Quote:
Originally Posted by MTW
Conclusion: The unfair thing is that Hill is always compared to Schumacher because he faced Schumacher. But Hill had moments of brilliance. A lot of people thought in 1996 that Villeneuve would overcome Hill once he got used to the williams but Hill pretty much had the better of him that year. That is not to discredit Villeneuve, for Villeneuve was a fast driver. There were also occasions Hill drove well in the wet but because he wasn't Schumacher, people tend to not pay attention to those occasions, but had Schumacher won in those wet races they would of course call him the rain master. Hill dominated in the wet in Brazil 1996, beat Schumacher in Suzuka 1994 on aggregate, and won spa 1998, (in a Jordan with a dry weather set up IIRC). He also almost drove an Arrows to victory in 1997, and qualified that poor car close to the front of the grid on several occasions. He also was a charger at times. Nurburgring 1995 was a great charge from Hill but later he unfortunately botched his race up. He also charged down berger in Germany 1996. He also charged fairly well in Spa 1995 and finished 2nd from 8th on the grid but his own performance was not acknowledged because Schumacher came 1st from 16th on the grid.
|
The problem with highlight things like Damon finishing second at Spa is that his team mate was leading Spa before the Williams gearbox failed. It was the same in Argentina, same (although wheel bearing) at Monza. Damon wasn't really any better than DC, and few will argue DC should've been champion (and rightly so).
You can say he beat JV, but he should've beaten JV. He was a rookie to F1 and the team. If he didn't beat JV it would've been embarrassing. As it is, he almost didn't.
There's nothing particularly wrong with Damon, he just wasn't that special. He was capable of a handful of excellent drives, but these are the sort of drives, but not stringing them together. The stars aligned for his 1996 title, and that's all that's needed.