|
Just because a driver is good or had some wins doesn't mean he automatically should have won the drivers championship. Very few people in the history of mankind have won GP's, let along have that extra brilliance to win a championship. You have to (usually - some exceptions) be special, great to win it. Most drivers who 'deserved' to win the world championship did so with very few exceptions.
Coulthard - no, couldn't beat Mika or Kimi and was prone to too many off days and mistakes. Never looked like winning the championship in all his years there and had a competitive car for most of it.
Berger - no, won 3 races with McLaren (first one gifted to him by Senna after 2 years winless) during when Senna won 2 championships and a host of races. Good on his day - which was only every so often but never a world beater. Also had access to competitive cars more often than not.
Alesi - no, was temperamental. He was described as 'mercurial' for a reason. Didn't exactly put Berger away either. Wouldn't have had the brain to put a championship together. A disillusioned Prost, past his best still put Alesi well and truly away in 91.
Barrichello - no, was murdered by Schumacher, regardless of the way the team was set up. Schumacher usually was well ahead so that it didn't matter. If RB was good enough, he would have been tucked up behind MS a lot. Had his measure sometimes but that's not enough.
Webber - no, Vettel was better in the same car and by a lot over their seasons together. Blown diffuser issues or not, them's the facts. Possibly if he's had a better car earlier in his career, may have developed a more winning habit? Regardless, he was never an Alonso/Lewis/Seb/Kimi (once upon a time) though, they being the best of his main era.
Note the drivers I'm comparing the above guys against which stops them from being in this bracket - they were being beaten by the best, the chosen few special talents.
All the guys above were good, in the same way Martin Brundle was good - easily good enough to win races in the right machinery but a world championship? Qualifying aside, Brundle gave Schumacher a good run in the races in 02. MS only won one race on 02 so the car was only picking up the scraps from the Williams domination and McLaren leftovers.
I also think (and not intending to be cruel) that drivers who were killed early in their career kind of don't count in an argument like this. There's not enough evidence to say they would have been champions. Stefano Modena looked great in F3 and 3000 for example. Had he been lost to F1 in some way, people would have listed him here.
Moss for example had a largely full career and gave it a bloody good go, this is the type of driver we should be talking about. The fact he didn't win it doesn't diminish his brilliance. Bellof and Brise weren't around long enough unfortunately to say if they would have been or not. Bellof actually had a flaw that perhaps contributed to him being killed - no other world champ had a bravery bordering on a death wish - you can't win a world championship driving without due care for ones own safety in the way Bellof (and Gilles) did.
Kubica could easily be in this bracket but again we'll never know (or we might depending on what Williams do). Kubica was a far better prospect than any of the guys listed above in my 'no' camp. He was a genuinely special driver.
I think of Bellof, Brise etc. as great lost talents sure but future world champs is a bit of a stretch, lots of ifs and buts to overcome.
There are really very few drivers who didn't win the world championship but should have.
|