F1 WDC since 1980 - Who won it, who should've?

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Trev Campbell

One thing I've always thought is that if Senna was still alive for 1994, the penalties handed down to Schumacher in 1994 would not have been as severe as they were. I think it was done to tighten up the championship, as Schumacher was romping away with the title, the last thing the FIA/Bernie needed was a one sided contest. People would have turned away in droves with a boring championship and the death of Senna.

You might think that...i couldn't possibly comment!

Yeah i think you're on the right tracks there though to be honest.

KB, what happened to Prost in '83 at Zandvoort then? this is something not in my memory!!

[chunterer]

Kicking Back, what happened to Prost that affected the 83 title race?

[SpawnyWhippet]

Prost and Piquet collided on lap 42 whilst fighting for the lead around the first pitstop window. Piquet retired immediately, and Prost soon afterwards.

[Kicking-back]

Yes. That's what happened in the race.

But what I'm getting at is the reason why the normally reliable Prost was in an agitated mood and made such a mistake.

Many believe it's because of what he'd done earlier in the weekend, away from the track - an incident which may have also played a key role in him being fired from Renault.

[chunterer]

Ah thanks guys for the responses

I thought Prost was always a fairly unflappable sort of guy? Mind you that proabably came with experience!

Then again he's always been pretty adept at stamping his feet if he hasn't got hois own way.

Renault '83
Mclaren '88/89
Ferrari '91

Hmmm, i take back what i've said!

[SpawnyWhippet]

Has any other WDC been sacked twice?

[Skam85]

Maybe JV... we'll soon see...

[chunterer]

Dunno if anyone else has been 'sacked' twice, but Williams are usually pretty good at 'moving' drivers on.

Back to topic, i remember being amazed in '97 when JV hammered Frentzen like he did. Based on HHF's blinding pace he'd shown frequently in the Sauber i thought he'd clean up given a top line car, so i guess i ought to stick him in the third column under could've won it?

But then he easn't very convincing that year whereas in '99 in the Jordan, he had a great season and nearly went and won it anyway, making the utmost of McLaren's and Ferrari's trip ups. now that would have meant that a privateer team had bucked the manufacturer trend and that would have been a bit naughty in a certain billionaire organisers eyes!!

Other than the past season and 2003 which was also a very good year for action, '99 was probably the most competitive title race since the mid 80's!

[chunterer]

Having looked at key events and evidence from certain season again, stand out years where one driver won the title without the best package or that someone else lost through mistakes or reliability in reverse order are:

2003 Schu profited from Montoya's spins and mechanical problems (and i think the Bridgestone appeal against Michelin).

1999, Frentzen would have won it if his car had finished Nurburgring as he was going away at the time.

1990, Senna profited from removing Prost from Suzuka and over the course of the year many Mansell retirements otherwise, he surely would have been in the title hunt.

1986, Mansell's tyre blow out 'lost' him a dead cert title.

1984, Ferrari's lack of development over the season allowed Prost to overhaul Alboreto's points lead.

1983, Prost should've taken title and not Piquet. And if the right driver was in the Ferrai which i think was the quickest car it too could've beaten them both.

1982, Was Didier's for the taking (and Gilles woul've fought him all the way) if they'd both completed the season.

1981, Reutemann, got himself into the position where he should have capitalised on what he had createwd over the year.

I know this is an opinion but there certainly is logic to this summary. I may have omitted certain other years, but these are clear examples of how a season has swung according to form and circumstances that have lead to an outcome where a different driver should've have won the chamiponship.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by chunterer

.

I know this is an opinion but there certainly is logic to this summary. I may have omitted certain other years, but these are clear examples of how a season has swung according to form and circumstances that have lead to an outcome where a different driver should've have won the chamiponship.

I do see what you're saying, but I'd say anyone who doesn't win the title must be regarded as could've rather than should've

[chunterer]

Some of the examples certainly swing more towards that yes, but take 2003, really Montoya should've won it because the points he lost by spinning at Melbourne, engine blowing in Austria, spinning in Montreal all cost him 10 points each time - and at two thirds of the way throught the season he was the favourite...

If it was a case of he could've won it that would generally imply that he didn't actually figure in the title race but might have done if he had the equipment maybe?

If you then offset the points situation with the people who did win those races, then it's almost inevitable he would have won it and not Schumacher because Schuey's overall points at the end of the season would have been reduced. In Australia DC won so JPM would have been more up on Schuey if he had not spun. A1 Ring, Montoya was in front and driving to the finish (Schu was quicker after final stops but wouldn't have caught him) and then in Canada Schuey won, but JPM had the car on the day and most reckon a win or at least a second was on the cards for him?

However i underline that i'm basing my theories on balanced asessment of the form and circumstances of the season in question.

[SpawnyWhippet]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

I do see what you're saying, but I'd say anyone who doesn't win the title must be regarded as could've rather than should've

I disagree, as chunterer states, 'could have won' implies that the driver may have had a chance of winning if something had gone wrong with the winning drivers car, where as 'should have won' implies that the driver would definitely have won apart from being unlucky and the other guy then inherited his place.
In the cases that have been stated, I believe 'should have won' is more accurate. Semantics I know, but pretty important to the preceived ability of those involved.

[Kicking-back]

If I led every race of the year, but the car broke down in every single one of them would it be true to say

a) I could have been world champion, but the car wasn't reliable enough

or

b) I should have been world champion?

I say a)

To say b) denigrates the achievement of whoever actually did it

The whole point of the championship is it reflects a season's worth of results


This debate reminds me of a football manager who loses 2-nil and then says afterwards "but we were the better team" - no they weren't - scoring goals is the objective - much like in racing it's winning races, scoring points that actually count.

[chunterer]

Yes you're totally right in that what happens happens for a reason and we can't argue with titlists, winners facts etc.. However that's not the point of this thread.

This thread is not denigrating those who did win, it's simply assessing what was going to happen/might have happened if form had continued/cars had finished races/driver's not spammed at a certain event.

My idea with the thread is for us all to analyse and discuss relative merits of a given season which in the case of many posts has already given much 'mouth watering' thought.

You could also say K-B, that for many drivers the point is to prove they are the fastest at every race and not necessarily to win the most races or titles? Certainly was the case with Gilles and Ayrton?

[Patrese256]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Who might have landed in that dominant 1992 Williams then? Or would Patrese have become perhaps the most mediocre World Champion ever?

Not a fan then

[chunterer]

RESURRECTION TIME!

2007:

Kimi won it but based on how the McLaren's were cleaning up mid season, and how Alonso was either winning or finishing 2nd he latterly felt he was getting shafted internally, the scene was set for Fernando's 3rd title in a row.

What actually happened wasn't in the script....


2008 Hamilton won it but it's fair to say that on the balance of the season, it really was Felipe Massa's year.....

[Pingguest]

In 2007, Räikkönen actually won the World Championship due to the Safety Car during that year's Canadian Grand Prix. Alonso was running out of fuel but the regulations didn't allow to refuelling while the pit lane was 'closed'. The Spanish driver couldn't do anything but to refuelling and received a penalty for it. And that cost him the title.

[jab]

You could also say that Lewis should've won but was robbed by the technical glitch in the last race, the only technical problem he had all year

There are umpteen ways of skinning that cat

Oh and I don't agree that 2008 was Massa's year

[Marbot]

All the 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' aren't going to change a thing. But one thing is certain. S**t happens!

[Belatti]

Just how Id like things would have been
Lets say what I would have called divine justice
I wont "think" how would X driver have done the next year after his death year... thats too much speculation

1980 Jones OK
1981 Reutemann (The good cosworth engine went to jones in Germany and Carlos was not particulary "loved" by the team after Brazil)
82 Gilles, just cause I love him
83 Prost because I hate Piquet
84 Lauda
85 Prost
86 Prost because Mansell and Piquet did like Alonso and Hamilton in 2007
87 Piquet
88 Senna
89 Senna because was robbed inSuzuka by Balestre and Prost
90 Senna because he had huge balls to revenge
91 Senna
92 Mansell
93 Senna in a Williams if Prost would not have been that chicken
94 Senna because he would have done better than Hill
95 Schuey
96 Hill
97 JV
98 Hakkinen
99 Schuey if he didnt crash
2000 Schuey
01 Schuey
02 Schuey
03 Schuey
04 Schuey
05 Alonso, because had consistency, although Kimi deserved it too
06 Alonso, even if Schuey engine said "enough" at Suzuka...
07 Kimi, deserved for shutting up and just driving
08 Hamilton, Im not a Massa fan
09 Button (His smooth style is not spectacular enough for me but Ill give it just for his last race...)


This would have left this WDC summs:
Senna 6
Prost 3
Shuey 7
Lauda 3
Piquet 1
Rosberg 0
Jones 1
Mansell 1
Hill 1
JV 1
Kimi 1
Alonso 2
Hamilton 1
Button 1
Gilles 1
Reutemann 1
Hakinnen 1

[Dutton]

So, even after playing with history, and giving Senna 3 more titles, Michael still has more titles.

Work harder, friend.

Everyone knows justice can only be served after Senna has been given every championship he has ever competed in.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

BootsOnTheSide - I believe before they signed Mansell for '91, Williams came very close to signing Jean Alesi. If Alesi had taken that and Mansell had retired afterall... who knows!

Plus I remember reading somewhere on a website about Ayrton Senna that in his diaries (or something like that) he'd planned to retire from F1 at the end of 1999. I don't know if that's true or not, however.

What a strange, strange image that is. Senna in F1 1999.

Selby

[Yannick]

Well, who would have joined Patrese in 1991 at Williams if not Mansell? Would they have kept on Thierry Boutsen? Who were the other contenders for the seat?

[jab]

As TheNewBob said, Alesi

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by chunterer

I.E, If Reutemann had been bit more consistent in '81 and not had that dreadful last race and sewed up the crown - would he have carried on for a few more years against the newer guys of the mid 80's?

In fact Reutemann was partially active until mid-'80s. Remember he finished on the podium on the current Nürburgring circuit inaugural race with the Mercedes cars (the race that Senna won in 1984) and also finished 3rd in the 1985 Rally of Argentina with a Peugeot 205.