woody, I think you are quite bright, irrespective of age, and I teach teenagers for a living.
Now granted, they ARE American teenagers . . . :D
Printable View
woody, I think you are quite bright, irrespective of age, and I teach teenagers for a living.
Now granted, they ARE American teenagers . . . :D
Thanks I appreciate that mate. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
I don't pretend to know everything, but regardless of whether or not I like a driver I always try to be fair.
No. Hill and DC drove like idiots in 1995, Schumi was brilliant that season. Johnny Herbert, his teammate, was usually nowhere and he is the same guy who in equal cars was at least as fast as Mika Häkkinen.Quote:
Originally Posted by woody2goody
In qualifying, DC and Hill usually were faster than MS (because they had much faster cars), but come raceday, Schumis brilliant tactics and relentless pace destroyed them and they made mistakes (Especially Hill)
If you had watched the races in 1995, you would never even think about claiming that Benetton was better than Williams.Quote:
If not, then fair enough, but come on, I was 5 at the time, so it's only by looking at the results that I get an understanding of the seasons pre-1996.
What you are ignoring is that Hill and DC were just good drivers, whereas in 1995 Schumacher was at his best ever form.Quote:
Williams only won twice when Michael Schumacher finished the race. And when Hill finished the race, Schumacher won 5 times. This leads me to believe that the Benetton was better than the Williams. Even if I'm wrong about that, I'm still right about Coulthard's career and his Grand Prix winning opportunities. Even if the Williams was a better car in '95 he still won a Grand Prix in it.
Why was Herbert unable to do anything with the Benetton?
Schumacher had a huge struggle, but he kept on track and overcame the disadvantage his difficult handling car caused him.
Häkkinen was a good driver, but he is overrated. If Schumacher had been in the McLaren and Häkkinen in the Ferrari, McLaren would have won the title with 3 races to go.Quote:
You're right about 2000, but Hakkinen didn't beat Schumacher either, and he wasn't a bad driver was he?
True, at Interlagos Schumacher drove one of his all time worst races and DC one of his alltime bests. But that was one race.Quote:
In 2001 the cars were equal, but once the second half of the season came round Ferrari began to dominate. DC beat 'Tyson' in a couple of straight fights in 2001 at Interlagos and the A1 Ring.
The car was equal the whole year, DC just made mistakes at crucial times and was too slow compared to Schumacher. When Häkkinen was on form, he showed a couple of times how great the car really was, but mostly he had already given up.
The only reason DC had more points than Kimi was because kimi had car problems, Kimi was easily much faster.Quote:
In '04 McLaren only had 5 points after 7 races, and 4 of them were Coulthard's. Yes, Kimi scored more points in the end, but we're talking about a 34 year old up against a 24 year-old future World Champion. It's like comparing Schumi and Massa in '06 and saying that Massa was a disappointment for not beating Michael.
No, Liuzzi did nothing remarkable against Speed, they both sucked bigtime.Quote:
As for Liuzzi, well he had the odd bad performance, but he didn't disgrace himself, he saw off Scott Speed and did OK against Vettel, scoring 3 points in China. He may not be quite as fast as Sutil, but he has less of a tendency to throw the car into the scenery. If it was me I'd have put Klien in the car but there you go.
Vettel destroyed Liuzzi once he came to the team and I don`t rate Vettel that highly.
In the wet Vettel was better, and wasn't Liuzzi quicker than him in the dry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Barely 'destroyed' in any case.
Have just joined this forum and tried to refrain from posting, but have given in on this one. I am a DC fan and fully agree with your post. Credit where credits due, DC has clocked up a lot of wins and WDC points compared to many other drivers. I was always of the opinion that he could have been WDC in 2000 or 2001 had McLaren been more reliable - they suffered an awful lot of breakdowns during those years. Accidents - anyone can have themQuote:
Originally Posted by woody2goody
Have just joined this forum and tried to refrain from posting, but have given in on this one. I am a DC fan and fully agree with your post. Credit where credits due, DC has clocked up a lot of wins and WDC points compared to many other drivers. I was always of the opinion that he could have been WDC in 2000 or 2001 had McLaren been more reliable - they suffered an awful lot of breakdowns during those years.Quote:
Originally Posted by woody2goody
I don't think it's a matter of age, it's a matter of bias towards your favouriye driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
To me the 2001 season, had one dominant team: Ferrari, one fast team that promised more for the next season but wasn't still on the right pace : Williams and another fast team that was starting their debacle with reliability: McLaren
I agree with this view, but just to make it clear, DC is not my favourite driver in Formula One, but I support him because he has gained respect from me as a seasoned veteran, who has still had considerable success.
Ferrari were always fighting for the win in 2001, whereas McLaren and Williams almost took it in turns to fight Ferrari. Both occasionally beat Ferrari, but overall Ferrari were always there and that's what made them dominant in the end.
I think a very similar situation could be unfolding in the 2008 season right now.
Meh?! The topic was meant to be mainly about Sutil and also Liuzzi, so what is the discussion about DC doing here? :p :
But if I'm trying to join that OT discussion, then I actually don't consider 2001 a 'boring' season like 2002, actually I think it was quite exciting (maybe even more exciting than for example 2000) when we try to rate the excitement of races. On most circuits Ferrari was not alone, but they had a strong rival. But what helped them to dominate points-wise was that firstly their rivals on different circuits were not the same - it was either McLaren or Williams (latter mainly on fast circuits) as they were capable of challenging for the win only on several tracks, not throughout the season. Secondly both McLaren and especially Williams were quite unreliable, which cost them a lot of points.
About Adrian Sutil. Yeh, he has been quite highly rated and on several occasions last year he even showed some serious promise (Spa, Fuji), but also the season included a huge amount of driver errors and as Spyker was the slowest car and he didn't have a proven team-mate, then giving an accurate rating to him was really complicated.
At the moment he doesn't seem to live up to the hype, but on the other hand he hasn't had a proper race yet either (on all three occasions retired early) and maybe his race pace is better than quali-pace (where he has been outpaced comfortably by Fisi). Let's wait until midseason and hope he can have some problemfree races too before making a decisive judgement. If he gets constantly trashed by Fisi until midseason, then Liuzzi could be seriously considered for the second half. Tonio is another driver, whose level is a bit unclear (no proper team-mate comparison + uncompetitive machinery), but I guess he may give Fisi some serious competition. And by the way, whatever the outcome of Vettel vs Bourdais battle will be, we can't judge their level accurately either.
I'd raised the same questiion whether Sutil was a liability to the team because he was involved in many on track incidents. He managed to outpace his teammate & retain his drive eventually. If he's able to match Fisi's pace by mid season then I think he be retained until the end of the year. Heikki managed to bounce back after a dismal start & ulitmately earned him a spot in Mclaren, I hope Sutil can emulate Heikki's feat & earn himself a seat in Honda