Will Lewis Hamilton ever win another F1 WDC?

[Nick Brown]

Too many variables, all you can say is that he may as he has all the attributes.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by peckstar

No chance. mentally he doesnt have it. fluked one because he was in the right car at the right time

If that's the the basis to judge by, there have been a helluva lot of flukey WDCs over the years.....

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Newey, Vettel and Renault will likely be king of the castle for a long time to come and will likely land on their feet with these new rules.

I guess we just have to pray this isn't the case, either that or become tiddlywinks fans.....

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

the evidence would suggest you are correct.

Thus he has one championship and unlikely to have another one

He didn't have a dominant car in 2008.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

I'm sure I can.


That was not his decision. I think Chris Dyer got demoted for that.

Alonso can make calls too. We've seen him do it before. On that occasion, he followed a non-sensical decision to cover the wrong guy. He can take some responsibility IMO.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

good question. i hate to bring nationalism into this, but without any other British up and comers on that list i think he will still be just as valuable as he is today. unless of course he becomes slow.

I agree. Coulthard was able to stay in the top teams for a good while because he was seen as the best British driver. Remember the good old 'It will be Coulthard's year' gags?

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

It did seem so.




Again, I'm not sure that's fair because he's become a much more rounded driver since the beginning of 2012. I do, however, get that sense that it's a bit tense and on a fine point with him over a season, like 2007 and especially 2008. I remember James Allen's "he doesn't make it easy for himself, does he?" comment.

.

Plus 2010 and 2011 when he had a habit of hitting anything that moved in the second half of those seasons. 2012 was really his only consistent season so far.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Razzzor

I think Hamilton is faster than Mansell though, and at this point of his career is more capable of taking a team to championships. DOn't know what his work ethic is like now, but maybe better than Nige. Didn't Nige bugger off to golf games while other drivers would be working with the team?

I'm sure Nigel wasn't the only one who did things like that back then. Drivers and their relationship with the team has changed a lot since Schumacher was around.

I think I'd leave Senna and Mansell out of that list - they're just as likely to blow a championship with 2 races to go than win one. Sorry Senna fans, but someone who knows how to win championships doesn't hit the wall with nearly a one minute lead. They both should have won more championships than they did. So should Schumacher - but all the titles he narrowly missed weren't from his own doing.

I was basing the list on drivers that have dominated championships not just on focus towards the end. Mansell dominated the 1992 Championship regardless of what came before. Senna also dominated the 1991 Championship. From what I've seen of Hamilton so far I just can't see him having a year like that; all I can see him doing is fading away towards the end of the year like in 2007 and 2008 much the same as Button did in 2009.
Every big driver has had brain farts like Senna did. It shouldn't take away from the times when he did dominate though.

But definitely Alonso, Prost, Schumacher even Kimi and Seb, know how to win a championship when the heat comes on. Maybe Seb.... he could just have easily blown 2010 and 12 - he nearly did in 2012.

I really don't agree about Kimi. He was shocking in 2008 when the Ferrari was arguably the best car on the grid. He's similar to Hamilton really, he managed one championship which was a fluke and he was quite frankly nowhere world-class when he left in 2009. Kimi was clearly being out-classed by Massa before the Hungary accident and he was showing signs of not caring about the sport anymore.
Kimi Raikkonen would have been one of the most wasted talents in Formula One if he hadn't have come back last year.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by beau1

Plus 2010 and 2011 when he had a habit of hitting anything that moved in the second half of those seasons. 2012 was really his only consistent season so far.

I think that's somewhat unfair. I agree with you on 2010 (from what I can remember) and definitely 2011 (an annus horribilis), but what about 2007? That was a remarkably consistent debut season. In 2009 he wasn't consistent, but neither was the car so some of that may have been the car's deficiencies. Eventually, he scored a win in it.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I think that's somewhat unfair. I agree with you on 2010 (from what I can remember) and definitely 2011 (an annus horribilis), but what about 2007? That was a remarkably consistent debut season. In 2009 he wasn't consistent, but neither was the car so some of that may have been the car's deficiencies. Eventually, he scored a win in it.

He wasn't consistent in 2007 though; if he had been he would have won the championship easily. I agree that it was a great season for a rookie but it was his non-consistency particularly at crunch time that cost him the championship.
2007 Stats:

1st Half Points: 64
2nd Half Point: 45

1st Half Podiums: 8
2nd Half Podiums: 4

1st Half Poles: 2
2nd Half Poles: 4

1st Half Fastest Laps: 1
2nd Half Fastest Laps: 1


So he really wasn't consistent when it mattered.

I agree that he 2009 that Hamilton was pretty good but the championship was a complete write off so there wasn't really much pressure. 2009 isn't really worth discussion of this thread as he wasn't able to get near the championship.

[Adam43]

Comparing the first half and second half would probably show Alonso amd Kimi weren't consistent too.

[beau1]

You'd probably be right there Adam. I refer you to my comments on Kimi from a couple of posts ago. Not sure what you're trying to say?

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by beau1

He wasn't consistent in 2007 though; if he had been he would have won the championship easily. I agree that it was a great season for a rookie but it was his non-consistency particularly at crunch time that cost him the championship.
2007 Stats:

1st Half Points: 64
2nd Half Point: 45

1st Half Podiums: 8
2nd Half Podiums: 4

1st Half Poles: 2
2nd Half Poles: 4

1st Half Fastest Laps: 1
2nd Half Fastest Laps: 1


So he really wasn't consistent when it mattered.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the consistency thing, as I reckon those stats do nothing more than demonstrate normal ebb and flow. I think he and Alonso (and indeed Raikkonen) were very closely matched. In other words, if Hamilton was inconsistent, then so were Alonso and Raikkonen.

[formerf1champ]

Raikkonen was consistent during 07. Consistently sub par for most of the first half. Consistently a beast in the second half. 27pts behind at halfway through the season (the equivalent of 67.5 with the current ponts allocation), and he still got up to win. That's how good he is, all courage and heart under the icy, disinterested exterior and ridiculous sleeve tattoo. Then Ferrari decided to throw their eggs in the Massa basket, because Massa hangs around at the factory and communicates...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by beau1

You'd probably be right there Adam. I refer you to my comments on Kimi from a couple of posts ago. Not sure what you're trying to say?

That comparing the first half and second half of a season with those stats do not show Hamilton as unusually inconsistent. Or that the comparison isn't useful. I suspect that most world champions wouldn't look consistent with that comparison and take on it. Doesn't mean these champions aren't reliable shall we say.

I'm not claiming that Hamilton is or isn't, it is merely the statistician in me commenting.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by beau1

He wasn't consistent in 2007 though; if he had been he would have won the championship easily. I agree that it was a great season for a rookie but it was his non-consistency particularly at crunch time that cost him the championship.
2007 Stats:

1st Half Points: 64
2nd Half Point: 45

1st Half Podiums: 8
2nd Half Podiums: 4

1st Half Poles: 2
2nd Half Poles: 4

1st Half Fastest Laps: 1
2nd Half Fastest Laps: 1


So he really wasn't consistent when it mattered.

I agree that he 2009 that Hamilton was pretty good but the championship was a complete write off so there wasn't really much pressure. 2009 isn't really worth discussion of this thread as he wasn't able to get near the championship.

Nice selective stats there. He was perfectly consistent in the second half of 2007. But he did have car problems (tyre failure at Turkey whilst comfortably on the podium, glitch at Brazil when fourth place would have been a formality) and Ferrari got their act together. So whilst not as good, points wise, as the first half he was still driving as well as usual, barring China (which wasn't exactly a terrible drive either, if a tad thoughtless) and obviously Nurburgring which was a mess for many a driver. On the balance of the season he was consistent, always driving in amongst the top four apart from Europe.

Also, I would contend that most drivers up at the top have a weaker second half of the season unless they are in a stupidly dominant car. It usually seems to be the case that people catch up and/or the championship tension mounts, leading to slightly more inhibited drives.

And, again, he didn't "hit anything that moved" in 2010. He hit Massa. That's it.

[Marbot]

Will he win another championship? Only if he scores more points than any other driver in any given season. Other than that, it's all just ifs, buts, and maybes.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Will he win another championship? Only if he scores more points than any other driver in any given season. Other than that, it's all just ifs, buts, and maybes.

That kills any discussion.

[Born Racer]

Indeed.

Although a speculative thread, I suppose the question is valid because people are ultimately asking if Hamilton has it in him to be a consistent driver. Well, I think he's turning into an all-rounder, a la Alonso, so I don't see the debate here. There is little reason he can't dominate a championship and no reason he can't win another championship.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Will he win another championship? Only if he scores more points than any other driver in any given season. Other than that, it's all just ifs, buts, and maybes.

What you mean 'other than that'? Your first sentence was an 'if' as well.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Also, I would contend that most drivers up at the top have a weaker second half of the season unless they are in a stupidly dominant car. It usually seems to be the case that people catch up and/or the championship tension mounts, leading to slightly more inhibited drives.

And, again, he didn't "hit anything that moved" in 2010. He hit Massa. That's it.

It is true that some drivers have a weaker second half of the season but Hamilton's was one of the worst in recent memory during a championship that was very close.
Hamilton's difference in points between the first and second half was more than 20 points which is one of the largest differences in the last twenty years (before the new points system came in). As far as close championships go, it is only beaten by Schumacher in 1994 and that was because he couldn't get points at 5 events.

It wasn't just Massa Hamilton hit In 2010 that was more like 2011. In 2010 Hamilton made contact with Massa at Italy and Webber at Singapore a race later. Both of these incidents saw him retire from the race and ultimately cost him the chance at another championship.

[beau1]

FWIW here are the same stats for Alonso and Raikkonen in 2007:

Alonso:

1st Half Points: 58
2nd Half Points: 51

1st Half Podiums: 5
2nd Half Podiums: 7

1st Half Poles: 1
2nd Half Poles: 1

1st Half Fastest Laps: 2
2nd Half Fastest Laps: 1

Raikkonen

1st Half Points: 52
2nd Half Points: 58

1st Half Podiums: 4
2nd Half Podiums: 8

1st Half Poles: 1
2nd Half Poles: 2

1st Half Fastest Laps: 2
2nd Half Fastest Laps: 4



So these stats show that Ferrari clearly had a better car by the mid point of the season. However, it does show that Hamilton was far more inconsistent than his main title rivals.
Hamilton had a shortfall of 19 points (average of 2 points per race) from the 1st half of the season whilst his own team-mate who was battle the resurgent Ferrari team in the same way had only a shortfall of 7 (average of 0.9 points per race).

So in essence, Hamilton was not consistent in 2007 compared with his main title rivals and it was this inconsistency that cost him the title. He still had the same 2nd half inconsistency problems up until 2011.

[Knowlesy]

Keep trying . It's very sweet.

[beau1]

Very engaging comment that Knowlesy, well done. It does a lot to prove my point wrong. I'm sure I could end up with 28,000 posts if I made posts as insightful as that one.

[Knowlesy]

That was my best yet.

But seriously it is impossible to argue with someone who claims Hamilton had an inconsistent 2007 season. We can justifiably argue either way about other seasons but in this instance you are utterly wrong. Painfully so.