How Schuey works...

[Murph]

Hey Red

Michael is the second driver to take the Scuderia by the scruff of it's neck and guide it back to the top of the f1 heap. And the first fellow to do that trick....Niki Lauda!

Hey Neutral

" Some people will continue to deny Michaels accomplishments, no matter what he go's on to achieve. If they haven't seen it by now they never will."

Ya hit the nail right on the head with that statement. Also, I loved the Will Durant quote, as well.

Earlier in the year, I stated that before I could rank Michael up with the greats (Stewart, Moss, Clark, Senna, Lauda, and other's) Michael had to win his 3rd WDC with Ferrari. The rational behind my thinking (oxymoron there...) was that he could have stayed at Benetton and continued to wrack up a few more WDC without too much difficulty....but instead he took the much more difficult challenge (and some serious $$$).... joining Montezemolo & Todt in '96 to begin what some thought was the impossible task of bringing back the Scuderia from the dead. Was he up to the challenge? It took five very hard years with the last three going head to head with McLlaren (the best team in modern day F1)..... and....Mission accomplished!

The great Dennis Jenkinson once was asked by Ayrton Senna ( jsut after winning his first F1 Grand Prix... this is from DSJ's article.... DRIVERS: A remarkable standard for all

"What, in your opinion, are the main requirements for a first-class Grand Prix driver?"

"Now this is a subject that really interests me, and I have studied it long and hard for 30 years, my interest being galvinized in the mid-Fifties when I got to know Stirling Moss and his contempories at very close quarters. I was in the fortunate position of being able to analyze what they did, why they did it, and the way they did it, with a very willing master to give me practical demonstrations of what I knew in theory.

I gave Ayrton Sena a list of five or six requirements, all of which you have to born with: things like eyesight, depth of perception, judgement, anticipation, natural reflexes, and so on, and after each one I was aware that he wasn't looking at me, he was looking through me and self-analyzing each faculty, and by the look on his face I could see that he was not lacking any of the important factors. These factors were not sharply defined, and one could overlap another, and he agreed that if any of the natural faculties were not 100 per cent then it was possible for a neighbouring one that was very strong to make up a slight deficiincy.

I told him there was one bonus point that you either had or you had not. If you did not have it, it was of no great importance, and you could not develope it, but if you had it by nature, you were lucky and it would help you aalong the path to the top.

This was the natural and genuine extrusion of confidence in your abitity that inspired everyone around you, especially your team personnel. It is a slightly intangible thing, but when a driver has it by nature you can see its effect happening on all sides.

When Fangio appeared with Mercedes-Benz the whole team knew he was goging to win. The same with Stirling Moss when he arrived at Maserati. Over the years I have seen a lot of drivers displaying this natural aura without them being aware of it: Jacky Ickx, Niki Lauda, Nelson Piguet, Gilles Villeneuve, to name a few. The important natural facilities must come first, of course, and while talking to Senna I knew he had this bonus point even before he won his first Grand Prix, for prior to the race I was aware that the members of Team Lotus were walking on air, and even though Senna had only just joined the team they were smiling and saying quietly: "We've got a winner". It really is the best thing for team morale and you can see it a mile away."

Guess what..... I would imagine that this same sentiment was expressed my Eddie Jordan (along with "oops" and "merde") and Flavio in 1991.... and by Luca & company in 1996. And time has shown that it was very smart of both Benetton and Ferrari to buid their teams around a winner..... but again as Neutral so accurately put it......

"Some people will will continue to deny Michaels accomplishments, no matter what he go's on to achieve. If they haven't seen it by now they never will.

take care all,

Murph





null

[R]

Originally posted by angst
Yep, Brundle on a par with TGF, just check out that season....

Yes, and don't for a moment think of the fact that 92 was TGF's first full season in F1...

[Dani]

Michael is great in my opinion, but u never know what Senna would have done so u cannot really compare the two of them!!

[Chris Strange]

Poor Johnny Herbert, he had a disatrous season along Eddie Irvine and you know why? It's obvious, because Eddie studied his data whereas he couldn't see Eddie's... Let's be serious... TGF is probably a ruthless driver but as far as I know Senna wasn't an angel either. Moreover remember when TGF had his accident last year, Irvine just dropped down the field and was even outpaced by Mika Salo! Whether you like it or not the fact is TGF is the best driver of his era, all the rest is rubbish talking. (I'd like to point out he's not my favourite driver!!)

[downforce]

Originally posted by angst
...and Brundle was quite often ahead of his esteemed teammate come raceday.

...no way!!!!
Without DNFs in consideration Michael finished 4 times ahead of Brundle in positions 1,2,3,4 as opposed to positions 2,3,4.

Schuey had 4 DNFs and Brundle 5...one in which he spun off!

When Schuey DNFed Brundle finished in positions 3,3,4 and 5.
When Brundle DNFed Schuey finished in positions 2,2,3,3 and 4.

To end it off he finished the season ahead of Senna and scored that Spa win

And most importantly Brundle acknowledged Schuey's genius

[angst]

Let me clarify my position on this. I believe TGF is one of a number of drivers who are a class above the rest at the moment - TGF, Hakkinen, Villeneuve, Alesi. There are a number of other drivers who are there or there abouts, but the bottom line is F1 has shown in recent years that it is a very false environment for judging drivers. Somebody like Zonta can be brilliantly quick in F3000 and sportscars, likewise Zanardi with F3000 and CART and look at Alesi and Heidfeld at Prost.
Basically I don't believe he is head and shoulders above the rest, I believe he is one of a number of very talented drivers. Like a heavyweight boxing champion avoiding his strongest competitor for his belt he avoids a direct confromntation with a teammate on a level footing, which I don't believe any of the greats have done.
It may be that I am wrong, that he truly is far better than anybody out there. He has put in some tremendous performances through his career, but so have alot of the drivers there.

[downforce]

...er and the Brundle thing?

[neutral]

Well It may be just me, but wasnt Rubens the best free agent last year? If I remember correctly he was receiving tons of praise from Murray and Martin during the 99 season where he even led a couple of races. Now this year Michael has consistently outperformed this once exceptional driver ( an average of half a second in qualifying). Angst, Michael has shown in the past that he can beat all those top class drivers you listed in inferior equipment, so what makes you think he couldnt do it in equal equipment? Fact is Rubens is still the same good driver, but it is Michael's speed, and not team favourtism, that has seen him being dominated in 2000. Now, I am still suprised at the credibility that has been given to Johnny's quote, so I have examined it a bit further and based on pure logic this is what I came up with-

1) Eddie dominates Herbert in 2000
2) Eddie has always conceded that Michael is a quicker and better driver than him.
3) Rubens dominates Herbert in 1999
4) Michael dominates Rubens in 2000
5) Johnny implies that he was potentially quicker than MS???

Is it just me or does there appear to be a paradox in the logic. This article initially questioned how Michael works. However, I would be much more interested if someone could reveal to me how Johnny's logic works.

To beat Michael in equal equipment isn't possible. To do it in a better car is possible. And that's what Hakkinen's done, what Damon Hill has done and what Jacques Villeneuve has done.
Michael is the best by a mile. People still dont realize how good he is.

- Eddie Irvine

[downforce]

I love Eddie....lol!...

[Red]

D'uh, Murph! How could I forget Niki!.... I am very sorry...

Angst, I believe he does not avoid his strongest competitors, otherwise he would've retired in glory after '95. But he doesn't have to prove anything by beating his teammates. Not they are the enemy. Unless, of course, Rubens or Eddie would've finished second in the standings, 20 points clear of McLarens. That is if Ferrari could build such a car that they crashed the other competitors. Since '96 Williams FW18 - Renault in didn't happen, by the way. And even in those conditions, I don't find sane for a teammanager to allow the development of such rivalries as Senna/Prost in his team. Just remember David/Mika last year. Yep, on several occasions Coulthard beat Hakkinnen, but the general outcome? Mika almost lost the Driver's trophy and Ron lost the Constructor's. Well, it may be good for a circus show, but I wouldn't praise Ron for that "achievement".

I have to ask you: If noone of his teammates could challenge him, is this supposed to be a proof of avoiding a direct confrontation on a level footing?

[R]

Originally posted by Red
Just remember David/Mika last year. Yep, on several occasions Coulthard beat Hakkinnen, but the general outcome? Mika almost lost the Driver's trophy and Ron lost the Constructor's. Well, it may be good for a circus show, but I wouldn't praise Ron for that "achievement".

If I was Ron Dennis I would tear off what little hair I had left for not winning the Constructors' Championship last year. It was virtually handed to McLaren on a silver platter with TGF out injured half of the season, and they still couldn't manage to win it, in spite of having the superior car.

It is beyond doubt that TGF has had nowhere near as strong team-mates as for instance Senna or Prost had. As well as having each other, Senna had Berger and Prost had Mansell, just to name a couple. Barrichello has had many of the same team-mates that TGF has had in his career. (Brundle, Irvine, Herbert.) Both Rubens and TGF have beaten them, but TGF has beaten them far more comprehensively, and he's also beaten Rubens by a clear margin this year. Rubens is generally considered to be a good driver, the best team-mate TGF has ever had. What would really be interesting would be if TGF were to have Hakkinen or Villeneuve as his team-mate, on an equal footing. That would settle a few arguments over who is the best driver currently in F1.

[Gt_R]

how bout Bernie donating $5million pounds to Minardi in exchange for a one-off race between Michael and Mika in their car?

[angst]

I have to ask you: If noone of his teammates could challenge him, is this supposed to be a proof of avoiding a direct confrontation on a level footing?

To return to Herbert's original point, noone of his teammates have been on a level footing with TGF. I don't remember Prost or Villeneuve or Senna or Stewart demanding from their team that their teammate have information with-held from them. If he's that good, why does he demand this dominance within the team over his teammate?

...er and the Brundle thing?

Look at the season properly. If Brundle hadn't retired in Canada he was almost certain to win there (bear in mind that if TGF had retired in Belgium he would have been winless for the year). Yes, I'll grant you that it was his first year in F1, but he did have a couple of years learning racecraft in Sportscars for Mercedes. Brundle was faster in the races and ahead in races as much as TGF was ahead or faster in he races. I will repeat again. He may be as good as he is made out to be, but his unwillingness to have a teammate on a level footing leaves a question mark in my mind.

[downforce]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by angst

Look at the season properly. If Brundle hadn't retired in Canada he was almost certain to win there (bear in mind that if TGF had retired in Belgium he would have been winless for the year)
....Doesnt one remain winless if one retires from the race.????
Yes, I'll grant you that it was his first year in F1, but he did have a couple of years learning racecraft in Sportscars for Mercedes.
...and Brundle arrived from Shopping carts like all others?

Brundle was faster in the races and ahead in races as much as TGF was ahead or faster in he races.
....and Michael finishes some 20 points ahead????I will repeat again.

[downforce]

Pole pos: Senna
Fastest Lap: Gerhard Berger

Laps 1-37 = Senna
Laps 38-69 = Berger

Brundle Qualifies 7th....and he could/would have won????

angst?

[angst]

Do you remember the race Downforce? Brundle was catching Berger at a rate of knots when he retired, he was at that point of the race the fastest man out there (this is before refuelling, so the speed increased the longer the race went on.)
Stop looking at stats and look at the season properly. TGF finished 20 pts ahead of Brundle because of the races that they retired in. If TGF had retired in Belgium, as opposed to, for example, Imola then he would have been without a win (that was realistically the only race he could have won that year). Brundle had the misfortune to retire from the one race he had a reasonable chance to win (Canada).
The point remains the same. If he is as good as he is made out why the need to nullify his teammates chances first?

[TimD]

I'm with you on that race, Angst.

I re-watched it the other day, and until the car cried enough, it looked like it was only a matter of time before Brundle had it.

You know, it's all very well people castigating a driver for withholding telemetry and other information from their team mate, but at least the number two driver got to BE their team mate.

I still bristle at the memory that Derek Warwick was all set for a Lotus drive, and Ayrton Senna "politicked" him out of the seat. Bear in mind that at the time, Derek looked like a better bet than Nigel Mansell, and Ayrton himself was fast and mercurial, but not yet consistent.

And who was the lightning quick team mate that Ayrton was happy to run against?

Johnny Dumfries....

[Gt_R]

Quote"If Brundle hadn't retired in Canada he was almost certain to win there (bear in mind that if TGF had retired in Belgium he would have been winless for the year)."

but why the IFs??

IFs are not real, they just make things look better/worse than it actually is into one's favour!

All "IFs this" and "if thats" are ridiculous. Try this,
IF Mika retired in Japan '99, Irvine is a World Champion already!
IF Michael did not have tyre problems, he would have won SPA 2000.
IF Michael joined Mclaren, Mika would be a non-champion and Michael...6 time world champion and be the World Best Ever?
IF Mika did not retire in USA, he would bring the championship to the last race.
IF Michael did not get hit from behind in Germany and Austria, and did not retire in France and Monaco, he would be world champion by Monza!
IF Jean Alesi chose Williams over Ferrari, he would be a world champion or 2.
IF Senna stayed in Mclaren, he would not have died.
IF...IF...IF!

BUT THE FACT IS THAT anything happens on the race track. Brundle did retire in Canada, Michael did win in Belgium, Senna did go to Williams, Jean did go to Ferrari...and so...thaTs History...

Oh...and If Mr Schumacher did not meet Mrs Schumacher to be...there would be no Michael and Ralfy...

Shucks...i'm mubbling **** again...
forget what i've said!

[angst]

Gtr, the reason I used IFs was to show the banality of using stats and purely stats to show that one driver is better than another. If you look at the season itself, ie if you watched the races during that season, then you will see that Brundle and TGF were very evenly matched in all but qualifying (where Mickey the Schu excelled). Irvine finished 30 pts ahead of his teammate last year, should there be no IFs taken into account there?
Tim, I remember being upset that Warwick was denied a place at Lotus, and I wish that he had got the drive, but as I pointed out Senna had his reasons for that (Warwick being British in a proudly British team and having Renault connections aswell he figured that Warwick could end up getting preferential treatmant.) I don't agree, but that was his reasoning. I have yet to know of any reason, from anybody as to why, if Mr Schumacher is as good he is supposed to be, undermines his teammates to the extent that he did with Johnny Herbert.
Basically the argument goes that he has always blown away his teammates so that shows how good he is. Well, if his teammates are afforded the sort of status as Herbert had then you would have to question his place in F1 full stop if he wasn't blowing them away.
We keep hearing how bad the cars are that he has been driving (ie if he were in the Mclaren he would have won 6 WDC by now !!!) yet Herbert won in the Benetton in '95 so it can't have been that bad, especially as Herbert ranks so lowly in certain of TGF's fans ratings. Did he not also say that the '95 Ferrari had nothing much wrong with it, and couldn't understand what Alesi and Berger had been doing, why they hadn't been more succesful. The '96 Ferrari engine was a vast improvement on the '95 version and yet suddenly his wins that year were in an inferior car. Does that mean that over the winter he and Irvine developed the car from a competitive proposition to a second rank car?
Schumacher is good, there is no doubt about that. Is he head and shoulders above everyone else? I don't think so.
Also Tim, back to the subject of Warwick and Lotus. Would it have been better for him to have gone to Lotus and be treated as a second-string driver by the team? I know that wouldn't have happened, but the position Herbert was in was no better than the treatment Warwick got, in my opinion.

[TimD]

First of all, Angst, my apologies. I completely forgot that you introduced the Warwick situation into this thread on the last page. I convinced myself I was bringing it fresh into the debate.

As to whether Derek's situation would have been any better if he'd been second fiddle to Senna? Well, Johnny Herbert at least got a deuce of wins in the '95 Benetton, and ensured that he goes down in the record books as a proven GP winner.

IF (I love these if's!) Derek had that Lotus seat, I'll bet he would have got himself that race win, and I suspect that the Lotus team would have been a serious championship contender with the benefit of his experience.

As it is, the bald statistics show that Derek Warwick had a best finish of 2nd, on a rare day when his Renault didn't blow up or run dry, and then went on through a string of increasingly lacklustre teams, finishing his career as a bit of a stock car driver in the BTCC.

But then my opinion is the same as yours when it comes to sheer statistics.

[angst]

Tim, no need for apologies. It's a valid point. Personally I think Warwick would have added a great deal to the Lotus team that year, and it would have been great to see a talented driver and a seemingly good bloke get his just rewards in a truly competitive car. A point that all the TGF fans are missing on this forum is that I rate Brundle very highly aswell, and this basically is my point to his fans. Basically all of his teammates have been denigrated (Brundle on a par with TGF ) in this thread, Hakkinen is viewed as an alright driver who has lucked into a good drive and blah blah blah. The hype surrounding him is, in my view, not backed up fully as he has never pitted himself against a teammate on level terms. Even teammates whom his fans believe could be no possible threat. I don't go along with the idea that he is far and away the best driver of this current era. The day he fights on level terms with a teammate and beats them hands down then I will concede, until then I find the case not proven.

[angst]

That didn't work.... Should have read (Brundle on a par with TGF )

[R]

I'm not going to go to lengths about the Senna v. Warwick situation since it happened before I started to watch F1. I have however read a great deal of F1 history, and agree with what's been said about Senna's feelings that Warwick might have got preferential treatment. Later in his career things like this was not a problem however, so in general Senna is not a good example in this debate. He went to McLaren, took on then world's best driver Alain Prost, and thrashed him, quite simply because Ayrton knew he was the best, and in spite of most at McLaren wanting Prost to win (because they felt Ayrton had more years ahead of him in F1 than Alain).

TGF might withhold information from his team-mates, but this is nothing new in F1. For example in 1990, when Prost and Mansell were team-mates, Prost refused Mansell to see his data. So the debate could then be: Was Prost as good as he seemed to be? Perhaps he's vastly over-rated as well?

[neutral]

If Michael can beat Mika in an inferior car, what makes you think that Mika could take him in equal equipment?

[Red]

Angst, it was you who started all this. "Basically all of his teammates have been denigrated". Maybe. But how "Now wonder he dominates his teammates so much" sounds to you? Basically his teammates were not denigrated, his fans just tried to demonstrate that your point is not exactly correct. Besides, I think that the only driver denigrated here was Johnny Herbert. He was a thousandth quicker, then had no access to Schumacher's car data so he qualifyes 11th , (we're talking about Argentina '95, right?) almost three seconds slower than Schumacher.... that's somehow insulting don't you think?

I would agree with you, yes, that's how he dominated all his teammates. I can even understand that FIA, Bernie or whoever wanted to see him champion, but I honestly do not understand how he made both Benetton and Ferrari his accesories. And why FIA picked him to be the chosen one?