Careers that declined or could have had more titles?

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Jacques Villeneuve he is an enigma. Indy 500 champion, 1995 CART Champion, 1996 F1 race winner, 1997 F1 WDC. And then absolutely nothing after that. I almost felt like he had a mission to fulfill for his father and that done, he was done. Strangely I never felt that anyone ever recognized that fact that Jacques finished the mission his father was on and put a proper and just conclusion on the Gilles Villeneuve story.

As a Gilles Villeneuve fan, I respectfully disagree with this. Gilles was never on a mission to win the championship. In fact, the championship seemed less important to him than to most other drivers.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Thing is with Hill is that he never put any of his teammates away on speed and. I think he was lucky that DC was replaced with JV for 96 otherwise he prob wouldn't have got the title.

I think that you're right. The '96 Mclaren was a right lemon and Hakkinen was the firm Mclaren favourite so it's hard to see DC come to terms with him. If he had stayed at Williams he would've had great momentum to have a tilt at the '96 title. Yes, you can Coulthard to the list.

[Clive Brown]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Him quitting F1 and turning to Nascar is surely one of the most bizarre things that has ever happened.

Never got that one. Who quits one of the top teams in F1 to run 20th place in Nascar?

I would tentatively suggest that in JPM's weltanschauuing, personal loyalty rates extremely highly. He was repeatedly stabbed in the back at McLaren, with there being more than one hand on the dagger, whereas Chip Ganassi had been conspicuously open and honest in his previous dealings with him.

In my view, JPM is one of the very top drivers in NASCAR, and for the sake of his own career should have been with an HMS, RFR, or JGR by now; however, his loyalty to Ganassi seems to have held him back. If only EGR was even a half-decent team....

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

As a Gilles Villeneuve fan, I respectfully disagree with this. Gilles was never on a mission to win the championship. In fact, the championship seemed less important to him than to most other drivers.

Exactly.

[frostie]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

In my view, JPM is one of the very top drivers in NASCAR, and for the sake of his own career should have been with an HMS, RFR, or JGR by now; however, his loyalty to Ganassi seems to have held him back. If only EGR was even a half-decent team....

Very good point, when Ganasi has given Juan a decent car he has produced great races but the package has been too inconsistent to launch a full season charge. Very good point about loyalty as well

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by GOLDFINGER

Hill could race/win in the wet something DC didnt ever seem capable of

Remember his win at Interlagos, 2001, in the wet/dry. Ok JPM hammered everyone until 'The Boss' took him out, but after that DC was stellar, one of his best races.

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

1996 was DC's year?

No, but it could well have been had they not replaced him with JV. DC should never have left Williams, but didn't get a choice IIRC?

Originally Posted by GOLDFINGER

no he made to many mistakes, a good number 2 like his side kick mr Brundle

In 1995 he seemed to suffer the pressure, but the speed was evident and he would have made hay with the FW18 and 19.

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I think that you're right. The '96 Mclaren was a right lemon and Hakkinen was the firm Mclaren favourite so it's hard to see DC come to terms with him. If he had stayed at Williams he would've had great momentum to have a tilt at the '96 title. Yes, you can Coulthard to the list.

That's basically my thinking on this, yes.

Hakkinen would always have been tougher to beat than Damon.

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Remember his win at Interlagos, 2001, in the wet/dry. Ok JPM hammered everyone until 'The Boss' took him out, but after that DC was stellar, one of his best races.

DC has been a pretty good wet weather driver, don't forget his win over Schumi in 2001 at a wet/dry Silverstone, as well? Okay DC stuffed it in Spa in 1998 at the first corner, but he has had some decent drives in the wet.

I don't know whether DC staying on at Williams could have helped him. He did have the speed, but Hill seemed to have the upper hand in most races as he had more experience.

I think one of Hill's weaknesses was that he wasn't that good at overtaking. If he ended up behind Schumi he tended to sit there(collisions not withstanding). Likewise Schumi making him look like at an amateur at Spa in 1995.

[Paradise City]

Jody Scheckter?

[Mekola]

Add Carlos Reutemann to this list. 1981 could have been his year.
Even 1978 if it weren't for the Lotuses.

[Trev Campbell]

In reality 79 and 81 should have been Alan Jones' except for poor Williams reliability.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Him quitting F1 and turning to Nascar is surely one of the most bizarre things that has ever happened.

Never got that one. Who quits one of the top teams in F1 to run 20th place in Nascar?

Especially when you consider that he might have ended up at RBR.

[ensign14]

Alberto Ascari was one who could have won more...moving to Lancia probably looked good at the time, especially as the D34 seemed to be a serious piece of kit, but he never even won a World Championship race after his second title...we were robbed of Fangio v Ascari and later Ascari v Moss.

[Clive Brown]

Oh, and Tommy Byrne of course....

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

Oh, and Tommy Byrne of course....

Tommy just didn't fit the mould for F1 regardless of being a fantastic talent. He was cheeky, often lazy with his commitment, and lacked the professionalism expected of a top driver IMO. He grew up though and has done well for himself over in the States and all credit to him..

[strider]

My nominees would be Emerson Fittipaldi and Stirling Moss, who has won fame as the best driver never to have won the title, but could easily have done so in 1958 and 1959.

[Frosty11]

Barrichello could have won in 2002 if he had more luck in the 1st half of the season

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Thing is with Hill is that he never put any of his teammates away on speed and. I think he was lucky that DC was replaced with JV for 96 otherwise he prob wouldn't have got the title.

Yes, DC's one win in 24 for Williams was putting Damon under great pressure

Originally Posted by Frosty11

Barrichello could have won in 2002 if he had more luck in the 1st half of the season

Or if he was quicker.

I like the Emmo nomination.

Some more for the mix. There is Moss (choice of cars, accident), Clark (reliability, accident), Stewart (early retirement), Reutemann (the obvious one), Schumacher (if he hadn't retired first time).

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes, DC's one win in 24 for Williams was putting Damon under great pressure Or if he was quicker.

But to be fair he was raw as hell and Damon was nearly old enough to be his dad.

24 races is a fair amount of time to prove yourself but he did exactly that at McLaren and would have done had Williams have kept him on.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by chunterer

But to be fair he was raw as hell and Damon was nearly old enough to be his dad.

24 races is a fair amount of time to prove yourself but he did exactly that at McLaren and would have done had Williams have kept him on.

Do you think DC was better than Damon?

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes, DC's one win in 24 for Williams was putting Damon under great pressure Or if he was quicker.

I like the Emmo nomination.

Some more for the mix. There is Moss (choice of cars, accident), Clark (reliability, accident), Stewart (early retirement), Reutemann (the obvious one), Schumacher (if he hadn't retired first time).

Interesting call on Schumacher there. Although one naturally thinks, well, he did have seven, it's true that he was still on winning form then. Was he in decline though? I've seen debates before about how he was at his best less often from as early as 2002 according to some. In 2006, Massa was surprisingly his equal or better in some races; perhaps his mind was already on retirement.

Michael has clearly worked hard since his return on his fitness and perpetual all-consuming dedication, and if he'd kept going then, he could have kept winning and maintained the rhythm. The Ferrari was certainly quick enough in 2007 and 2008 for championships. We saw that.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Michael has clearly worked hard since his return on his fitness and perpetual all-consuming dedication, and if he'd kept going then, he could have kept winning and maintained the rhythm. The Ferrari was certainly quick enough in 2007 and 2008 for championships. We saw that.

I think what happened was he was pressured to retire for various reasons and had himself convinced as such, but I don't truly think he was ready and not really that surprised he came back. I think he should have continued until he felt it was time and then moved on.

[Razzzor]

Schumacher: I think he was moving out of his prime as early as 2001. His last 1/4 of the season after 9/11 he seemed to totally lose his commitment. 9/11 really seemed to effect him and it took him a few races to recover. From 2002 on Barrichello was a bit closer. I don't really know if he would secured the title in 2007 had he stayed on. The argument is would he have outscored Raikkonen?

Alonso: I actually think Alonso could have won more titles. He narrowly missed out on 07, then wanked around with Renault in 08/09 when he could have been with a leading team - he easily would have won the title in 08. And again missed out on 2010 as the Ferrari wasn't quite the match of RBR. Vettel was unstoppable in 11 though.

Hill vs DC: DC was faster than Hill once he got up to speed. It was impressive what Hill did in 93 alongside Prost, but Prost was well and truly past his best. So 96 would have been DC's year had he stayed at Williams. But he's been with plenty of leading teams in his career; Williams when they were #1, McLaren when they were #1. He didn't win any titles because he just wasn't world champion material. Neither was Hill - half the current 2011 field would have been champion in 96 in that Williams.

Emerson Fittipaldi is a good choice, and Alan Jones. Obviously Senna might have had a few more years in him and would have taken 1994 and 1996. Not so sure about 1995 though. MS was good that year. Would he have still been around by 97/98 though, with 5-6 titles to his name?

Actually Hakkinen may even have won more if he was in the right car a bit earlier in his career and didn't lose interest only a decade into his career.

Pironi, Gilles Villenueve, Clarke as well if accidents didn't end their careers.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Razzzor

Schumacher: I think he was moving out of his prime as early as 2001. His last 1/4 of the season after 9/11 he seemed to totally lose his commitment. 9/11 really seemed to effect him and it took him a few races to recover. From 2002 on Barrichello was a bit closer. I don't really know if he would secured the title in 2007 had he stayed on. The argument is would he have outscored Raikkonen?

Alonso: I actually think Alonso could have won more titles. He narrowly missed out on 07, then wanked around with Renault in 08/09 when he could have been with a leading team - he easily would have won the title in 08. And again missed out on 2010 as the Ferrari wasn't quite the match of RBR. Vettel was unstoppable in 11 though.

Hill vs DC: DC was faster than Hill once he got up to speed. It was impressive what Hill did in 93 alongside Prost, but Prost was well and truly past his best. So 96 would have been DC's year had he stayed at Williams. But he's been with plenty of leading teams in his career; Williams when they were #1, McLaren when they were #1. He didn't win any titles because he just wasn't world champion material. Neither was Hill - half the current 2011 field would have been champion in 96 in that Williams.

Emerson Fittipaldi is a good choice, and Alan Jones. Obviously Senna might have had a few more years in him and would have taken 1994 and 1996. Not so sure about 1995 though. MS was good that year. Would he have still been around by 97/98 though, with 5-6 titles to his name?

Actually Hakkinen may even have won more if he was in the right car a bit earlier in his career and didn't lose interest only a decade into his career.

Pironi, Gilles Villenueve, Clarke as well if accidents didn't end their careers.

Great post.

Re Schuey: not so sure he was past it by 2001, he really had to did deep in 2003 when Ferrari had a real job on against the Michelin shod Kimi and JPM....

Re Alonso: 2007 is the one that clearly got away and therefore it is easy to assume so did a number of subsequent years as the way it turned out at Woking wasn't in the script.....

Re Hill v DC: Yes, totally with you, glad someone finally kind of sees what I meant!!

Re Emmo: Probably if had stayed with McLaren.

Re Senna: 94 no, but 95-97 he would've slaughtered allcomers!

Re Hakkinen: One of the best drivers of his era and agreed he was worth far more than 2 titles.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Do you think DC was better than Damon?.

Well I think DC had far more potential but it got squandered and not necessarily by him. He made some daft mistakes early on but the pressure stepping in for Senna must've been immense, Damon was wiser and therefore handled it a bit better.

Damon on the other hand was mega quick 'on his own' some of his F3000 drives were phenomenal in 1990 (even though reliability was a problem), but i'm also pretty sure the Tickford tuned DFV in his Lola was some kind of one-off.....

I mean he was up against some serious opposition that year!

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Great post.

Re Schuey: not so sure he was past it by 2001, he really had to did deep in 2003 when Ferrari had a real job on against the Michelin shod Kimi and JPM....

Re Alonso: 2007 is the one that clearly got away and therefore it is easy to assume so did a number of subsequent years as the way it turned out at Woking wasn't in the script.....

Re Hill v DC: Yes, totally with you, glad someone finally kind of sees what I meant!!

Re Emmo: Probably if had stayed with McLaren.

Re Senna: 94 no, but 95-97 he would've slaughtered allcomers!

Re Hakkinen: One of the best drivers of his era and agreed he was worth far more than 2 titles.

I think Senna could have done it in 1994. By the end of the season, the car was pretty good. Clearly looked a handful at the season opening, though.

Would have been interesting to see what'd happen in the traction control developments, too...

Selby

[ascarracinguk]

JACKIE STEWART!!!!!

...3 championships in only 5 years in F1....IF he continuted could he have had more titles??? probably.......

....or did he escape soon enough with his life....dangerous times back then