Schumacher vs Senna

[GingerLynn]

There are more similarities between Ayrton and Michael than there are differences.

They were both devastatingly confident in the wet. (Ayrton at Donnington in 93 and Schumi at Spain in 96)

They both made unforced errors. (Ayrton Monaco erm, 87,88 or 89 - can't remember, and Schumi Adelaide 94)

They were supremely confident, to the point of being arrogant (on the track certainly, no idea about in person).

They wanted one thing, and one thing only, to win.

To be honest, I don't think you can really seperate them.

One thing I will say in Ayrton's favour, is his philosophy on team mates. In 'The Life of Senna' there is a section on Lotus. Ayrton vetoed Derek Warwick being his teammate. Not because he was afraid of him, but because he knew Lotus could not competetively field two good drivers. I guess that is a back handed compliment to Derek.

As to Michael, since Herbet was his teammate, it appears (careful use of that word) he has not wanted a competetive teammate. Now, that is not dissimilar to the Ayrton at Lotus scenario, but for who's gain was it?

I'm not bashing, just provoking the debate.......

There is another difference between your scenario however. When Senna was at his prime the main objective of a team was to get the two best drivers in the market and field them. This of course worked well at Williams with Patrese and Mansell/Hill and Prost and of course at Ferrari with Berger/Mansell, Berger/Alesi - and surprisingly well at McLaren with Berger/Senna. In fact there were only 2 occasions were we saw problems and that was at McLaren with Senna/Prost and a very minor rift at Ferrari with Mansell/Prost which eventually precluded Prost from running at Williams in the 1992 season.

Benetton (along with Schumacher) usered in the new philosophy however. Put all your eggs in one basket and get a patsy driver to support that basket (Schumacher)... This of course followed through right into Ferrari and has now permeated into many other teams.

Was not the case years prior however.

[Osella]

Hmmm, what about the team-mates at McLaren in '87 (Prost), Lotus in '85-'89 (Senna/Piquet), Williams in '91/92(Mansell), McLaren in '91-93 (Senna) etc..

Never mind the smaller teams such as Jordan, Leyton House, Minardi, Fondmetal, etc who only had the money to run one good/promising driver and a renta-driver..

To suggest Williams ever thought of going for the championship with Patrese, McLaren with Berger or Ferrari with Capelli is laughable (good backup though they undoubtedly were). They were just there as support acts. And to suggest that Lehto and Barrichello were picked up as patsys is pretty disingenuous to their talents and the way they were viewed at the time as promising talents. Lehto and Hakkinen were both picked up by top teams at around the same time and were thought of as pretty equal until that point.

Senna vetoed anyone he thought was quick (Derek Warwick) and Lotus signed Nakajima later to pay the bills... Schumacher was paired with Martin Brundle (World Sportscar champion and near equal of Senna in F3, that wasn't just so he could play lapdog, nor did he...!) Flavio realised however that to launch a championship challenge their (relatively) small (read:lower-budget) team had to concentrate around their best asset - Schumacher. Hardly a dissimilar case to McLaren in 1992/93 when Senna drove for them...

So really when Senna was in his 'prime', top teams were signing Stefan Johansson, a tired-out Rosberg (who had to be forced to drive for McLaren until the end of the season in '86!), Berger (who was a newcomer in '86/'87!), Thierry Boutsen, Satoru Nakajima, Emmanuele Pirro, Ivan Capelli, and Roberto Moreno! So in reality, things were just the same back then in many ways too...

[Osella]

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know Round here it's good posts which count

[GingerLynn]

Hmmm, what about the team-mates at McLaren in '87 (Prost), Lotus in '85-'89 (Senna/Piquet), Williams in '91/92(Mansell), McLaren in '91-93 (Senna) etc..

Never mind the smaller teams such as Jordan, Leyton House, Minardi, Fondmetal, etc who only had the money to run one good/promising driver and a renta-driver..

To suggest Williams ever thought of going for the championship with Patrese, McLaren with Berger or Ferrari with Capelli is laughable (good backup though they undoubtedly were). They were just there as support acts. And to suggest that Lehto and Barrichello were picked up as patsys is pretty disingenuous to their talents and the way they were viewed at the time as promising talents. Lehto and Hakkinen were both picked up by top teams at around the same time and were thought of as pretty equal until that point.

Senna vetoed anyone he thought was quick (Derek Warwick) and Lotus signed Nakajima later to pay the bills... Schumacher was paired with Martin Brundle (World Sportscar champion and near equal of Senna in F3, that wasn't just so he could play lapdog, nor did he...!) Flavio realised however that to launch a championship challenge their (relatively) small (read:lower-budget) team had to concentrate around their best asset - Schumacher. Hardly a dissimilar case to McLaren in 1992/93 when Senna drove for them...

So really when Senna was in his 'prime', top teams were signing Stefan Johansson, a tired-out Rosberg (who had to be forced to drive for McLaren until the end of the season in '86!), Berger (who was a newcomer in '86/'87!), Thierry Boutsen, Satoru Nakajima, Emmanuele Pirro, Ivan Capelli, and Roberto Moreno! So in reality, things were just the same back then in many ways too...

Agreed however teams generally shot for the best drivers they could get. Rarely was a Prost, Mansell, Senna, Piquet available for 1 team. The next best drivers were the Bergers Alesi and Patrese.

They were far better skilled and a closer match to their teamates then Barichello, Salo, Irvine, Massa and so on. Clearly the last 10 years have been an obvious attempt for many top teams to get a driver to simply support their #1.

BTW - Great handle!

[GingerLynn]

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know Round here it's good posts which count

You bet - exactly who I am catering to

[Rudy Tamasz]

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know

Excuse me?

[ioan]

Excuse me?

Excused!

[arcanox]

Senna was better than Schumacher. MS had the advantage of ferrary. We know that Ferrary team had the technology in his car to win very far away over others teams. When a racer signs with Ferrary, the racer has the obligation to win the titles of F1. Remember Senna didn't run with Ferrary. In my opinion to be racer in the age of Senna needed one extraordinary talent, the cars didn't have the technology than teams today offer. MS must be very grateful for the titles gaves for Ferray.

[GingerLynn]

Senna was better than Schumacher. MS had the advantage of ferrary. We know that Ferrary team had the technology in his car to win very far away over others teams. When a racer signs with Ferrary, the racer has the obligation to win the titles of F1. Remember Senna didn't run with Ferrary. In my opinion to be racer in the age of Senna needed one extraordinary talent, the cars didn't have the technology than teams today offer. MS must be very grateful for the titles gaves for Ferray.

This board needs drug tests

[Zico]

I agree. Arcanox.. they were both decent enough drivers in their day but Ferray was far better than both of them, Ill never forget the 1-2 he helped give Honda at Montoya.