Jump to content
F1 2020 | KNOWN KEY ISSUES | READ ME!!! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  

Underrated and Overrated drivers?

Recommended Posts

If you've never heard of Prost being considered the greatest of all time by someone you've not looked at many opinions AMS. You've got to look before his time with Senna for his best seasons in my opinion, the 1986 season he beat two superior Williams to the championship, and he beat his teammate Rosberg in the same car by around 40-50 points I think it was. And in the time when there was 9 points for a win and the F1 championship contained drop rounds, that was effectively from 11 races too. Even in his time with Senna as well though, as far as races went they were closely matched. 

As for Piquet, from what I know of him, I think his reputation was tarnished for some of the comments he made about his fellow racers. He did beat some recognisable drivers such as Lauda and Mansell in the same car over a season so he was clearly a strong driver, but I think the problem for Piquet was at all stages of his career there was just that someone who was better. He entered the sport while Villeneuve was around, through the mid 80's there was Prost, and as the decade developed there was obviously Senna. And even when he was with Mansell, even though Piquet won a world title while they were teammates, looking at the stats Piquet won 7 races and got 5 poles in their time together while Mansell won 12 races and got 10 poles, suggesting he was the faster driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VetteIfan said:
If you've never heard of Prost being considered the greatest of all time by someone you've not looked at many opinions AMS. You've got to look before his time with Senna for his best seasons in my opinion, the 1986 season he beat two superior Williams to the championship, and he beat his teammate Rosberg in the same car by around 40-50 points I think it was. And in the time when there was 9 points for a win and the F1 championship contained drop rounds, that was effectively from 11 races too. Even in his time with Senna as well though, as far as races went they were closely matched. 

As for Piquet, from what I know of him, I think his reputation was tarnished for some of the comments he made about his fellow racers. He did beat some recognisable drivers such as Lauda and Mansell in the same car over a season so he was clearly a strong driver, but I think the problem for Piquet was at all stages of his career there was just that someone who was better. He entered the sport while Villeneuve was around, through the mid 80's there was Prost, and as the decade developed there was obviously Senna. And even when he was with Mansell, even though Piquet won a world title while they were teammates, looking at the stats Piquet won 7 races and got 5 poles in their time together while Mansell won 12 races and got 10 poles, suggesting he was the faster driver.
I wouldn't say that, if you see a list of the best drivers it will always be either Fangio, Senna or Schumacher in contention for the top spot. Prost will always be top 5 but never top 2 and rarely top 3. 

http://greatestdrivers.autosport.com/?driver=4

That is voted by drivers. I disagree with it personally but, Prost only 4th there. If you look from 1988 until 1993 (Excluding 1992):
1988- Senna (Team mates)
1989 - Prost
1990 - Senna
1991 - Senna (Superior car)
1993 - Prost (Superior car)

Clearly, that is 3-2 Senna. So why is Senna regarded as the best, and Prost only 4th if they were so close. And Prost has 1 more title. I don't believe Senna would have won another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've pretty much just repeated what I've said AMS - in a nutshell that Senna and Prost were very close. But if you look around you'll easily find a lot of people who consider Prost to be in the top 3 of all time, opinion doesn't just have to be from drivers to be relevant.

Interesting fact though. As I mentioned before, Formula 1 featured "drop rounds" when Senna and Prost were at Mclaren together - aka the 5 weakest results at the end of the seasons were effectively wiped off the sheet, so for example only a driver's 11 best results would count if it was a 16 race season. 

Senna's 5 weakest results in 1988 were a DSQ, a DNF, a 10th, a 6th and a 4th. Prost's 5 weakest results in 1988 were two DNF's and three 2nd places, such was his consistency. It doesn't take a genius to work out Prost would've won the title that season if all results were counted across the season like they are today. He would've won it comfortably. Obviously it's just how the rules were at the time, but it's interesting non the less, and is the type of thing that isn't really accommodated for in those excellent calculations of yours. 

But anyway you say Senna wouldn't have won another title? In '94 Hill was 1 point behind Schumacher. In '96 Hill won the title. In '97 Villeneuve won the title. All in Williams. If these guys were capable of winning the title in that team, I'd be interested to know why you think Senna wouldn't have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think Senna would have won because in 1994 he was already 2 race wins behind in an inferior car, I'd say he wouldn't have won, but who knows?
In 1995, Schumacher would have still won IMO, his car was better. By this stage, Senna is what, 36? IF he was still in F1 by this stage, he would probably be at Ferrari for 1996 as he wanted to end his career there and he clearly would not have won then. In 1997 he would be 37/38 and who knows if he would have been any good at that age?

I just don't think, given his age and his car, he would have won another one. 

And going by what you said, why is Senna considered better then? Prost should have had 5 titles, and Senna just 2 judging by that.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMS97KRR said:
I don't think Senna would have won because in 1994 he was already 2 race wins behind in an inferior car, I'd say he wouldn't have won, but who knows?
In 1995, Schumacher would have still won IMO, his car was better. By this stage, Senna is what, 36? IF he was still in F1 by this stage, he would probably be at Ferrari for 1996 as he wanted to end his career there and he clearly would not have won then. In 1997 he would be 37/38 and who knows if he would have been any good at that age?

I just don't think, given his age and his car, he would have won another one. 

And going by what you said, why is Senna considered better then? Prost should have had 5 titles, and Senna just 2 judging by that.


I think he would have had a chance at taking the 1994 title had he not had his accident but I think whether he did or didn't he'd have put himself in the fight somehow as that's the kind of driver he was in many ways he's a lot like whart Schumacher was during his time at the top really at least that's how it seemed to me but I don't think he'd have done any more than 1 maybe 2 more seasons at most as he was close to retirement age when he died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerhard Berger set pole, fastest lap and took the win at the 1997 German Grand Prix at the age of 37. In a Benetton. Every other race was won by McLaren, Ferrari or Williams.

We all agree that Senna was better than Berger yea? So honestly I don't think age would have stopped him winning more championships :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerhard Berger set pole, fastest lap and took the win at the 1997 German Grand Prix at the age of 37. In a Benetton. Every other race was won by McLaren, Ferrari or Williams.

We all agree that Senna was better than Berger yea? So honestly I don't think age would have stopped him winning more championships :p
Agreed Mansell himself was past 40 when he won the 1992 championship and at times on his comeback Schumacher did show a little bit of the old fire within him he just didn't quite have the car to take full advantage. I think Senna could have eventually gotten to grips with Schumi in 94 had his accident not happened but I suspect that given the way F1 was moving on I suspect 94 would have been his last

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerhard Berger set pole, fastest lap and took the win at the 1997 German Grand Prix at the age of 37. In a Benetton. Every other race was won by McLaren, Ferrari or Williams.

We all agree that Senna was better than Berger yea? So honestly I don't think age would have stopped him winning more championships :p
Agreed Mansell himself was past 40 when he won the 1992 championship and at times on his comeback Schumacher did show a little bit of the old fire within him he just didn't quite have the car to take full advantage. I think Senna could have eventually gotten to grips with Schumi in 94 had his accident not happened but I suspect that given the way F1 was moving on I suspect 94 would have been his last
I can't agree on that :p Senna had a 2 year contract with Williams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMS97KRR said:
I don't think Senna would have won because in 1994 he was already 2 race wins behind in an inferior car, I'd say he wouldn't have won, but who knows?
In 1995, Schumacher would have still won IMO, his car was better. By this stage, Senna is what, 36? IF he was still in F1 by this stage, he would probably be at Ferrari for 1996 as he wanted to end his career there and he clearly would not have won then. In 1997 he would be 37/38 and who knows if he would have been any good at that age?

I just don't think, given his age and his car, he would have won another one. 

And going by what you said, why is Senna considered better then? Prost should have had 5 titles, and Senna just 2 judging by that.


As Prawn and sjsharp have pointed out, age probably wouldn't have been a limit for Senna. Age wasn't such a factor back then. Plus even looking at nowadays - a 43 year old Schumacher when in the best car managed to put it on pole at the least forgiving track in the world. 

I'm not saying Prost was better than Senna because of the drop race rule going against Prost. Maybe it's the reason Senna was so aggressive at points in his career, because he knew he had 5 occasions when it meant nothing anyway. Using that rule to his advantage. The only reason I brought it up was as an example to point out the Senna vs Prost comparison isn't as simple as you make it out to be on the last page. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerhard Berger set pole, fastest lap and took the win at the 1997 German Grand Prix at the age of 37. In a Benetton. Every other race was won by McLaren, Ferrari or Williams.

We all agree that Senna was better than Berger yea? So honestly I don't think age would have stopped him winning more championships :p
Agreed Mansell himself was past 40 when he won the 1992 championship and at times on his comeback Schumacher did show a little bit of the old fire within him he just didn't quite have the car to take full advantage. I think Senna could have eventually gotten to grips with Schumi in 94 had his accident not happened but I suspect that given the way F1 was moving on I suspect 94 would have been his last
I can't agree on that :p Senna had a 2 year contract with Williams.
wasn't aware that it was a 2 year deal but the Benetton were a pretty strong outfit at that time I would have found it hard to believe Schumi wouldn't have won one of those duels anyway as that's when he was beginning to hit his stride. I do think that given that Hill ran Schumi close for the title that year and missed out by just 1 point indicates to me that Senna might have been able to catch up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well don't forget that Schumi only won it because he rammed Hill in desperation:p 
That WDC was Hill's after Schumi went off circuit and broke his car. I can't say it for sure, but had it been Senna instead of Hill, I don't think Michael would have done that to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damon Hill would have the same amount of titles as Alonso if it wasn't for Schumacher hitting him!  :-O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well don't forget that Schumi only won it because he rammed Hill in desperation:p 
That WDC was Hill's after Schumi went off circuit and broke his car. I can't say it for sure, but had it been Senna instead of Hill, I don't think Michael would have done that to him. 
I know he did and I didn't forget that becsause I think that title should have been Hill's (I remember backing Hill at the time as he was my favourite driver then) but then I've come to accept these days that it wasn't. Personally I'd have disquallified Schumi from the title for that but what's done is done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lukedfrt said:
Damon Hill would have the same amount of titles as Alonso if it wasn't for Schumacher hitting him!  :-O
quite possibly yes Luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lukedfrt said:
Damon Hill would have the same amount of titles as Alonso if it wasn't for Schumacher hitting him!  :-O
Alonso could have as many as Fangio had he had a little more luck on final races...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Hill has the same amount of titles as Hamilton and Raikkonen so that should tell you everything really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMS97KRR said:
Well Hill has the same amount of titles as Hamilton and Raikkonen so that should tell you everything really.
Well, when an average driver (Hill) gets a dominant car, he wins championships. Reminds me of a certain German driver...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMS97KRR said:
Well Hill has the same amount of titles as Hamilton and Raikkonen so that should tell you everything really.
Well, when an average driver (Hill) gets a dominant car, he wins championships. Reminds me of a certain German driver...
which we won't name eh Prawn? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone think of the last time a driver won a title in a car that wasn't the overall best? Obivously Alonso came close in 2012 and Raikkonen in 2003, but the only example I can think up is Kimi in '07. Otherwise, not in my life-time, I don't think... Anyone who did is most certainly underrated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stats are not everything....to a point. It is like the whole Senna Vs Schumacher debate. For me, 4 Championships difference is to much to ignore. And you have to consider the effort Schumacher put in to get Ferrari into that winning position. 

Vettel has 4, that is too many for him to be "average"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMS97KRR said:
Stats are not everything....to a point. It is like the whole Senna Vs Schumacher debate. For me, 4 Championships difference is to much to ignore. And you have to consider the effort Schumacher put in to get Ferrari into that winning position. 

Vettel has 4, that is too many for him to be "average"
true unfortunately but true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMS97KRR said:
Stats are not everything....to a point. It is like the whole Senna Vs Schumacher debate. For me, 4 Championships difference is to much to ignore. And you have to consider the effort Schumacher put in to get Ferrari into that winning position. 

Vettel has 4, that is too many for him to be "average"
4 championships difference is too much to ignore? Yet just saying that you can ignore the fact Schumacher had a career that was nearly twice the length of Senna's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×