Which drivers do you think are OVER-rated?

Perhaps you should read beast's comments as well as look at F1 history. I have been a die-hard F1 fan since 1977 and consider myself to know a thing or two...certainly not the be-all-end-all. However, to say that intangibles such as attitude, temper control, ego and the like are NOT relevant factors is, IMHO, short-sighted. In all forms of motor racing, and especially F1, the landscape has been historically filled with guys that have a lot of the pieces, but are ultimately woulda', coulda', shoulda's. To say MS and JPM, in the same car, on the same day, with the same set of circumstances, all things being equal (except God-given talent) would be EQUAL is incorrect. JPM has a lot to still prove, aside from speed.

 

That's because you can't read. (just kidding) Maybe i can't write

Lucky?

MS is a great driver and he has the best car. Not good for the sport in the last two years, to know who will win before you turn on the TV. Tiger Woods almost ruined golf, when he won so much for two years it was only a contest to see who would come in second.

When I say "lucky".... the point is that he worked hard for many years in F1, but for the last 3 years he is "lucky" in terms of being the best driver with no one close, and having a great car with no one close. All the stars and moons have just lined up in the right way for this man.

A great driver can win 4 or 5 championships in 7 years. But you have to be lucky and have a weak field to win 7 in a ROW! MS is lucky that a better car with a better driver has not shown up in 7 years in a row?

MS is over rated by anyone that fails to admit that timing in history has something to do with such a long un-broken string of victories.

admitting this takes nothing away from MS and his record, it just shows you are based in reality (many sports fans are not) and it shows the weakness of F1 and all the jokes about no passing and how the races are a bit dull compaired to years past.

 

Really? What's so absurd about the statement? What great teams did Senna, Prost or Mansell develop? Prost was known as a car setup guy, but Senna and Mansell were more "arrive and drive" types of guys, not guys that could, by their sheer will, take a dormant team and make it dominant.

What bad teams did they go to, and relatively immediately turn into dominant teams? Ferrari was nothing before MS, unless you want to go back to ancient history.

As far as Senna/Prost v. MS, that is unfortunately a question that can never really be answered, just like Chamberlin v. O'Neil in basketball, etc. Senna's death in '95 was certainly unfortunate for the F1 world - Senna v. a seasoned Schumacher would have been an epic rivarly.

 

By the way, I think history will prove me right - MS's number of Championships, whatever that number ends up being, is a record that will NEVER be broken, by any driver, on any team.

 

Random thoughts on the issue.

One of my favorite hypotheticals pertains to where the numbers would have fallen had Senna not perished. Unfortunately, he did, which greased the path for Michael's incredible career achievements.

I agree that Schumacher's ultimate career totals in wins, championships, etc. will very unlikely be surpassed (WAY out on a limb there, I know).

Fangio was a notorious team-jumper, which aided in his success.

I've gone back and forth on the issue of MS as contractual #1 on the team. On the surface it's easy to feel that he's avoided competition, somehow diminishing his accomplishments. But at the same time this has played a big role in defining the parameters at Ferrari, hastening their rise to success. Think about it this way: Since 1996, what driver out there could have possibly outraced him, given the chance, as a teammate in equal machinery? I think nobody. Yet if that were the case, it would have served only as an occasional distraction to the team. Look at Williams.

 

Sorry, I guage drivers on performance performances in recent memory(2-3 years) with consideration of the car, of course. Looking at Alonso, he just doesn't strike me as the next dominant force in F1.

 

I agree 100% with this. The guy is plain fast.

 

I'm glad you don't scout for F1. You must take a drivers whole career into account for this topic.

 

Here's a contrary view...

I think most of the drivers today are pretty under-rated... due to the level of dominance achieved by MS and Ferrari. I believe MS is one of the greatest drivers of all time, from a pure-driving sense... though probably not a "god" behind the wheel. But what sets him apart is his ability to help assemble a team, to give the team the input and encouragement it needs, and then fully take advantage of the result. In that, which is part of being a driver in Formula One (unlike many other series), MS is a "god".

As a result, everyone else looks sad in comparison. So, I might re-word the question, "who is the least under-rated drivers?" , at least when referring to their ability behind the wheel.

 

I'm not so sure... JPM is a great driver behind the wheel... but it's not so clear to me that he'll ever be able to assemble a team to take him to the top. Mclaren seems lost at the moment... I don't see JPM, the driver, enough to transform them... they need all the ingredients.

If MS sticks around to 2008, JPM and Ron Dennis butt heads, then JPM goes off to some other team, by the time he is able to get somewhere and build a team that can dominate the MS-less ranks, he may be too old! Or worse, for him, another great driver who is better able to work with and help along a whole team may come along and get established.

Only time will tell...

 

>>>>>>>>>>>"In past years... you always had 2 or 3 superstars."<<<
Damon Hill
Mika Hakkinen
Jacques Villeneuve
Ayrton Senna
Alain Prost
Nigel Mansel

They were all below Michael S for their whole career?
There are about 10 more names I could list here.

>>"Also you didn't have one Manufacture with the clearly dominante car."<<<
HEY FREAKSHOW! Where have you been! Remember the Mclaren cars a few years ago? They could orbit the moon in about 30 seconds! And MS still gave them one hell of a run. That is the exact same situation here. Other than the drivers. MS is in a better car so instead of him using his skill to close the gap on the faster cars, he is increasing the gap. If you know nothing about F1 history please don't post.

>>>>>>>>>>>"MS is over rated because he has luck on his side."<<<
You do know, that there is no such thing as luck, right?
If I bust my a$$ as a lawyer for 10 years and win most of my cases, am I lucky? Or did I learn a bunch of sh*t from busting my ******* a$$! I'll take the second one Alex.

>>>>>>>>>>>>"Dropped into F1 without a Prost or Sena or Mansal or all 3.<<
WTF is that? Don't you know who was in F1 when MS {dropped is the wrong word. Entered or stepped into, world be better, but I think you're bashing so I'll let it go.}
Since you know so much about F1, who was following Senna in '94 when he crashed? BINGO MA'AM! Michael ******* Schumacher! Read a book!

>>>>>>>>>>>>"Its been years since you could turn on the TV and wonder who might win. Use to be a toss up at every race."<<<<<
That happens when ever a team gets an edge! Just like when Williams had it in 97 and Mclaren a couple of years later.

>>>>>>>>>>>>"Luck and timing are important to MS winning 6 in a row."<<<
Michael Schumacher didn't win 6 championship in a row! What's the matter with you??? MS won in '94 and '95 with a middle of the pack car, then he moved to Ferrari in '96 and '97 and started building. Then Mclaren had a kick*ss car and won 2 in a row. Then MS won in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

>>>"But if he was in a lesser car beating the Ferrari I would rate him higher.
Or if he was beating a better driver I would rate him higher."<<<
You clearly aren't qualified to rate anyone. He beat every single person in 94 and 95 in a sh*tty car. So he was beating the better cars with a lower ranked car. If he was in the top car in F1, why would he move to Ferrari? IT'S BECAUSE HIS CAR WAS SUCKY! AND WANTED A BETTER CAR! WHAMO!!! GUESS WHAT HAPPENED!?!?!?

>>>>"Put the best driver in the best car and no one can touch him. Well...I rate him as lucky."<<<<<<<<<
Which is it??!!??!!? Is he lucky or is he the best driver??? You are all over the damn map again! Knock it off!

>>>>>>"But I expect him to win... he wins... so he is not beating expectations."<<<
If I imagine you falling off a building, then I throw you off of a building then I wouldn't be surprised either! Holy crap! There is no logic in the black hole you live in!

>>>>>>"Yet the world treats him like a God."<<<
Who said that? Quote a writer from an F1 mag and post the link here.
He's a man who makes mistakes. He just make less mistakes and the ones he makes aren't as severe as other drivers'.

>>>>"Its a stretch but I rate people as going above and beyond when they beat expectations."<<<
Again, he won 2 world championships back to back starting in his {3rd or 4th} season! Give me a break! Who thought he would do that?!?!

>>>>>>"Its not MS fault that he doesn't have a better racer or a better car to chase and beat in an incredable finish. Just the luck and timing of history.
His fault? It was his damn goal! Why do you think people all over the world work so hard?! Maybe to be great at what they do?!?! Again you go with luck! Senna didn't die because he was unlucky. He died because of low tire pressure and a bad hop by his wheel. I don't think you wrote all of this crap and mis-information because you were unlucky enough to mis-word your sentences. I think you wrote it because you are trying to win an award for p*ssing me off. I'm not sure why or how, but I'm working on that.

>>>>>>>>"MJ was winning games and leading his team to championships just by sheer "WILL" and raw determination:<<<<
If I loved basketball, could I do what he did? NO! He didn't "will" the ball in the net! He had skill! I'm willing you to smash your face across the screen and I'm determined that it will happen, but you know what, as with "luck", the word "will" as in hoping somthing will happen, isn't real. You can't "will" yourself to pick the ace of spades out of a deck and you can't "will" a basketball championship. I'm guessing you take this stance whenever your team is losing or when another teams wins a championship? Yeah, that sounds right.

There, I'm done. And I'm not going to touch your other spastic posts either. I love Ferrari and I love Michael Schumacher and I love all of this glory! But when it's over and they struggle to finish in the top 3 and MS retires, I will still shout Ferrari! At the top of my lungs because I like them, they work harder than anyone else and they are my team. They always have been my team. And now that they have my driver, I'm as happy as a pig in sh*t.
I hope they lay a beating on Mclaren and Williams for another 800 years! I will watch even if they lap the field 20 times a race. I love F1 and I know where it's been, I know where it's heading and I know where it should head.
And as for "luck", if you believe it exists, you have already lost it.
If you work hard enough and stay true to yourself and family, you won't need luck, because that ball will bounce you way every time.

 

It's a double-edged sword for the rest of the field. While they get to race side by side with arguably the greatest of all time, so too are they judged. What I'm wrestling with is the issue of whether or not the relative difficulty of driving today's F1 cars is easier, harder or about the same. I mean, why can 18 year-old novices from the lower ranks climb into these cars and get them up to competitive lap times in short order? Is it the cars, or are the developmental ranks that good? It's that exact reason that we will most likely never see another Schumacher. With cost-cutting a major issue, drivers' salaries are the easiest targets. Why pay Ralf $15 million when you can use Gene (just an example) for $1-2 million, put 10 million back into the car and still have a few mil laying around? F1 is at risk in the future of falling victim to the same economic pitfalls of other major sports, where anonymous free agents come and go without ever giving fans a chance to develop an attachment with them. Same goes for chasing new Grands Prix in far off places for cig money.

 

Obviously, but some people focus on the past a bit much. A driver who lit it up 5 years is not necessarily fast now. The most recent performances are the most accurate determinant of one's skill. The previous season is the best evidence of a driver's skill, with decreasing importance the farther away from the current season.....why am I even explaining this? This seems basic.

 

Uh-oh. Montoya is catching Ralf. Gotta do some campaigning.

 

Interesting point. In the future, the most important skill of an F1 driver may be to help lure advertising $$$, to not only pay their own salary and keep them there (so fans and advertisers can get attached to them), but to help fund the team to build and maintain the ultimate car for them to drive.

In that sense, the likes of Jeff Gordon may be exactly the right type of driver. Kind of like the Dallas Cowboys in US football, he has the most fans... he's the most loved... but he also has the most anti-fans... he's the most hated. But either way, people love to watch him (to cheer for or against him). If Jeff can figure out how to leverage that into a steady stream of endorsement money to keep an F1 team well-funded on the world stage (rather than the much smaller USA stage), then he might be a force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately for him, translating to a world stage is not so easy.

 

As of now, DC maintains a slim 4-point lead over JPM and Ralf who are tied for second. All 3 are far ahead of 4th spot. Interesting, given all 3 are likely to NOT be with their current teams next year. So, next year we'll all have a much better feel whether their current problems are their fault, or their team's fault! It'll be interesting to see what the evaluation is at the end of next season and compare to this.

 

Well 250 GTO already said it and I second that: Flavio Briattore took Alonso straight from Minardi under contract for the next few years. Sounds familiar? Yup, just like he did with a certain Schumacher after that one gave his debut in a Jordan at Spa.

There are a few really good talent scouts in F1. Briattore (MS, Alonso) and Sauber (Kimi) are two of them. These people look at the past of a driver and Alonso's past looks pretty darn good. But more importantly to be snatched up after a year of Minardi is a very good sign.

 

That's why I'd like to see the emphasis shift back to the driver. F1 has become tangled in its own web of being the most technically advanced series. The technology, in my opinion, has ceased to impress.

 

The 1st and 2nd versions were worse, much much worse. Deep in "banned" territory.
If you want to talk out of your *ss, go ahead, of me, so I, can, kick you square in the ball sack.

 

JPM - very overrated.
Trulli - truly average.
RS - not the complete package.
DC - average.
Massa - massively overrated. Needs to spend atleast another year in F3000.
da Matta - The reason that another F1 driver will struggle to emerge from USA.
Fisi - very overrated. Never, ever been impressive and yet he still gets a drive?
Panis - average. This is supposed to be F1 not club events.
Heidfield - average ...

What does that leave ... about 5 drivers. Note I have not selected the Minardi drivers and some other new ones, because I have not yet seen enough of them to make an informed decision.

Pete
ps: Good post BTW