Schumacher vs Senna

[Ari]

Who was the better driver?

It's more than likely this has been done before but there are always fresh opinions out there!

My thoughts are very much that of splinters on the bum. I'm sitting on the fence. I can't separate them. My heart says Senna.... my head doesn't know.

[Hawkmoon]

This is a sure fire argument starter but it's a fun topic none-the-less.

For me, it's Schumacher without question. But I've loved Ferrari for more than half my life so mine is hardly an objective opinion. I'll take off the rosso-tinted glasses for a moment and give it a go.

All of the numbers are in Schumacher's favour with the exception of percentage of pole position starts. Even then, Schumacher won a higher percentage of races, despite starting from the front less than Senna did.

The arguments for Senna are largely the intangible ones. Strength of opposition for example. The problem with intangibles is that they are very subjective. Senna competed against Prost, Piquet and Mansell, champions all. The question is, how do these guys compare to Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve and Alonso? I'd say it's a slight edge to Senna because of Prost but I think Hakkinen and Alonso compare to Piquet and Mansell favourably.

Strength of machinery? They both had the best at their disposal and both won with cars that weren't the best. I don't think this one either detracts or enhances the arguemnt for either driver.

Teammates? Again, the Prost factor gives this one to Senna. Schumacher raced against Piquet, but only briefly and it was Piquet's last season.

I don't feel that Senna having the edge in terms of who he competed with and against outweighs Schumacher's strike rate. Schumacher won with metronomic consistency that made his competitors look worse than they actually were, rather than them making him look better than he was.

[F1boat]

Well, Michael, I think. He achieved much more.

[Storm]

Senna.

Although I like Hawkmoon's analysis and agree with some points...but like you said Senna had that quality to him which hasn't been seen for a long time.

MS won more and was very consistent but also he had one the best cars ever in 2 of his seasons where the other cars were so bad (2002 & 4) that their was effectively no competition.

Also as you say Hakkinen and Alonso are probably as good or better than the couple you mentioned but also that in head-to-head with Alonso when they had competitive cars , Michael lost both those title races.

Of course he was tremendous driver, and could put in fast laps at will in a race situation but he also made a few more mistakes under pressure.

Of course, I am slightly biased as Senna was the star when I started watching F1 and the fact that he isn't with us anymore.

[ioan]

This is a sure fire argument starter but it's a fun topic none-the-less.

For me, it's Schumacher without question. But I've loved Ferrari for more than half my life so mine is hardly an objective opinion. I'll take off the rosso-tinted glasses for a moment and give it a go.

All of the numbers are in Schumacher's favour with the exception of percentage of pole position starts. Even then, Schumacher won a higher percentage of races, despite starting from the front less than Senna did.

The arguments for Senna are largely the intangible ones. Strength of opposition for example. The problem with intangibles is that they are very subjective. Senna competed against Prost, Piquet and Mansell, champions all. The question is, how do these guys compare to Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve and Alonso? I'd say it's a slight edge to Senna because of Prost but I think Hakkinen and Alonso compare to Piquet and Mansell favourably.

Strength of machinery? They both had the best at their disposal and both won with cars that weren't the best. I don't think this one either detracts or enhances the arguemnt for either driver.

Teammates? Again, the Prost factor gives this one to Senna. Schumacher raced against Piquet, but only briefly and it was Piquet's last season.

I don't feel that Senna having the edge in terms of who he competed with and against outweighs Schumacher's strike rate. Schumacher won with metronomic consistency that made his competitors look worse than they actually were, rather than them making him look better than he was.

Great analysis! I agree completely!

[ioan]

...but also that in head-to-head with Alonso when they had competitive cars , Michael lost both those title races.

Stormy please tell me you aren't serious when you say that the 2005 Ferrari and Renault were equally competitive cars!

[Storm]

2005 maybe not..but pretty close...2006 surely? Renault had the fastest out of the block but the Ferrari was so much quicker in the second half of the season..

and I said competitive : not equal!

[ioan]

and I said competitive : not equal!

Well they were not on the same level of competitiveness either in 2005.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

I think it's intangible to compare them on numbers.

Schumacher was in the sport for longer (& may be back). During that time he competed in seasons with 18 races +, & at times had the most reliable package the sport has ever seen.

[Valve Bounce]

Who was the better driver?

It's more than likely this has been done before but there are always fresh opinions out there!

My thoughts are very much that of splinters on the bum. I'm sitting on the fence. I can't separate them. My heart says Senna.... my head doesn't know.

You could ask who was the better FF: Johnny Coleman or Hudson. You'd be in the same position, although I would be inclined to name Johnny as he never got the protection from the umpires that Hudson had.