"I drive a little bit better than the rest."

[Andrew2001]

Another head line @ F1-live.com and it cracked me up when I saw it.

Just imagine what Senna could have achieved with a slave as a team mate, or perhaps Prost, or Mansell or Stewart: you know, a team mate that actually drives for your personal results and position race after race.

Let's just say, for example, that Ferrari isn't the way it is today, and that Todt did what Ron did many years ago and hired the TWO best drivers currently in F1 and put them with the best car they could, JAcques Villeneuve, and Michael Schumacher, surely: the top 2 in 1996-1997. What kind of results and points tallys could we expect from a 3-4 year partnership of these two drivers carving up in the best car in F1 with the added bonus of bullet proof reliability - I personally believe a situation like this, like what Williams has always had, and the same with McLaren, would lead Schumacher to not have anything like 6 titles, or 75 wins.
but of course as has been said elsewhere, no other driver has had the luxury of not having a fast team mate. Barrichello is good, but he is no where near Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Villeneuve or Montoya.

We can only dream of what could be however.....

[Wrex]

Well first up, the 2 best drivers would be Michael and driver x (and that may be a different driver each year, and Villenueve would'nt be it anyway IMHO) over the last 4 years.

Secondly, while I think the number of race wins would be lower, the titles would be the same. Opinions will always differ, but Michael has'nt had an equal in the last 4 years.

Montoya, Kimi, Alonso and a couple of others may have given him a better run, and in a few races lead him across the finish line. But nobody has been quick and consistant enough to beat him over a season, team orders or not.

That said, we would have seen some better racing, knowing that at least 1 car had the chance to beat him.

[Peter Mallett]

Good lord. Another thread with those initials. Is there no stopping this man?

Agree that MS has had no real equal for some years.

[hamsmith]

I think JV and Michael Schumacher in the same team would be a disaster. They are both aggressive drivers and you can sense the i'll feeling between them, I think they would end up like Montoya and Little Bro, running each other off the track. Too competetive a combo.

[NiceGuyEddie]

And besides, JPM is nowhere near MS.

[Adam43]

The point is that Ferrari would not have achived more more if Schumacher's partner had been different (with the exception of 1999). Ferrari see it this way and they are the ones who chose the drivers.

[Mattracer]

Andrew, I repect that you don't like Schumacher at the outset but anyway:

Interesting topic!

If you were to put Schumacher with JV at Ferrari, then the results sheets would pretty much be the same as Ferrari has had the superior technical package since 2000 and perhaps since 1999. The only question would be the finishing order and you can bet that there is no way JV wou ld lie down and play dead for MS.

Same for JPM who is the only other driver to have made a decisive pass (passes) on MS since 2001 let alone make headlines of any sort on a consistent basis regarding the WDC as a season, not a burst of a few races then subside...

edit-typos

[alfasud]

A little bit misleading don't you think Andrew? Sure Senna did have Prost as a team mate for those two (?) years.

He also had Gerhard Berger and Michael Andretti. Now we don't know what contracts Berger and Andretti had (nor do we know what contract Rubens has), but if my memory serves me correctly, Berger's win at Suzuka 1991, was after Senna pulled over to let him through.... after Senna already had the championship won. Payback for accepting secend best equipment during the season maybe? Team orders maybe?

Who knows, but can you really say that Berger and Andretti were better than Rubens? Barrichello won more races in 2003 than Berger in 1991 and as for Andretti.... maybe the kindest thing to say is that Formula One didn't seem to suit him.

There is nothing new here.... a #1 driver and a less experienced/less able #2 driver... who knows he will sometimes have to accept second best, tends to be the rule rather than the exception, for most of the major teams.

Regarding your final statement.... Barrichello is good, but he is no where near Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Villeneuve or Montoya..... at their best, but with the possible exception of Hakkinen, none of these drivers seem to be at their best for more than a couple of races at a time.

I still hold out some hope for Kimi (when he has a better car), but to be ranked alongside MS, Senna and Prost and earn that #1 (or equal #1) status at Ferrari, you'd need to be able to race at that level for a whole season.

[kdr]

if they managed to sign him, wouldn't mclaren or williams organise their resources around schumacher exactly the same way as ferrari?

i would if i was them....or am i being too unromantic and pragmatic about f1?

[Adam43]

In some ways I don't think they would organise there team in the same way if they got Michael. However again these are their teams and they can run them how they want.

And maybe that is why they have never had Michael drive for them. Again his choice.

Originally posted by alfasud
but if my memory serves me correctly, Berger's win at Suzuka 1991, was after Senna pulled over to let him through.... after Senna already had the championship won. Payback for accepting secend best equipment during the season maybe? Team orders maybe?

Well Senna couldn't have a team mate like Prost every year! You are right about Suzuka, but I don't think your reasoning behind it is the case. Berger was a strong friend of Senna and Senn aalso appreciated the work they did together for the team. It was payback, but not because Berger had to defer to Senna. Berger would have been allowed to beat Senna in all but key championship deciders (where Gerhard was out of it). Andretti? I don't think he'd have come to F1 if he was to be just a monkey.

Also I don't think we have to justify Ferrari and Michael's position by trying make other situations the same. Ferrari might be different, so what? They can do what they want.

[Inigo Montoya]

I think he was quite humble. The reality is he drives A LOT better than the rest.

[Knowlesy]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Ferrari might be different, so what? They can do what they want.

....within reason.

[JohnSSC]

Here we go again.

Michael is head and shoulders above the rest right now. RB is (imho) as good as nearly every other driver out there right now including the "drivers" who are not out there but mentioned prominently in Williams Seat threads. JV has not been at the top of his game for a long time now and he will not be back - period.

Teams, imho, have had two "top" drivers strictly by accident as no one wants to put up with the sulking, griping and moaning over who is favoring who.

Senna gets mentioned a lot here and I guess the problem with being old is that seeing him perform within a team (rather than reading about it - no offense) he was none too thrilled to be nothing less than the Top Dog. His loss was tragic and robbed us of great moments I am sure, but let's drop the Sainthood thing here and remember that he was just as capable of desiring being the Number One on whatever team he was on.

Number Two drivers have, the vast majority of the time in F1 just that: Number Two. Look at Cevert and Stewart. Cevert was truly a great talent, but he was no threat to Stewart as everyone knew he was being groomed to replace Stewart and take over as Number One when Stewart retired. He was not there to "Provide competiton" or to "make it sporting" or whatever reasoning gets thrown out in these "Let's Gripe about Michael Threads."

Sometimes too we have to remember that sometimes the team produced such a good car that a Number Two looked like a Number One - until they went somewhere else.

I mean really, what if Jenson Button took a year off? Would he be able to beat Taku?

Harumph, etc.

[Peter Mallett]

[OFF TOPIC]
Mario Andretti and Ronnie Petersen.

Jody Schekter and Gilles Villeneuve.

Two pairs of team mates who were equally good, although in one case it could be argued that the best man didn't win.

However there was an attitude of competiton for the sake of competiton. None of them wanted any assistance from contracts to achieve their ambitions. It was implicit in their relationships that one man would win and one would assist whenever it was practical.[/off topic]

Anyway now that MS is taking a year out can we start the testing for Williams rumours please?

[Peter Mallett]

Oops.

Getting my threadsmixed up but you get the picture I think.

[Gt_R]

Again, a harmless quote being used to start the critics flowing...

Honestly, i think comparing Senna and MS's position is completely pointless. Yeah, Senna's great. And yeah..he had to race a very good Prost... BUT did Senna desire to compete? I don't really see that he enjoyed having a teammate like Prost until the latter leave. Given the option, he'd want an outright number 1 status just like ANY OTHER drivers who are honest enough to admit it.

And i know that people would love to see MS partnering with the 2nd Best driver out in the field.... But it's strange that people say "it'd be awesome if Ferrari got MS/JV for 96, JV clearly the best blah blah blah"... because 96 JV was relatively Mr Nobody in F1 - unproven. And if JV indeed got into the 96 Ferrari, he'd have a far worse F1 career than what he had now. The only time when we could say JV was one of the better ones in 96-97 is ONLY AFTER that period..not before. And in 96, the field of drivers besides MS isn't exactly packed with known great talents.

And why bother spending mega bucks on 2 mega paying drivers when 1 mega buck driver could deliver all the goods, while another can deliver what is required of him? Economics...

Anyway, i'd still root for Rubens in the sense that he is still one of the better F1 drivers out there now...deserving of being rated the equal of JPM/Alonso...and considerably more potential than DC. He's weakness lies with his consistency and his less than ice-solid mental.

And the funny thing about critics trying hard to portray MS as an arrogant a$$$ because quite frankly, he's been humble than most drivers of lesser achievements care to be.

Finally. GOOD THREAD...many people took a bite :cough:

[freud]

Originally posted by Andrew2001
Just imagine what Senna could have achieved with a slave as a team mate, or perhaps Prost, or Mansell or Stewart: you know, a team mate that actually drives for your personal results and position race after race.

Offcourse!

[KaiserSose]

It would be really nice if Ferrari teamed Schumacher up with another big name............because after he beat them just like he beats RB, these ridiculous threads would end.

Oh.......no they wouldn't. Then it would be a vast Ferrari conspiracy to provide MS with a superior car than his team mate.

[Knowlesy]

This is the thing....if Schuey was teamed up with another driver he'd more than likely still beat them over the course of a full season, it would just add more variety and a little spice, which is seriously lacking these days at times.

So why do ferrari fans have a problem with such a scenario?

I mean, what is the point in a driver being in F1 if he's signed a contract that doesn't allow him to win the title (OK, it might not say that, but it is almost ruled out). Racing drivers are there to win, not play dead for their team-mates. We saw how farcical this can be when Irvine wasn't allowed to pass Schuey at Magny Cours in '99, which ultimately cost him the title.

It would get Michael a lot more respect as well. He'd have to push himself to the limit, he'd have to race someone. I used to really enjoy watching Schuey hustle an inferior car round the course and beat the McLarens or the Williams' or what have you. Now he's always got the best car and that enjoyment is gone. So the only guy equipped to beat him is his team mate, who these days is nether competitive nor allowed to beat him anyways.

I yearn to see Schuey pushed to his awesome limits rather than turn in another astronomically, metronomically dull drive!

[KaiserSose]

Can't argue with that point.

[freud]

Originally posted by KaiserSose
It would be really nice if Ferrari teamed Schumacher up with another big name............because after he beat them just like he beats RB, these ridiculous threads would end.

Oh.......no they wouldn't. Then it would be a vast Ferrari conspiracy to provide MS with a superior car than his team mate.

Never count your chickens before they are hatched.

Let Ferrari DO it first, then we'll see! And even if Ferrari does it now, its of no use. MS has already achieved whatever Senna, Prost, Fangio, Mansell, Stewart, Clark, Ascari, Rosenmyer, Lauda, Villeneuves, Hill, Hakkinen, Brabham, Regazzoni, Hunt, Moss, et al could only dream of.Its just such a shame that it was so easy for MS.

In f1 history there were 100's of other drivers who could've repeated the same feat had they ever had the machinery and support that MS had for all these years. Those are the unsung heroes of f1.. and the ones we should respect.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Andrew2001
Just imagine what Senna could have achieved with a slave as a team mate, or perhaps Prost, or Mansell or Stewart: you know, a team mate that actually drives for your personal results and position race after race.

Just explain to us Andrew, in plain terms - in exact terms, just how Rubens has managed to drive for Schumacher's wins this year. In what way has RB's season given Schumacher wins? I haven't noticed him pulling aside to let him through - matter of fact I haven't very often seen them on the same lap!

[freud]

LOL... it was so much fun watching the GP at nurburgring. The 2-pit stop strategy of Rubens. And when he was called in the pits at lap 15?? I was just wondering why he wasnt allowed 6-7 more laps in lighter feul loads..

Tch tch.. poor Rubens. Always gets the podium strategy never the winning one in whatever equipment he has.

[Glen]

Originally posted by freud
In f1 history there were 100's of other drivers who could've repeated the same feat had they ever had the machinery and support that MS had for all these years. Those are the unsung heroes of f1.. and the ones we should respect.

Everyone has to have a dream, freud - but if you think there are 100s of drivers in F1 history as good as Schumacher I'm afraid your dream is just rather too absurd. I can't recall ANY poll or comment or soforth by ANY journalist or F1 insider that doesn't at least put him in the top three of all time. Top 100

[Knowlesy]

Michael is undebatebly top 10.......

However there are one or two who could easily beat him to the number one spot......unless you are one of those blinded by statistics of course!