Alonso...the pathetic :)

Senna was with Lotus for 3 years. He left for McLaren because his title chances were better there, and rightfully so. MS took 5 years to make it happen with Ferrari. It took Alonso 3 to win the title with Renault. So does that make Alonso better than MS? Does that make him better than Senna? Sure if you say so. You're arguement is weak, they were all different teams in different circumstances. The Lotus team certainly didn't have the resources of either Ferrari or Renault. The only difference between the drivers you mentioned was that Senna didn't see it all the way through. Who knows what might have happened had he stayed, but that's just speculation. The only facts are that they didn't win without him.

While one can say MS wanted unity within the team, one can also say that MS had no balls and feared a driver that might undermine his position on the team. It's one thing to have a teammate that is a number two driver to you, but it's another to have the number two driver move over for the number one driver to win at the 5th race of the season, with the title not at stake when the number two had kicked the number one's tail all day long. MS and Ferrari took this number two stuff to an extreme and it was simply wrong regardless of the situation. If it's your teammates turn to shine then so be it. MS even knew this to be the case. You can say anything you want about whomever Senna's teammate were but there was never a contract that would have a number two move over for Senna in such a manner. If Berger or whomever was quicker in a particular race they were allowed to race, that's the way it should be. As a matter of fact the only time i remember anyone moving over was Senna moving over for Berger.

Prost was a team player no doubt. I just so happened to have just watched the 88 and 89 seasons. It was all fine in 88, it went wrong in 89 when Prost felt he wasn't treated fairly by Senna (Imola). In those circumstances who could blame him, but it's clear that Prost had no fear of losing, he merely accepted it when Senna was faster. He could not accept what he considered to be a broken agreement to not pass in the first corner. Rightfully so again. If he became selfish at that point it's understandable, he wanted to win. But up to that point he was thinking about the team and it's future. There was no animosity when Senna won the title in 88. Prost knew Senna was going to be a champion and that was the time.

I never said that Senna was a team player. He wanted to win and would do just about anything to do it, bottomline. It was his way to destroy teammates, but on the track, not with a piece of paper. His offer to drive for free was because he wanted to win. Not because he hated Prost. Senna didn't hate Prost, he hated losing and he knew without the Williams he'd have no chance that year. Losing to his main rival was simply unacceptable to him. (I remember back then quite well)

As far as not having drivers with equal status, I ask you this. Mika and DC had equal status and they had success did they not? JPM and RS at Williams was volatile but the car wasn't up to the task or JPM would have won it all. Same for Kimi in 05. JPM's presence in the team didn't make Kimi's car break down all those times. Alonso and LH this year is probably the best fight in F1 in about 7 years. There are many approaches to winning an F1 title and having two equal drivers has been very effective in the past.

As for your next question. Elio DeAngelis was a highly respected driver at the time. Senna didn't have any say in who his teammate was that year. DeAngelis was the incumbant driver with the team. His veto of Warwick was already discussed so I won't bother with that again. Nakajima was Honda's choice in 87, again not up to Senna. In 88 he drove alonside the best driver in F1 at the time. Gerhard Berger was also highly regarded and rivaled Mansell at Ferrari. Did Senna know for a fact that he could take him? Not unless he was a fortune teller. Andretti was, yet again, not up to Senna to choose. Heck the team didn't even know that Senna would drive for them untill the last hour. Much different than the MS situation at Ferrari.

I do disagree with you and your take of the MS situation at Ferrari. Your views are just a bit too rose colored for me. MS was in the position to pretty much hand pick what he wanted in the team. Senna was not in that same position like you are making it sound. MS did what he did for himself. He was no more a team player than Senna was. The thing that strikes me most was that MS was ruthless when he didn't have any reason to be. He was clearly the best of his era. His situation, along with questionable tactics only served to tarnish his legacy.

 

Haha! the guy learned the hard way just how much to tighten that nut didn't he.

 

Luis, I wish you would actually read my posts instead of just flying off the handle and jump to Senna's "defense" when it is completely unneccessary. Senna/Lotus was not brought up by me, it was cited by you and Senna3xWC. And I completely agree with you, the arguement is weak, because each situation is very different, thus I said the following: "BY YOUR LOGIC" and reasoning, both Schumacher and Alonso are better than Senna....". Again, the logic used for this discussion is yours, not by. And yes, I don't blame Senna for leaving Lotus, which is why I said that things may have been different had Chapman not died, as he can surely bring in the resource needed etc. Again, fact is: Senna never did win a title with Lotus, yes? So I guess using Senna's time at Lotus (Again, not an example brought up by me)is not such a great example afterall then, yes?

Our opinions differs here, and we will just leave it at that.

You often accuse of others here being "too rose" colored, and yet at the same time, you and a few others, who just also happens to be Senna-fans, are extremly critical of Ferrari and Schumacher. You may not have noticed it, but most of your posts, esepcially if it involves Aryton Senna, shows nothing but obssession. Not saying that is wrong at all, but all I am saying is, IMO and I say it with the upmost respet to you, please don't jump to the conculsion and start to accuse of someone of seeing everything in "rose color" as it is also evident that you see everything with a yellow tint.

You don't actually think that Mika and DC belong in the same catagory as drives, do you? IMO, Mika is way better than DC. It may not have been in the contracts, but it is crystal clear that during that time, McLaren team belongs to Mika, not DC. Again, can you give me an example of a team with two equally capable drivers that shares equal status within the past 15 years.
As for JPM/RS and JPM/KR teams, you can't honestly say that those two teams were operating with harmony as they clearly weren't. There were always bickering and accusations being made, JPM left in the middle of last season, in case you happens to forget.

Luis, we are only spectators and we can all easily tell that none of the drives were close to Senna, which is a testment to how great Senna was. Senna saw and raced against all of them, trust me on this, Senna knew exactly what those drivers can or can not do. To think otherwise, IMO, is a little naive. The principle is the same, just that there is not a contract for them as oppose to MS/Ferrari. BTW, still and just wondering, has it really been confirmed that there really is a contract, has anyone actually seen a copy or print out of it or is this just something that is believed to be in the contract?

There is no doubt that MS did things that favored himself, and rightfully so, just like Senna did for himself. Let us be clear about somethings here, MS was no saint, he makes and made mistakes just like you and I, just like any drivers before him and any drivers will after him. Key point here is that Michael Schumacher is not so much the VILLIAN that some of you paint him out to be. He was a F1 GP driver, a highly competitive one, just like yours and many others' hero, the great late Aryton Senna.

PS: Please note that I write the following with no disrepect to you: But please read my posts with care as I do with yours. Many of the points being argued here and in the past between you and I were toward my counter points to examples raised by you. By making a double negative comment, you simply made your own arguemnts and examples invalid, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place. Thank you.

 

I have to admit that I have always been team first, drivers second. I wouldn't go as far as saying that I dislike or hate any driver, I just don't want to see them beat Ferrai and its drivers. With that said, I have to admit that I can't stand seeing FA's method of celebration on the podium. If he should ever join Ferrari, I would wish he will tone it down at least a little. Can you think of anyone past or present who does the same thing as FA does after a win? I can't.

 

great debate.

 

Thanks. I love F1 and I love talking about F1. Both Tony and Luis and many others here carry with them great knowledge and wisdom about F1, chatting with them makes me learn something new about F1 each and every single time. I got to admit, I have not had this much fun talking about F1 for a long, long time.

I do try not to be "rosey" if I can help it, but I also admit that I am a Tifosi at heart.

Please feel free to add to the debate, love to read about other's view on this too.

 

No he didn't win a title with Lotus. Could he have? maybe we'll never know

Anthony, if i seemed yellow tinted to you that's fine but most of the feelings I express about MS and Ferrari at the time have nothing to do with Senna. Having a contractual number two like MS did seemed not only unsporting but also cowardly on MS's part. A driver's position within the team should be descided on the track, nowhere else. I'm not the only person that feels this way and i have trouble giving MS the same accolades that others do becuase of this.

If you think back, when DC first got to McLaren he was the faster driver. After Mika won a few races he hit his stride and was off and running. Hindsight being 20/20, Mika was the better driver but it didn't start out that way. DC always tried his best and didn't complain. In 2000 when Mika seemed to fall off he was right there with a chance to win the title. In other cases, and we can debate them on a case by case basis but that would be pointless and time consuming, but there have been several cases of teams that had all sorts or turmoil inside but still won titles. (Williams with Mansell and Piquet for example) This is a sport first and foremost, competive people will be at odds from time to time. Par for the course

The only one close to Senna was Prost at the time. There wasn't anyone else out there that could even give Senna a hard time on a regular basis, but on those occasions that Berger or whomever was faster he was allowed to keep the win or the position.
I've never seen the contract, it's probably never been made public, but if you watched F1 live on speed this year, Barrichello's comments make it fairly obvious something that did exsist.

Anthony, I repect your opinions even if i don't agree with them. it bothers me to hear people, and i don't mean you, saying all this stuff about MS being the ultimate team player when he was not. That's a rose colored opinion to me. To think he always had the team's best interests at heart was laughable. He played for himself. MS was no villian, but I don't see him as a saint as some others make him out to be, again not referring to you. I will however say that your earlier arguement about 99 with the broken leg and he not wanting to come back etc, your opinion on that was VERY rose colored. If he was not fit the FIA would not have cleared him to drive. Obviously he didn't want to help Irvine get the title. After he first got hurt, he still went to the races. When Irvine won and got close to Mika, MS started staying home. Why, only he knows but read into it what you will.



Some of the points are secondary arguements with other people. Since I only catch what you are writing back, that's what I respond to. I'll try to keep better track in the future
Thanks for the debate, this is how it should be done. By the way wasn't this thread supposed to be about Alonso???

 

Excellent debate, I am not getting into this one as Luis is doing an excellent job as well as Anthony C. It is nice knowing you guys were watching F1 during my personal favorite period which was the 80's.

Really Bernie Eccelstone summed it up the best, there was a Cig Paper between Michael and Ayrton as far as drivers. Thats how close they were matched.

 

IIRC, DC came over to McLaren from Williams ( I still remember when he drove into the pitwall as he came in to pit his car in one of the races) before Williams' decline. Incidentally, MH came over from Lotus to McLaren, just like Senna, not too long ago, and he was just coming off a serious back injury which required grafting around that time. He may have been cleared to drive, but believe me, to be prepared for F1 racing again will need more than a few months of rehab, not to mention the psycological front of being back in the cockpit of a F1 car again. At that time, McLaren was also trying to re-organize the team as they went through a series of engine suppliers in search of a decent partner (Puegot being one of them, which was a disaster by itself) and Mercedes/Ilmor had just came aboard. IMO, MH/McLaren needed the time to recover, and once things settled, MH took off and left DC in the dust.

And yes, I agree that a dysfunctional team can still be competitive and be successful, but it has not happened in the recent 15 years. It can happen, just much harder. IMO, why shoot yourself in the foot first before running the marathon?

The once-in-awhile part is what I am having trouble with, there are times that RB or EI was clearly faster than MS, but that does not mean that they are in the same class as MS, to think otherwise is just foolish. Same applies to AS and any other driver of that era, minus AP of course, there was no one better than AS, period. As for the "Team Order" contract, I am still not sure that it actually exist on paper as we still have not yet seen any solid proof of it. However, I would not be a bit surprised that RB or EI were ordered to move over during their time at Ferrari with MS. Team order has existed way before MS was even borned and it will continue to exist. IMO, RB is a lot more of a drama queen than EI and EI was a lot more similar to GB as both of them are well aware and acknowlege of the fact that they are easily out classed by their team mates.

I know about the LdM story, but I was not aware that MS was medically cleared by his doctor or not at that time. I am not talking about FIA's doctor or LdM's doctor, I am talking about his own surgeon. Speaking from a physician's POV, if anyone ever gave a patient of mine any sort of medical clearance without my consent, there will be hell to pay if anything should ever happen to the patient afterward. If MS indeed was cleared by his own doctor at the time of the LdM story, and if this story turns out to be true, then I stand corrected on this topic.

Alonso who? the backup center for Miami Heat?

It is so much more fun to talk about MS and AS, FA still has ways to go before he can be mentioned in the same sentence as those two (I can see FA fans popping a vein already, I will just get ready for all the hate-mails now.)

Seriously tho, I too really enjoyed this debate. It is always interesting to see things from another perspective and to read well written posts. Thank you for letting me be part of this, it has been a lot of fun. Have a nice weekend, Luis.

You are such a wuss, jump on in, we are all friends here Have a nice weekend, Tony.

 

this is really a great debate. i enjoy reading ur posts very much, also, Luis's and Tony's. everyone seems to be adding lots of facts, and looking at things at every angle possible. also great everyone is showing a good amount of respect for each other.

 

This is an excellent debate. Good thread.

 

I've been reading your debate for few days and I LOVE it. The only thing that I can 100% agree with is that FA has not yet deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with MS and AS.
However if you would like to hear the opinion of someone who really counts and knows a thing or two about F1 then you should check out the "60 years ferrari issue" of Motor Sports magazine. There is an interview with Nicki Lauda in there and he has a few things to say about the MS days at Ferrari. And as a TIFOSO I can't hold back saying this: Senna fans, please read the article twice and read between the lines too.

 

lucky_13_2002 could you post up a pic of the front cover

 

Its kick arse racing we want to see.Alonso did him fair and square,both will get over it.Massa fell short at the final hurdle and Alonso should have left it at that.He got around Massa and got squeezed for his trouble.Bring on more close racing i reckon,otherwise they both had better get used to watching the rear spoiler of Lewis Hamilton!

 

Up to the point that DC joined the team, Mika hadn't won yet while DC had with Williams. Mika, to that point, was pretty erratic. It was by no means expected that Mika would blow DC into the weeds like he did. Mika seemed to become another driver from 97 on. Before that he didn't show any of the signs of the Mika we all came to know.

Formula one teams are first and foremost about competition. What works for one team doesn't always mean it can work for another. MS's situation at Ferrari was different than any other driver's was before or since. Even now with Kimi and Felipe they no longer operate that way. Teammates should be allowed to race each other. Then, going into the last few races, with the title at stake, whomever is in the points lead at the time, should be helped by the other driver. The MS arrangement just seemed to suck all the sport out of it. I mean when you have a car so dominant, and a teammate that can't even race you, then what's the point in that? It got boring for me, and i suspect many others, very quickly.

Yes MS was clearly better than RB or EI. Those times that RB or EI were faster than MS didn't mean that they were better than him of course, that is not the suggestion. The problem I have with the whole thing was when RB was told to move over when the title wasn't even at stake. Austria 2002 just took the team order concept to another level. If you want any proof that some sort of number two contract existed, look no further than this race. Todt was on the radio pleading with Barrichello to move over. RB clearly did not want to do any such thing but did in the end. Now, I don't know for sure, but I can say with 99 percent certainty that he did not do it out of the goodness of his heart. He moved over because he had to. Now RB might be the one to blame here, he did sign such a contract but i'm sure he did not expect to be asked to move over for Michael when it was just May. He did have the right to think this was unfair, I mean why even bother to show up at this point. Why would he even push hard if he wasn't going to be allowed to race his teammate. There were team orders in the past but never that early in the season. Like i stated before, with the title on the line ok, but at the 5th race of the year? Proof enough for me.

I don't know for sure about the LdM story, but that's the way i heard it. Just the way the whole scenario reads clearly showed that MS wasn't even thinking about getting back in the car that year. If MS was that concerned with Ferrari winning that year it would have been his top priority to get back in the car ASAP. Instead MS was home playing soccer with his kids, lol. If Irv was going to win the title he was clearly on his own. All this does is debunk the whole "team player" myth about MS.

Alonso is a great driver and has a personality which hasn't been the case with other past drivers, he speaks his mind and doesn't seem to care about what people think of this. At his young age and with what he's already accomplished he could very well break many of MS's records, including championships. That remains to be seen. He seems to have traits of both MS and Senna but he's not in thier class quite yet.

It is way more fun to talk about MS and AS, but sadly those days are gone. I will however, say this. I love the way formula one is right now. A close fight between two teammates hanging on to a points lead against a team with a faster car and two quick drivers motivated to beat them is the stuff legendary seasons are made of. The political side with all the espionage adds spice to the whole thing. Anyone who preferred those years with MS and Ferrari leading races wire to wire with whoever was in the second car trailing behind should have thier head examined. This is Formula one at it's best.

Great debate Anthony, it's always a pleasure to discuss my passion with a knowledgeable person that shares the same passion even if our views differ. Have a good and safe weekend......

 

although, it can be said that you just never know when those extra couple of points might have been needed....and sometimes they were.

 

Yes true, but where's the sport in that? If he was faster that day he should have been allowed to win.

 

well...i'll spell it out...that's the little picture...not the big picture...and you can't say their logic was flawed. the results speak for themselves.

 

I've just read the book "Formula Ferrari" and Montezemolo says about this at the beginning of the 2000 season:
"Barrichello will not be the water carrier for Schumacher. I've put the same clause in Barrichello's contract as in Schumacher's: both drivers have to abide team orders and instructions. There is no number one or two driver. The interests of the team go above those of the drivers." The book further states that there were some clauses in Schumacher's contract that gave him first choice of parts which according to the book isn't uncommon with the drivers of Schumacher's stature.

Nelson Piquet once told in an interview at the end of 1987 that his contract clearly stated that he was the number one driver yet he claimed that his team favored Mansell so he was not a happy camper. Which shows that this has been in the sport longer than some may remember. And what about Scheckter-Villeneuve and Villeneuve-Pironi? Or Alboreto-Johansson?

 

The "Formula Ferrari" book says that they didn't want a repeat of the 1997-1998-1999 seasons where they lost the titles by a fraction. With that in mind they wanted to play it absolutely safe. With hindsight they admit it wasn't necessary but they put the interest of the team before that of Barrichello's. The book points out that from that race on they didn't push that hard on the team interest anymore due to the criticism.

 

Having won four out of the first five races justifies that logic? MS had 44 points at the time of the Austrian GP, second place at the time, Montoya had 28 and was running 3rd in that race. No real threat to MS. You don't have to spell it out. It was unnessecary. Period. It made 2002 out to be one of the most boring seasons ever.

 

Not true mate. Schumacher said himself during his time at Benetton that it was unfortunate that Mika didn't have a more competitive car, because he's very fast. Let us not forget, that Mika qualified ahead of Ayron his first time out. I believe it was James Hunt who pegged him as a future world champion, around the F3/Lotus days. Also, DC damn well should have won in that Williams, the Williams cars were the best on the grid from 92-97. So people knew that Mika was something special before he took off at Mclaren, people like Hunt, Senna, Schumacher etc. all acknowledged his abilities early on.

 

Only to be superceded by the 04 season as one of the most boring ever.

 

no, '88 was the most boring, except for the Monza GP

 

BS! at least teammates raced in 88........