Wasn't it Senna who took Prost out?
Prost almost won in 90 and that didn't count to you did it? Almost doesn't count. MS srewed himself in 97, he was beaten and couldn't accept it. 96 was a great year for him. He has made and continues to make huge mistakes under pressure. And no Prost didn't take out Senna it was the other way around. Senna wanted pole on the other side of the track which they had agreed to before qualifying then Balestre said no, leave it how it is giving Prost the better side of the track, which pissed Senna off. He always thought Balestre had it in for him so he nailed Prost at the first turn at Suzuka to win the title. P.S. It was a questionable move on Hill in adelade that won MS the title. He hit the wall, broke his suspension and was out of the race. He seemed to make sure Hill hit him.
Well then, I guess you don't have much to add to the debate then, do you? I, on the other hand, have been following the sport since the mid-1970s and I am sure there are others here who have followed it even longer. There are many, many excellent books on F1 to help educate you to the sport. I suggest you read them. Trying to argue career achievements with an understanding of the sport only since 1998 is like trying to argue who the greatest hitter in baseball is, not knowing anything about Ted Williams or Babe Ruth. If all you know is MS, then all you know is MS. You need to get your facts straight: 1) MS competed against Senna until Ayrton's death in 1994. His record against Senna is something you really don't want to bring up. 2) MS ran an illegal car in 1994. Look up "option 13" in a google search and see how Benetton tried to hide their illegal traction control. 3) MS drove for 3 teams, not two. He made his debut in a Jordan. 4) Senna was champion his first year at McLaren, Prost was very nearly champion his first year at Ferrari. How long did it take MS to become a title threat, let alone a title winner, at Ferrari? 5) Senna, Prost and Mansell all drove with world champions as teammates and never ducked competition in equal cars. The same cannot be said of MS. 6) MS has two well-known and well-written-about weaknesses as a driver. He is weak under pressure and h has difficulty making passes against an equal car. JPM exploited this on several occasions, Alonso has benefited from this, and how can anyone forget Mika Hakkinan's move on him at Spa? If MS is known for anything regarding overtaking, it is his willingness to drive his overtaker off the road to keep his position. Senna, on the other hand, was absolutely brilliant in overtaking. Only Senna could have had an opening lap like Donington '93. MS, on his best day of his life, could never drive a lap like that. 7) Lastly, to assume that MS could still win 7 championships with Senna around is to make two huge, and flawed, assumptions. First, you assume he would have won any in a Benneton. He barely held off Damon Hill in both 1994 and 1995. Hill, while competent, was by his own admission a fraction of the driver that Senna was. If Hill could keep pace with MS, what do you seriously think Senna would have done? Secondly, you assume that MS would have gotten the Ferrari drive. Ferrari had openly courted Senna throughout much of his career. Had the team been looking to build, under Todt, the first driver they would have approached would have been Senna. This is not even debateable. MS, at that time, was the best available driver. There is NO way that a team, with all the resources at their availability, would have selected a driver like MS over a proven World Champion like Senna. You have to remember that the vast, vast majority of MS's wins came AFTER Senna had died. When the two of them competed together, it was all MS could do to stay with Senna, let alone even think of beating him. MS never once outdrove Senna, the only way he could hope to win was if Senna encountered a problem. There is a very real and very credible argument that had Senna lived, MS might have never won so much as one single World Championship. We can debate this to your heat's content. But to argue that MS was a better driver? Nonsense.
If you want to discuss winning races in a crappy car, first talk about Senna in a McLaren/Ford in 1993 winning 5 races against the Williams that Autosport once declared was the greatest F1 car of all time. Most experts consider his race at Donington that year to be the single greatest drive in F1 history.
- In 1994, the year of his death, Senna ran ONLY 3 GPs with Williams. He didn't finish any. Undeniably MS became the 'wonder kid' that year, but owes his first title to a debatable move against Damon Hill in Australia. If MS is superior to Senna, we will never know. Period. - Prost and Mansell didn't win a championship while at Ferrari. True, they both did driving Williams & McLaren, proof enough that they were able to clinch the title if the car & the team was good enough. Don't forget that both were at the Scuderia BEFORE the Jean Todt-Ross Brown-Rory Byrne era. Prost and Mansell commented at the time how it has been a shock for them to move from British based teams to Ferrari. Todt and Brown brought with them a lot of discipline to Ferrari and some working methods. Prost commented in the French Press that after his first test, he wanted some modifications to the car; things like a bit more castor here, disconnecting roll bars, changing brake bias, etc... and the mechanics almost went on strike on him! I think it was Mansell who said that he really trusted the pressure on his tyres, after he checked himself! Ross Brawn had to introduce the unpopular rule: no Lambrusco during GPs! Ferrari was at low ebb before Jean Todt arrived, just like it was in the doldrums before Luca de Montezemolo came with Lauda on board. Between Luca and Jean, they had crap team managers like Audetto or Fioro who never understood F1 or drivers.
And his lap before the crash was the 3rd fastest of the race. Hill and MS didn't go faster till thier cars were light on fuel (no refuelling then)
It seems I have offended quite a few of you. Anyways, thanks for the history lesson, but I am sticking to my opinion about Micheal, I think he is the best. I think he can race for at least a couple more years and still be competitive. Senna, Prost, Mansell were all great, but I did not grow up with them. It was a different era. Cars and drivers were different, too young for me to remember. Micheal was just starting to shine back then and I got to see him at his prime. It was amazing for me to see him break all the records in F1 . I am sure the Donington race that Senna was so dominant is probably the best race in F1, but I didn't see it. Even if I saw it today after so many years its not going to be same as when the rest of you watched it live. For me the best race I ever saw in F1 is when Micheal's mother passed away during '04 San Marino Grand prix. After qualify, he was with his mother all night , didn't get a hours of rest, then races the next morning and practically laps the whole field, thats was quite amazing to me. So for me to say Micheal is the best is not nonsense. Its just my opinion and I have a right to argue it.
Nobody is offended, you have the right to feel how you feel. Having an intelligent debate is what makes this forum fun. A lot of people here get annoyed when people start that whole arguement because of a certain troll83. But seriously if you can try to watch some of the old races, i didn't see a lot of them live but they are still in my opinion the golden age of F1. You'll also see why many people feel that MS will never hold a candle to Senna.
According to the not very reliable newspaper Bild Michael Schumacher will retire at the end of this season: http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/sport/aktuell/2006/09/06/schumacher-ruecktritt-monza/michael-schumacher-ruecktritt.html He is one of the greatest drivers in F1 history, like Fangio, Senna or Prost, not to mention the pre-WW2 drivers like Rosemann, Carraciola etc.. There is no possibility to find the best driver of all times, the cars they had to handle in nearly 60 years of F1 aren't comparable.
Thanks and I would like to see the races with Senna, Prost and Mansell. I got to watch some of them during F1 decade, but Hobbs and Matchett made them really boring and they condense the races in one hour.
I completely agree that MS is ONE of the best drivers of all time, that issue is barely arguable. My point is that in no way can he be considered THE greatest. By its very nature, this type of debate is completely subjective. After all, what constitutes the "Greatest Driver"? It is all a matter of opinion. However there is also a tendency to favor the recent over the past and people have a tendency to overestimate performances that they see and underestimate the achievements of those that have gone before. CRG is a perfect example of this, by his own admission he is ignorant of the caliber of drivers like Senna, Clark or Fangio yet he feels completely warranted to make such claims about MS. As for me, before I declare Tiger Woods the greatest of all time I think I would do a little research into Jack Nicklaus, Sam Snead or Ben Hogan (especially since I don't know a damn thing about golf). When CRG declares MS as the greatest of all time, what he really should be saying is that MS is the greatest driver of CRG's time. As for you, CRG, I actually envy you. You have not yet had the experience of learning how great some of these other drivers truly are. Jimmy Clark was the winningest driver in F1 history at the time of his death. Yet he finished second exactly ONCE. What does that tell you? If he was in a position to win, he won. And Senna? If you don't know Senna, then son you don't know F1. I suggest you pick up one of the tribute CDs and learn a little about the man. There simply was no racer more exciting to watch. I have never seen his equal nor do I believe I will ever see his successor.
IMO, Senna, Fangio, MS, can't be compared to each other. both were the greatest, in their era. someone pointed out that the tech wise and the cars were indeed different from those days and now. yes. very true. thats why i always refrain from comparing different drivers from different eras. i'm lucky enough to witness michael's era, possibly the best ever era in Formula one. i'm also a big fan of schumi, whatever said and done. having said that, i still didn't forget other great drivers like senna, in particular. IMO, senna can be compared to mansell, and prost. while MS can be compared to mika, hill, etc. i think they should be only compared to drivers within their eras. i don't think it's logic to compare diff drivers from diff tech, diff driving materials, diff rules, etc etc. it's just like comparing wayne rooney to pele. even if roo scores 5000 goals his entire career, i don;t think it's fair to compare him to pele. the ball they used were different. those heavy leather nail-studded boots can't be compared to these days's feather light boots, and the ball that can move about in the air when a kick in executed on it. bottom line is, MS is the greatest driver for me of his era, his generation. same goes to senna, fangio, GV, etc, etc.
Excellent post as always. Brian great post as well, now go to sleep, what time is it in Malaysia anyway.
Lol..thanx Tony. it was about 2 am when i posted that. 1230 pm now, thurs afternoon. have a nice day man.
There can be a bit of a comparison between Senna and MS because they did race each other, albeit for not long enough. The eras are not that different.
Imo it was time to retire right before he beat Fangio's championship record. I have the deepest respect for Fangio's achievements that I didn't want to see his record go. Even Ayrton Senna wanted to quit before he broke it to due to respect for his great friend. Now when done is done I'm not sure if I want to him leave or not. Would take alot of thinking to make up my mind on that. However I'm more interested in what Kimi is going to do, when that's decided I think I can make up my mind.
it's hard to judge this. true. they did race against each other in the past, but senna was in a williams...the best car at that time, while michael was just maturing! but, it'll be a classic should senna had lived.
Good catch! I forgot about that. I believe the win ratio that year was 5:1 in favor of Senna in a chassis that was inferior to the Benetton.
