anything butty.

I tried monza - I posted a long, polite and point-filled post. I took time to clarify my stance. I even apolygised for taking pot shots. I asked for people to read the previous posts and discuss the points in hand and that's what I got in return.

Admittedly, I was rather confrontational at times, but I have (and do again) apolygise for that.

Dribbler my dear boy - please, please, please can you argue with the points I've made?

I humbley ask that you spare the time to check all the posts below from me and others.

this one - http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...mp;#entry251548

and this one - http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...mp;#entry251549

and this one - http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...mp;#entry251550

That last one is from monza gorilla - we were able to discuss the issues in a logical fashion and both came out of it happy.

I'm truly sorry if I come off rude and arrogant/obnoxious/s##tty (I could go on) sometimes (often), but I really get fed up with people picking fault then ignoring / not discussing any answer I give.

Then again I don't like upsetting people and during the course of this thread, I've let my annoyance get in the way of my manners - which I was wrong to do.

And hey - if you aren't going to discuss the points, then at least leave my lillets out of it (yes, I use sanitary towels rather than tampons - my "flow" is rather intermitent). ;)

I hope that was polite enough - sorry if not.

EDIT - here are a few more for dribbler from the first 3 pages...

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251369

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251373

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251456

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251482

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251483

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251562

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=251571

END EDIT

Any way - this is all by the by - I accepted earlier that the multi choice system hasn't met with a number of people's approval - so never mind. It was worth a try. I will fully support the return to single choice DoD threads in future.

Try this; You changed the driver of the day system, i disagreed with it. You got all unnecessary and over defensive but tried to justify it with your unique brand of self criticism to try and mask the patronising way you go about yourself. I retorted, you still seek an in depth reply in the form of what i would describe as 'over analysis' which you will not get from me, not now or ever. In truth, i just don't have the time. I don't mean that in the dismissive way that it sounds; a small part of me would like to sit down and go through all the finer detail with you. Don't get upset, it's just the way it is. Can we leave it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try this; You changed the driver of the day system, i disagreed with it.

Fair enough

You got all unnecessary and over defensive but tried to justify it with your unique brand of self criticism to try and mask the patronising way you go about yourself.

Agreed

Fair enough - that's your take - I hope you don't think my apology was insincere - I did mean it.

I retorted, you still seek an in depth reply in the form of what i would describe as 'over analysis' which you will not get from me, not now or ever.

Can I add that your retort wasn't really productive (I was guilty of that too - I admit) and that the inability to actually discuss the points I made, may stem from the realisation that they're actually valid points. I don't like being told to shut up because people don't want to accept that I might be saying something valid.

In truth, i just don't have the time. I don't mean that in the dismissive way that it sounds; a small part of me would like to sit down and go through all the finer detail with you. Don't get upset, it's just the way it is.

Fair enough - but I should point out that you have spent plenty of time not discussing the "finer detail" - which you could have spent doing exactly that - it would have been far more productive. My discussion with monza gorrilla was very productive and we both ended in agreement - I hope we can too. That discussion also started off in a confrontational way - but through dialogue we reached common conclusions.

Can we leave it now?

Yep - I accepted (long ago) that the experiment (and my own tone) had upset people, so I'll be happy to leave it. I actually thought it was over last night, but then I woke up this morning to more vitriol.

I hope you found the tone of my last post conciliatory - that was how it was meant - as is this one.

I do tend to say when I think people are at fault - that is appreciated by some, but not by others. I've always been painfuly frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The driver of the day should ALWAYS be the winner of the race. ALWAYS.

Nah don't agree.

I can think of plenty of occasions where drivers who didn't win demonstrated more driving skill - winners can be there because of team orders, luck, weather and a host of other factors in addition to skill.

The problem with Driver of the Day is that it is a fundamentally flawed concept - it is a subjective measure too easily influenced by fanboyism. Also depends how you measure the skill of a driver - is it based upon the way they handle corners, overtaking, ability to deal with back-markers/wet conditions, etc?

Won't stop me nominating a driver for this though, but ultimately it is more of a curiosity than a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough

Agreed

Fair enough - that's your take - I hope you don't think my apology was insincere - I did mean it.

Can I add that your retort wasn't really productive (I was guilty of that too - I admit) and that the inability to actually discuss the points I made, may stem from the realisation that they're actually valid points. I don't like being told to shut up because people don't want to accept that I might be saying something valid.

Fair enough - but I should point out that you have spent plenty of time not discussing the "finer detail" - which you could have spent doing exactly that - it would have been far more productive. My discussion with monza gorrilla was very productive and we both ended in agreement - I hope we can too. That discussion also started off in a confrontational way - but through dialogue we reached common conclusions.

Yep - I accepted (long ago) that the experiment (and my own tone) had upset people, so I'll be happy to leave it. I actually thought it was over last night, but then I woke up this morning to more vitriol.

I hope you found the tone of my last post conciliatory - that was how it was meant - as is this one.

I do tend to say when I think people are at fault - that is appreciated by some, but not by others. I've always been painfuly frank.

I think all your points and criticisms of me are valid and correct. So many times when members have cleared the air like this they go on to have some great discussions and most importantly enjoy their time here. I see that happening again. :thbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think all your points and criticisms of me are valid and correct. So many times when members have cleared the air like this they go on to have some great discussions and most importantly enjoy their time here. I see that happening again. :thbup:

Thank you dribbler - I do enjoy our sparring matches and I respect you all the more for them. Your comment is also very gracious of you and you're obviously a good bloke. I too have plenty of faults (too many to list infact) as you've discovered and quite rightly pointed out. No doubt we'll cross swords again and agree on a lot too (we've done both in other threads - so it's bound to continue).

There'll be more agreement and more fallings out and yet more bridge building - I guess that's what makes the world go round. Cheers. :thbup:

PS - I have to admit, I loved the tampon comment - I'll have to use that one myself sometime. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

I seem to remember saying that to Dribbler last time we had a falling out (or maybe that was someone else - I have a lot of falling outs), but someone accused me of wanting to cop a feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will soon learn that hypothetic scenarios are appliable to Schumi/Lewis but not to Nando. Only then will you achieve illumination :D

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

I seem to remember saying that to Dribbler last time we had a falling out (or maybe that was someone else - I have a lot of falling outs), but someone accused me of wanting to cop a feel.

Just remember he won't respect you in the morning or return your phone calls :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all, Alonso wasn't the fastest driver in 2005, kimi was and he wasn't the fastest driver in 2006, Schumi was, reliability was the key in thoses tittles, not speed.

In the last race Kimi had the fastest lap and Lewis was faster than Massa most of the race so sometimes speed is not enough to win.

the key in fernando's titles was a combination of speed and reliability,i'd say.as far 2005 and kimi are concerned,if you can't finish a race it doesn't matter how fast you are because in the end you don't get the points,which are what really matters in the championship.so,it's no use having a fast but unreliable car,as it won't bring the desired results(which are the points!).A car is considered to be good when it is both fast and reliable and in 2005 the R25 obviously had these traits.as for michael , i think that things were very even and the details actually decided who would became champion.but still,fernando managed to do a better job than michael.

finally,regarding the turkish gp,it's not enough that kimi had the fastest lap.you have to see how fast he was during the whole race.and you are right that lewis was faster than massa,but he didn't have a favourable strategy.that's what cost him the win.so,we both agree that no matter how essential speed is,it has to be combined with some other factors in order to lead drivers to success.it is that combination that kimi lacked in 2005 and michael almost achieved in 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the key in fernando's titles was a combination of speed and reliability,i'd say.as far 2005 and kimi are concerned,if you can't finish a race it doesn't matter how fast you are because in the end you don't get the points,which are what really matters in the championship.so,it's no use having a fast but unreliable car,as it won't bring the desired results(which are the points!).A car is considered to be good when it is both fast and reliable and in 2005 the R25 obviously had these traits.as for michael , i think that things were very even and the details actually decided who would became champion.but still,fernando managed to do a better job than michael.

finally,regarding the turkish gp,it's not enough that kimi had the fastest lap.you have to see how fast he was during the whole race.and you are right that lewis was faster than massa,but he didn't have a favourable strategy.that's what cost him the win.so,we both agree that no matter how essential speed is,it has to be combined with some other factors in order to lead drivers to success.it is that combination that kimi lacked in 2005 and michael almost achieved in 2006.

You will soon learn that hypothetic scenarios are appliable to Schumi/Lewis but not to Nando. Only then will you achieve illumination :D

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats revisionist rubbish, the Renault was clearly the better car for the first half of the season and about equal for the rest. Michaels dicing with Hedifeld cost him maybe two points, and if he hadn\'t driven that way, he wouldn\'t have been in the points in the first place. And it wasn\'t his reluctance, in fact we never knew whether it was his or the teams reluctance. Well because they\'re a team. Something Fruddy will never understand Anyway I digress. The funniest thing is if his engine hadn\'t blown at Japan(?) he would have been champion. And you\'d be singing a different tune - whereas objectively, that should be irrelevant.

Incorrect. If Schumis engine hadn\'t blown in japan Alonso would still have won by one point. Alonso also had an Engine failure in Monza, funny how you anti-alonso zealots forget that when you go on your delusional rants. Also, notwithstanding Michael binned his car into the wall in Australia, and he cost himself points with his silly parking maneouver in Monaco. The incident in Brazil was indeed unlucky, but things like that happen in racing, just look at kovy\'s incident in this race. In the end, Michaels errors over the course of 2006 are what cost him the title, which kinda bins your luck theory because if things where adjusted for the 2 engine failures Alonso would still have won the title. With the tremendous amount of luck that schumacher has had over the course of his season, it is funny that his fans accuse Alonso of being lucky. Plus, we had the tyre and pit stop mixups, the engine failure, the mass damper ban, the rediculous monza penalty... So to say Alonso\'s 2006 was all plain sailing and Michael\'s was totally unlucky is ignorant, bordering on rediculous.

Nando was loosing ground in that Japanese race, what could he have done to stop Michael? nothing, what he did to stop Michael? Nothing he was just crusing to a second place an praying to lady luck for a miracle, a miracle that came on lap 37, what he did to make this happen? nothing, Michael was not even under pressure from him, so he did nothing and he inherit the tittle he was the WDC

Go look in the history books and tell me what happened on the 43rd lap of the italian GP in 2006. The result may surprise you!

Just the same way he deserves to be DOD in every race even in thoses he didn\'t even got to the middle of the race, he si DOD just because he started the race and his wheels were turning, that\'s going to happen in every race so from now on we will select the second best DOD and we will make Alonso a vitalicious DOD just to please you all, ABF (Alonso Blind Fans) now that we ALL agree to this I confirm that my Second Best DOD (Alonso is the first always don\'t forget it) was Hamilton he did a great job I even dare to say that he did a job almost, not as good but almost as good as Alonso, Happy Now?

Funny how you slag off Alonso\'s fans, yet you are one of the biggest anti-alonso pro ferrari/kimi/michael zealots on this forum, in fact you are no better than the people you are criticising in all honesty.

Schumi is the driver with most wins but who is the one with most second places

Probably barrichello for all the times he was forced to defer to yours truly

You are missing my point, when they were tied in points with just two races left, there was nothing that FA could do to stop Michael,

You are missing the point that the 2006 Formula 1 season was held over 17 races, not 2. The idea of the championship is that it reflects the best driver over the course of a season, not over the course of 2 races. Alonso won, and Michael lost now stop crying about it, accept it, and get a life.

Not at all, Alonso wasn\'t the fastest driver in 2005, kimi was and he wasn\'t the fastest driver in 2006, Schumi was, reliability was the key in thoses tittles, not speed.

In the last race Kimi had the fastest lap and Lewis was faster than Massa most of the race so sometimes speed is not enough to win.

Kimi wasn\'t the fastest driver, he had a car that was faster than the renault by about 3/4 to 1s per lap on most circuits, bar the first 3 races where McLaren just totally got it wrong. At the end of the day no driver just lucks into a win. If another car retires, that is unfortunate but the person in the car following has to step up to the plate and take the win, it isn\'t just handed to them on a plate. If you look at the results Fisichella achieved in 2005 with the same car as Alonso, it will put things into perspective. At the end of a day, how can you expect him to keep up with a car that is such a significant chunk faster than him. It could also be argued that Kimi threw away 2 of his wins in 2005 himself, breaking the driveshaft in Imola by over agressive driving and flatspotting his tyre in Europe through sheer carelessness. At the end of the day yes I will admit Reliability played a part in the 2005 title, but the point that you are missing is that reliability does not cover for the talents of a driver, and if the McLaren had been more reliable, it could have been argued that Kimi won simply because his car was miles better than everyone elses. At the end of the day, Fernando took the 2005 championship it was not handed to him.

Can\'t see why people need to keep dragging up old crap to further their anti-alonso arguments, but the fact remains he is a double champion and he deserved the titles he won. In 2007 he wasn\'t the best driver and he didn\'t deserve to win. All it calls for is some objectivity and that is something I feel the Ferrari/Raikkonen zealots on this forum apparently seem to sometimes lack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fed Up said something similar to this once, and I'm going to say it today.

The driver of the day should ALWAYS be the winner of the race. ALWAYS. You can be a self-proclaimed expert and make up all this "theoretically" s##t, but that's all it is, a theory. "Oh, well Lewis fell out of his crib this morning and got a boo boo, and still got a podium," or "Fernando had no rear wing and was on rain tires in the dry, but he still scored points" is just theorizing. Do you really know if it is any more difficult to do anything until you've been in that situation? No. The fact is, the winner is the driver of the day by the FIA's rules. If he wasn't, why would he get more points than everyone else? A win is a win. There's no asterisks in history books.

And no, I have not followed this policy in the past, but I will now.

:huh: can someone change my vote to Massa :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, we all know that... When Fernando wins races he's driving the fastest car (he's never the fastest one, it's allways down to the car) when the rest have a car which is half a second or a whole second faster per lap (we saw that in the 05 season sometimes) the driver, doens't matter whether is Kimi or Michael, is the factor not the car. <_<

s##t, i promise to myself i was not going to answer to more crap... guys you get the best of me :bangin:

It was time for you to understand this, thanks God I never lost my hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah don't agree.

I can think of plenty of occasions where drivers who didn't win demonstrated more driving skill - winners can be there because of team orders, luck, weather and a host of other factors in addition to skill.

The problem with Driver of the Day is that it is a fundamentally flawed concept - it is a subjective measure too easily influenced by fanboyism. Also depends how you measure the skill of a driver - is it based upon the way they handle corners, overtaking, ability to deal with back-markers/wet conditions, etc?

Won't stop me nominating a driver for this though, but ultimately it is more of a curiosity than a science.

Porbably the one who won the race never was in a position where he needed to do something else, that doesn't mean taht driver had worse driving skills that the one who easilly won the race, maybe it's just that he was confortable with his pace and that is another driving skill that usually goes unadvertised, Kimi said that winning a races is never easy, I don't know if this is true or not I have never competed in F1 but maybe he is right and in that case the one who win the race should be DOD always, you can loose a race in he last lap, overtaking and thoses things are not the only quality to look in a driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrect. If Schumis engine hadn\'t blown in japan Alonso would still have won by one point. Alonso also had an Engine failure in Monza, funny how you anti-alonso zealots forget that when you go on your delusional rants. Also, notwithstanding Michael binned his car into the wall in Australia, and he cost himself points with his silly parking maneouver in Monaco. The incident in Brazil was indeed unlucky, but things like that happen in racing, just look at kovy\'s incident in this race. In the end, Michaels errors over the course of 2006 are what cost him the title, which kinda bins your luck theory because if things where adjusted for the 2 engine failures Alonso would still have won the title. With the tremendous amount of luck that schumacher has had over the course of his season, it is funny that his fans accuse Alonso of being lucky. Plus, we had the tyre and pit stop mixups, the engine failure, the mass damper ban, the rediculous monza penalty... So to say Alonso\'s 2006 was all plain sailing and Michael\'s was totally unlucky is ignorant, bordering on rediculous.

Go look in the history books and tell me what happened on the 43rd lap of the italian GP in 2006. The result may surprise you!

Funny how you slag off Alonso\'s fans, yet you are one of the biggest anti-alonso pro ferrari/kimi/michael zealots on this forum, in fact you are no better than the people you are criticising in all honesty.

Probably barrichello for all the times he was forced to defer to yours truly

You are missing the point that the 2006 Formula 1 season was held over 17 races, not 2. The idea of the championship is that it reflects the best driver over the course of a season, not over the course of 2 races. Alonso won, and Michael lost now stop crying about it, accept it, and get a life.

Kimi wasn\'t the fastest driver, he had a car that was faster than the renault by about 3/4 to 1s per lap on most circuits, bar the first 3 races where McLaren just totally got it wrong. At the end of the day no driver just lucks into a win. If another car retires, that is unfortunate but the person in the car following has to step up to the plate and take the win, it isn\'t just handed to them on a plate. If you look at the results Fisichella achieved in 2005 with the same car as Alonso, it will put things into perspective. At the end of a day, how can you expect him to keep up with a car that is such a significant chunk faster than him. It could also be argued that Kimi threw away 2 of his wins in 2005 himself, breaking the driveshaft in Imola by over agressive driving and flatspotting his tyre in Europe through sheer carelessness. At the end of the day yes I will admit Reliability played a part in the 2005 title, but the point that you are missing is that reliability does not cover for the talents of a driver, and if the McLaren had been more reliable, it could have been argued that Kimi won simply because his car was miles better than everyone elses. At the end of the day, Fernando took the 2005 championship it was not handed to him.

Can\'t see why people need to keep dragging up old crap to further their anti-alonso arguments, but the fact remains he is a double champion and he deserved the titles he won. In 2007 he wasn\'t the best driver and he didn\'t deserve to win. All it calls for is some objectivity and that is something I feel the Ferrari/Raikkonen zealots on this forum apparently seem to sometimes lack.

:thbup:

Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...