Schumacher vs Senna

Good thread..

If the term "greatest driver" encompasses not only analytical and tactical brilliance but allows the flaws of zero sportsmanship, doing whatever it takes within and outwith the rules to win.. and building a team around himself to achieve what he did statistically, then it has to be Schumacher.

If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap then I think it has to be Ayrton.

As someone else said... Apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabf1

If I had an F1 team and could sign either MS or Senna in their prime, it would probably be Senna.

---

Hey if all i had was Nick Heidfeldt, I would be thrilled to sign Freddie A.!!!!!!!!

besides Senna was a bit more mercenary than MS and MS was probably much nicer and more pleasant to his "bosses".... :D so you might want to think about that if you were the boss ........ but sign either one and you got a winner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

Good thread..

If the term "greatest driver" encompasses not only analytical and tactical brilliance but allows the flaws of zero sportsmanship, doing whatever it takes within and outwith the rules to win.. and building a team around himself to achieve what he did statistically, then it has to be Schumacher.

If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap then I think it has to be Ayrton.

As someone else said... Apples and oranges.

---

You might say: "If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap with the same or far worse flaws in sportsmanship, then I think it has to be Ayrton", I would agree!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

If you ask me that is far from reasonable, it's just wishful thinking from a fanatic. :rolleyes:

---

Me a fanatic of Senna? :rotflmao: 'tis to laugh. I thought the man was scum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

In 1990 Senna deliberately drove into him (Prost) thus endangering his life and stealing the World Championship by criminal and unfair means.

---

http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...light=criminal

And to answer a previous post from you no less:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And no one talks aout how Senna and Prost unfairly won WDC titles!So in the end will be only the statistics, and guess who is at the top of the list?! :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

...on both occasions I would have shredded their licences and given them a two year driving ban for culpable driving with intent to menace. Schumacher and Senna are both cut of the same cloth - win at all costs including underhandedness and ignobleness.

Having said this, Schumacher's skill was probably the fourth greatest of all time and the only driver to have had a full F1 career played out to determine this.

---

http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...ighlight=Senna

Fanatic, moi? No way. Both Senna and Schumacher were dastardly drivers, surrendering nothing but both supremely quick. My opinion of both of their characters as displayed on track is poor. If you choose the lesser of two evils, you still end up picking an evil.

OK, maybe I exaggerated, I'll reduce that to fan. ;)
Still it was wishful thinking. :p :

Senna was one of the best drivers in terms of getting a team behind him. He managed to push Prost out and then keep him from coming back to the sport in 1994 with Williams. By 1991 it was clear that you could not compete with Senna if you were his teammate.

However in 1994 the rules changed. Schumacher was just as good at getting a team behind him but even better at that by including his teammate - not alienating them and causing rifts in the team itself. Collectively this provided for quite the effort at Benetton which was clear in Brazil 94...

So what's the difference between Prost and Schumacher? Schumacher is not on Senna's team. There was physically no way for Senna to play the mental games he did with Prost - same games which precluded Prost from upping with Williams for 94.

Nope - this time it was driver against driver. The politicing had nothing to do with it and for all reasons Williams had an incredible edge! In fact Autosport, F1 and Racer all declared Senna/Williams the Champions even before the season started.

Clearly the engineering staff @ Benetton won the battle. But that's not the topic. IMO Schumacher one as well.

For Senna there was always this sort of "You owe it too me" attitude. We saw it in Japan 1990 and many - many times on the track. He'd be out by laps with everyone out of it and just crash someone he thought should simply get out of the way because he was Senna. Remember Monza 1988?

WOW :eek:

There were also Brazil 1990 and a host of other instances where he threw it away. Varsha mentioned (along with Hobbs) in 1991 when discussing World Driving Champions, that "You don't often here of Senna's name being mentioned amonsgt the greats" specifically because of this inability to win when he had it in the bag on so many occasions.

Maybe it was Schumacher's Germanic coldness which reserved him but he did keep his cool with exception to 94 and 96 when he punted Hill and later Villeneuve from the track. I guess in that case both drivers were brats... But how many really are not?

IMO Senna's legend lived on more so after his death and was augmented greatly by the gaping hole he left behind - which was Gerhard Berger who amassed only 8 wins... Looking back against 4 titles from Prost, 1 from Mansell, 3 from Piquet and 3 from Senna - effectively all running at relatively the same period in time.

That gap - IMO, helped to bolster Senna's legend because not like before - when all those champions were racing, Senna defined F1. He was the driver who would pass the tourch on to the next generation - Schumacher. When that was all removed it shocked everyone and blew Senna's legend to even greater levels of popularity.

My 2 cents :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

---

To say "if Senna had finished at Imola" is no different than saying "if he would have finished all three races". Fact is that at Imola he lost the race when his car - be it car failure or driver mistake - went out of the track. The fatality was that he got killed in the process. But he was already out of the race, and no one but himself or his car caused it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GingerLynn

Senna was one of the best drivers in terms of getting a team behind him. He managed to push Prost out and then keep him from coming back to the sport in 1994 with Williams. By 1991 it was clear that you could not compete with Senna if you were his teammate.

However in 1994 the rules changed. Schumacher was just as good at getting a team behind him but even better at that by including his teammate - not alienating them and causing rifts in the team itself. Collectively this provided for quite the effort at Benetton which was clear in Brazil 94...

So what's the difference between Prost and Schumacher? Schumacher is not on Senna's team. There was physically no way for Senna to play the mental games he did with Prost - same games which precluded Prost from upping with Williams for 94.

Nope - this time it was driver against driver. The politicing had nothing to do with it and for all reasons Williams had an incredible edge! In fact Autosport, F1 and Racer all declared Senna/Williams the Champions even before the season started.

Clearly the engineering staff @ Benetton won the battle. But that's not the topic. IMO Schumacher one as well.

For Senna there was always this sort of "You owe it too me" attitude. We saw it in Japan 1990 and many - many times on the track. He'd be out by laps with everyone out of it and just crash someone he thought should simply get out of the way because he was Senna. Remember Monza 1988?

WOW :eek:

There were also Brazil 1990 and a host of other instances where he threw it away. Varsha mentioned (along with Hobbs) in 1991 when discussing World Driving Champions, that "You don't often here of Senna's name being mentioned amonsgt the greats" specifically because of this inability to win when he had it in the bag on so many occasions.

Maybe it was Schumacher's Germanic coldness which reserved him but he did keep his cool with exception to 94 and 96 when he punted Hill and later Villeneuve from the track. I guess in that case both drivers were brats... But how many really are not?

IMO Senna's legend lived on more so after his death and was augmented greatly by the gaping hole he left behind - which was Gerhard Berger who amassed only 8 wins... Looking back against 4 titles from Prost, 1 from Mansell, 3 from Piquet and 3 from Senna - effectively all running at relatively the same period in time.

That gap - IMO, helped to bolster Senna's legend because not like before - when all those champions were racing, Senna defined F1. He was the driver who would pass the tourch on to the next generation - Schumacher. When that was all removed it shocked everyone and blew Senna's legend to even greater levels of popularity.

My 2 cents :D

---

For post number 14 or not post number 14 (based on your signature), still worth far more than 2 cents :D

Of course in eyes of many around here, you have sinned my not whispering the name Senna...... :rolleyes: ......., besides I always figured that MS learned his punting from Senna, but was just never managed to do it quite as spectacular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

You might say: "If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap with the same or far worse flaws in sportsmanship, then I think it has to be Ayrton", I would agree!!!

---

Yep, you are correct.. I think I'd forgotten how volatile a character he actually was. :)

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.......