Alan Henry's Top 100 Formula One Drivers (Possible Spoilers)

[GolddustMini]

£15!!!!!!!!!! so not only have amazon sold me a book when they're out of stock but they've had the cheek to overcharge me by £-7.51



i think ill spend some cash in the pub to celebrate

[ensign14]

Cos not everyone's made of money...besides which, I am guessing the Henry book will not add anything to actual knowledge that can't be picked up from better sources. "Grand Prix Greats" by Roebuck is a splendid book for something about drivers in general...then there's Tremayne's "Racers Apart", which is one of the very best.

[Knowlesy]

ensign 14
Occupation: solicitor

Not made of money you say?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ensign14

No, statistically Lee Wallard is the greatest.

He has the best start:win ratio, that's all. He doesn't have the greatest number of wins, the most points, the most world championships ? Schumacher is ahead in almost every statistical measure there is. So... statiscally he's the greatest !

[Gt_R]

Current Grid Ranking
1) Kimi 100
2) Lewis 98
3) Alonso 97
4) Rosberg 94
5) Button 93
6) Massa 92
7) Heidfeld 90
8) Hekki 85
9) Vettel 83
10) Webber 80
11) Kubica 78
12) Trulli 74
13) Coulthard 73
14) Rubens 70
15) Bourdais 68
16) Sutil 67
17) Piquet Junior 66
18) Fisichella 65
19) Sato 62
20) Davidson 60
21) Timo Glock 59
22) Nakajima 55

Based on talent, speed, commitment, racing ability, consistency.

The list in 3 minutes. And it's as accurate as Henry's top 100.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by davyboy

He has the best start:win ratio, that's all. He doesn't have the greatest number of wins, the most points, the most world championships ? Schumacher is ahead in almost every statistical measure there is. So... statiscally he's the greatest !

Ah, now we're arguing about which statistics count. Surely winning half your races is quite a potent statistic? Better than just amassing numbers by being lucky enough to race at a time when the chances of death or career-ending injury were remote and where literally no-one else could have the same dominant machinery.

Actually, the best statistic to show the best driver is most wins per second place. Because that shows how good you were bringing it home, if you had a car capable of finishing high could you get it to win?

Step forward Jim Clark. 25 wins, 1 second.

[Gt_R]

I'm sure all statistics count as much as none of them count.

And i disagree how you can put down Michael's numbers to just "lucky" and "dominant machinery". 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 05, 06 are years when his car is far from dominant, and are at most 2nd best. and 00 was a year where the cars between mclaren and ferrari were literally on par (which was good to watch, just like in 07). 03 was close. The only year where machinery was truly dominant was in 95, 01, 02 and 04. So "statistically", MS had a dominant car in only 30.77% of his career.

The danger of arguing like that, well, is to practically imply with the same logic that Alonso, Hakkinen and Villeneuve are nothingness. All their "records" of WDC are in "dominant machinery", aren't they?

Every statistics can be argued for and against. Let's just say taking Lewis vs Heikki - statistics can simply turn the other way had they started their rookie year in each others' car. Similarly, if we judge JV by the end of his 2nd season, he's great. Take his whole F1 career into account, and he's crap. Beauty of statistics yet again.

So davy and ensign can argue the whole day and nobody will really be right.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

The danger of arguing like that, well, is to practically imply with the same logic that Alonso, Hakkinen and Villeneuve are nothingness. All their "records" of WDC are in "dominant machinery", aren't they?

Except Farina, Fangio, Ascari, Hawthorn, Brabham, Hill P, Hill G, Clark, Hulme, Stewart, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Lauda, Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, Prost, Piquet, Senna, Mansell, Hill D, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Alonso and Raikkonen all won their titles against team-mates given equal opportunity to win.

Originally Posted by Gt_R

So davy and ensign can argue the whole day and ensign will really be right.

Just had to correct you there.

If we WERE to go on pure statistics, you'd have to go with Fangio or Clark, BTW, their statistics are much better than Schumacher's. Simply because literally anyone could get machinery to compete with them. And sometimes they did. Clark and Fangio were generally in a field of 10 competitive race-winning cars; Schumacher rarely more than 3.

And of course the fact that cars were on the edge of reliability more in the past has an impact. I'm guessing that had Clark had the mechanical reliability that Schumacher did he'd've had around 40 wins, most of the races he led but didn't win were down to mechanical difficulties.

Which shows that statistics are a bit like a bikini. They can enhance certain features, and provide excellent support, but hide the really important bit.

[Armco Bender]

Which shows that statistics are a bit like a bikini. They can enhance certain features, and provide excellent support, but hide the really important bit.

You haven't seen me in a bikini then........

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Except Farina, Fangio, Ascari, Hawthorn, Brabham, Hill P, Hill G, Clark, Hulme, Stewart, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Lauda, Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, Prost, Piquet, Senna, Mansell, Hill D, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Alonso and Raikkonen all won their titles against team-mates given equal opportunity to win.

I'm pretty certain that Peterson and Villeneuve Sr were No.2 drivers to Andretti and Scheckter in much the same way as Barrichello was to Herr Schumacher.

[ensign14]

Andretti-Peterson is a bit of a myth. If you look at the Lotus results for 1978 with a neutral eye Andretti was leagues ahead of Peterson. Andretti beat Peterson in qualifying 8-3. Mario led 459 laps; Ronnie led 49. And Ronnie was 2nd for 211, so he was hardly trailing Mario all the way. Mario had 5 wins; Ronnie 2, one of which came on the last lap (after Mario retired from the lead) and the other came when Mario was off on lap 1.

And as for Villeneuve...everyone forgets that when Gilles followed Jody at Italy, thus guaranteeing he could not win the title, there were still 2 races left. Scheckter's season was far more consistent; he did that deliberately, having gone the wild route earlier in his career, you blame the Championship ethos for that. But Jody didn't throw toys out of pram demanding a subservient team-mate, he beat him using brains.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Andretti-Peterson is a bit of a myth. If you look at the Lotus results for 1978 with a neutral eye Andretti was leagues ahead of Peterson.

Just as Schumacher was leagues ahead of Barrichello, Irvine and Massa. It doesn't change the fact that Peterson was contractually a No.2 driver. And as for throwing toys out of the pram, Mario was none too pleased when Peterson was signed as his team-mate, and questioned why Lotus needed two 'superstar' drivers.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ensign14

I'm guessing that had Clark had the mechanical reliability that Schumacher did he'd've had around 40 wins, most of the races he led but didn't win were down to mechanical difficulties.

All you can do is guess what the outcome may have been. The facts are that he didn't. The reasons why are many.

We don't know which drivers may have done better had the circumstances been different. Formula One is not fair. Its not equitable. Certain drivers have the odds stacked in their favour at certain times and others have the odds stacked against them. The difficulty is that people like Alan Henry try to put reality to one side and imagine what might have been... and what we get is exactly that - a piece of their imagination, a piece of fiction... which is why we'll be here debating it until the cows come home.

[Gt_R]

Quote:"Except Farina, Fangio, Ascari, Hawthorn, Brabham, Hill P, Hill G, Clark, Hulme, Stewart, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Lauda, Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, Prost, Piquet, Senna, Mansell, Hill D, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Alonso and Raikkonen all won their titles against team-mates given equal opportunity to win."

Besides those challenged by S.Hans, i'd like to add in Alonso, Hakkinen, J Villeneuve, D.Hill... Try convincing me that Fisi to Alonso/DC to Hakkinen was much different to Rubens or Irvine. Fisi literally became a wingman in China 06. And JV wasn't really allowed to spoil D.Hill's 96 party, isn't it?

Woah. look what Henry did to us.

[ensign14]

Fisi was always seen as a superstar in waiting until he went to Renault. Alonso didn't seek to veto him. Frentzen was also seen as very promising before he went to Williams.

Irvine was never seen as a superstar. Barrichello was roughly on a par with Irvine. Massa was seen as the chap who kept wrecking Saubers. Schumacher's team-mates were in a different league to those of the other drivers mentioned above.

And forget the Mario-Ronnie comparison...the fact that Mario continued with Peterson as a team-mate shows that Mario was at least willing to accommodate another great driver alongside him. Remember he drove alongside Hill G and Rindt at Lotus and Ickx at Ferrari beforehand. But this is in the context in comparing stats, where Schumacher was in a bulletproof car that was available to one other person in the field and that person was contractually obliged to genuflect at every opportunity. That's why his stats are so huge; he's had advantages not available to anyone before about 1995. And that's why stats are so misleading.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

And forget the Mario-Ronnie comparison...the fact that Mario continued with Peterson as a team-mate shows that Mario was at least willing to accommodate another great driver alongside him.

Albeit one who was contractually a number 2 driver, and was required to genuflect to Andretti at every possible opportunity.

[ensign14]

He was never close enough to Mario to be forced to genuflect to him. Sorry, Ronnie fans, but that's the truth.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

He was never close enough to Mario to be forced to genuflect to him. Sorry, Ronnie fans, but that's the truth.

Completely irrelevant. Peterson was contractually No. 2 to Andretti, and therefore did not have an equal opportunity to win. Therefore your initial point was incorrect.

[ensign14]

And you're going to point to the times when Peterson was ordered to move over for Andretti? Contractual number two status in 1978 was not the same as today...it meant Mario got the spare car and so on.

[Knowlesy]

I seem to recall from Mario Andretti's book that there wasn't ever really much need for Peterson to move over. Mario was usually up front, or Peterson broke down or something...

[ensign14]

And remember Monza 1973. Lotus didn't order the de facto number 2 behind the number 1 then...

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ensign14

That's why his stats are so huge; he's had advantages not available to anyone before about 1995. And that's why stats are so misleading.

That's not true at all. He may have had team mates who weren't as strong as him but it would be wrong to say that those team mates were the weakest people on the grid at the time. Schumacher won championships in the Benetton when the Williams was the car to have. He won championships in the Ferrari when the McLaren was the car to have. Now looking beyond that, Schumacher joined Ferrari at a point in time when they were a basket case. Many considered it a career ending decision. He then proceeded to do what almost nobody else before him was able to do as a driver and galvanize the team turning Ferrari into the most potent force in Formula One.

His stats are not misleading at all. They chronicle one of the most incredible eras in motorsport, a truely mind-boggling decade and a half. Its doubtful that we'll ever see anything quite like that again.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

And you're going to point to the times when Peterson was ordered to move over for Andretti? Contractual number two status in 1978 was not the same as today...it meant Mario got the spare car and so on.

There may not be an example of Peterson moving over, but there were many occasions where Peterson held station behind Andretti. But let's not get into that.

The fact is, if you are the team's No.1 driver, you receive preferential treatment in terms of strategy, in terms of equipment....etc Therefore, you are given a greater opportunity to win.

Ferrari may have been the first to manufacture a result whilst only metres from the chequered flag, but Schumacher is by no means the first World Champion to benefit from a subservient team-mate.

[ensign14]

Where did Peterson "hold station"? There was one I can remember which happened when Mario had a mechanical problem. And it's not a "greater opportunity" to win...maybe a bit easier, but once you're in the car you're away. And switch the cars and development around - would Ronnie have beaten Mario? I doubt it, Mario was the cerebral one, Ronnie thought the 721X was a good piece of kit...

Originally Posted by davyboy

That's not true at all. He may have had team mates who weren't as strong as him but it would be wrong to say that those team mates were the weakest people on the grid at the time.

Never said they were. What I'm saying is:

1. having Irvine as a team-mate is a bit different to having Farina, Gonzalez, Collins, Hulme, Regazzoni and so on as a team-mate;

2. Schumacher's biggest accident would have been career-ending 10 years before and fatal 20 years before;

3. the current F1 car is something like 80% likely to finish any given race and has been around that level for much of MS' career. Back "in the day" you were looking at maybe 40-50%;

4. for a good number of his race wins his car was so superior to the field literally no-one else was able to race him; it wasn't like 1952, where you could turn up at Maranello with a bag of lire to buy the car that was leading the championship.

Those are all massive, massive advantages over the Fangios of this world. (Not forgetting of course Fangio only got to Grands Prix in his late 30s...)

And remember I'm not talking about the merits of the drivers. I'm talking about the statistics pure and simple - and why they can't be relied upon at all, certainly not without some sort of very careful analysis.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by davyboy

His stats are not misleading at all. They chronicle one of the most incredible eras in motorsport, a truely mind-boggling decade and a half. Its doubtful that we'll ever see anything quite like that again.

For the sake of everyone, let's hope not!

Stats are a misleading thing. Is Schumacher nearly twice as good as Prost?

Stats can be manipulated to favour anyone in any way you want.

I prefer to think of Michael as just a bloody good driver who had some perks not so readily available to predecessors and had access to the strongest team for longer than anyone in the history of the sport.