Quote Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
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.

.....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.
One explanation for Schumi's superior strike rate is because he was number 1 driver. Senna had to contend with Prost in a more equal environment in the late 80s, whereas Schumi had the benefit of team orders.

I'd say Senna would be the better driver over one lap. Using Hakkinen as a yardstick, the Flying Finn is regarded as one of the quickest drivers over one lap. Hakkinen would lay down the gauntlet and set an unbelievable benchmark on his first few laps, Schumi would struggle a bit and usually try to steal pole under the dying seconds of qualy.

Over a race? Hard to say, both display superior pace and enjoy driving on the edge, both superior in the wet, and both are very clever behind the cockpit.