2016 Austrian Grand Prix

[sjsharp2010 222]

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

[VetteIfan 0]

I've read and listened to everything Rosberg has said on the collision in the past few days, and I've come to the conclusion that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how to race in certain situations.

His argument is that he was on the inside line so he gets to dictate the path of the corner, also drawing reference to when Lewis has done that on various occasions in the past few years. The thing he's missing is on all the occasions that Lewis has "ran him out of road" is that he had the racing line and Rosberg was behind him and on his outside in those situations. In Austria: a) Rosberg was obviously nowhere near the racing line, so he didn't ever have the privilege to be able to push him off the road in a fair manner, and b) he was behind Hamilton on approach to the corner when they both started turning in, meaning he had already lost the high ground and any attempt to force him off the road was always going to come off second best for Rosberg. 

I think someone in Mercedes needs to mention this to him, because if he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong he'll probably do it again.  

[Jiggy 5]

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical twat. Which is what he is.

[Mexicola 9]

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical ****. Which is what he is.

That, and there is absolutely no way in hell to prove that the move he made was a deliberate attempt to take Hill out. There's no evidence, none, no chance, no way.

[sjsharp2010 222]

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical ****. Which is what he is.

Perhaps but Schumacher was out of the race anyway due to his mistake there was no need for him to  behave the way he did by smashing into Hill at that time. Had Schumi not tried to crash into him he wouldn't have behaved that way I remember the incident and remember thinking WTF are you doing Schumacher that is OTT. In my view that should have been Hill's title by default after what he did. Still nothing we can do about it now w3hat's done is done and they're both out the sport now.

[Jiggy 5]

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical ****. Which is what he is.

Perhaps but Schumacher was out of the race anyway due to his mistake there was no need for him to  behave the way he did by smashing into Hill at that time. Had Schumi not tried to crash into him he wouldn't have behaved that way I remember the incident and remember thinking **** are you doing Schumacher that is OTT. In my view that should have been Hill's title by default after what he did. Still nothing we can do about it now w3hat's done is done and they're both out the sport now.

It won him the title which he would've undeservingly lost to a vastly inferior driver, hadn't he done that.

Allegedly.

That Hill wouldn't have done the things he did afterwards, is speculative. Point is, he's made from the same cloth as Schumacher, yet likes to act like he isn't, being morally superior and all that, because his dad was the last F1 World Champion to use pomade.

I would even argue that Schumacher's move was beneficiary for the greater good. Hill had no right to win any sort of title with his performance in 94.

[sjsharp2010 222]

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical ****. Which is what he is.

Perhaps but Schumacher was out of the race anyway due to his mistake there was no need for him to  behave the way he did by smashing into Hill at that time. Had Schumi not tried to crash into him he wouldn't have behaved that way I remember the incident and remember thinking **** are you doing Schumacher that is OTT. In my view that should have been Hill's title by default after what he did. Still nothing we can do about it now w3hat's done is done and they're both out the sport now.

It won him the title which he would've undeservingly lost to a vastly inferior driver, hadn't he done that.

Allegedly.

That Hill wouldn't have done the things he did afterwards, is speculative. Point is, he's made from the same cloth as Schumacher, yet likes to act like he isn't, being morally superior and all that, because his dad was the last F1 World Champion to use pomade.

I would even argue that Schumacher's move was beneficiary for the greater good. Hill had no right to win any sort of title with his performance in 94.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this as I don't see it that way at all as Hill had not been involved in any nasty stuff before that. To me  it doesn't matter if he deserved to win or not had it been me that had been in Schumi's car I'd have just got out and accepted defeat galliantly regardless of the outcome. I might not of liked losing but I'd have accepted it rather than tried to run the other guy off the road. For me Hill didn't deserve to be taken out of the race like that.

[sjsharp2010 222]

Mexicola said:

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical ****. Which is what he is.

That, and there is absolutely no way in hell to prove that the move he made was a deliberate attempt to take Hill out. There's no evidence, none, no chance, no way.

I think it depends on your point of view but to me it looked like it was deliberate. Very deliberate as it looked like he knew he was out of the race already at least to me.

[Jiggy 5]

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

sjsharp2010 said:

Jiggy said:

It's even more funny because you know that underneath the banter, he's still having salty nightmares of what happened in Adelaide.

Not surprising what Schumacher did to him that day was nasty. I'm surprised the FIA didn't take more serious action than they did back then

Schumacher was by far the best driver in 1994, despite getting a 2-race ban and a DQ for 2 other races. Would've been somewhat of a disgrace if he hadn't won the title that season, not only in the season Senna died, but also to a hilariously inferior driver. Hill also kept trying to take revenge in '95 several times, failed every single time and got dominated by Schumacher again.

Despite that, he keeps playing the "me, the fair and honest Brit with proper fair British values got screwed by this scummy German"-card every chance he gets, making him look like a massively bitter, hypocritical ****. Which is what he is.

Perhaps but Schumacher was out of the race anyway due to his mistake there was no need for him to  behave the way he did by smashing into Hill at that time. Had Schumi not tried to crash into him he wouldn't have behaved that way I remember the incident and remember thinking **** are you doing Schumacher that is OTT. In my view that should have been Hill's title by default after what he did. Still nothing we can do about it now w3hat's done is done and they're both out the sport now.

It won him the title which he would've undeservingly lost to a vastly inferior driver, hadn't he done that.

Allegedly.

That Hill wouldn't have done the things he did afterwards, is speculative. Point is, he's made from the same cloth as Schumacher, yet likes to act like he isn't, being morally superior and all that, because his dad was the last F1 World Champion to use pomade.

I would even argue that Schumacher's move was beneficiary for the greater good. Hill had no right to win any sort of title with his performance in 94.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this as I don't see it that way at all as Hill had not been involved in any nasty stuff before that. To me  it doesn't matter if he deserved to win or not had it been me that had been in Schumi's car I'd have just got out and accepted defeat galliantly regardless of the outcome. I might not of liked losing but I'd have accepted it rather than tried to run the other guy off the road. For me Hill didn't deserve to be taken out of the race like that.

It definitely is a difference of philosophies. I feel like if there is a situation where you know you are the best and everybody knows you are the best, but you might lose the championship to someone who is not even in your league because of things out of your hand like suspensions and disqualifications, it would be an injustice to not only you, but also the sport itself, if that guy becomes champion and you don't. I definitely would not have accepted that, had I have been in Schumi's shoes. Had it have been Hakkinen, then I would've accepted defeat, as Hakkinen is respected as an elite driver and an equal by Schumacher, therefore losing out to someone of his caliber is nothing to be ashamed of, not even when you're Michael Schumacher. Had it have been Hakkinen in the 94 Williams, Schumacher would've lost the title by Adelaide anyway. But not Hill. His one title alone is already sort of a blemish on the World Champion-list, never mind if he had two.


But like I said, that's my view on things and we have a clear difference in views, so agree to disagree and all that.