Printable View
Just noticed that...Quote:
Originally Posted by rjbetty
:D Wow, that's one heck of an amount of information. I don't know... should we start a new thread about how to "accurately" rate drivers? :D Then we can put all our methodologies in there that we can possibly think of, and see, how each methodology works.:D
I must admit... my methodology is mostly gut feeling though.:D
That post the link goes to is just the most recent post - I wasn't trying to hint to you that your methods are all wrong!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by jens
Well I often go by gut instinct too. Especially in 2015 it's so hard to rate drivers, especially when their form changes like Hulkenberg's appears to have done a bit? I mean how would you rate Button V Hulkenberg for example? Tough work.
Come to think of it, I went entirely by feelings in the past, but I never thought of actually ranking the drivers in a list. I can see now how mistaken I was at times, I'm sure I am much better now. 2005 with Fisichella was a real wake up call, and I kinda realised I might have put too much stock in his good performances while somewhat brushing off the bad ones as just "oh he has a bad car".
I wonder how I would have ranked drivers around 1998-1999 say? It would probably stack up like this:
1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen
3.Hill
4.Villeneuve
5.Barrichello
6.Fisichella
7.Alesi
8.Coulthard
9.Frentzen
10.Irvine
11.Wurz
12.R.Schumacher
13.Salo
14.Trulli
15.Herbert
16.Verstappen
17.Takagi
18.Diniz
19.Panis
20.Nakano
21.Magnussen
22.Tuero
23.Rosset
I actually have no idea, writing that out just now. At the time I just had my feelings and never thought of ranking them all together.
Obviously I always thought Michael was the best, but in my household, Damon was always really 2nd best since he had fought for the title against Michael for years, with Hakkinen 3rd for his recent form. Actually, back in 1998 I spoke up and said I thought Hakkinen was actually better at the time, but Damon still clear 3rd. That didn't go down very well at the time.
Villeneuve would definitely have been 4th. He was very highly rated as a top 3 driver after Damon left, with talk of him going to McLaren during 2000. Autosport even published that he had been virtually signed by Benetton for and it was agreed, as much as the Bottas/Ferrari story now. Then everyone was shocked when he stayed after all. The world really was Jacques' oyster back then, remember Alonso, Kimi and JPM weren't around then and Button wasn't established.
I always rated Barrichello VERY highly, especially because I learned he came 6th in 1994 for Jordan with 19pts. That was hugely impressive to me, especially since Irvine only had 6pts, and in Grand Prix 2 Rubens was always in the top 6-10 with Irvine around 10th-15th it seemed. I couldn't understand for the life of me why Barrichello wasn't more highly rated and struggling in a Stewart while others had the good drives. Remember I only came to F1 in 1997 so my only experience was of Barrichello mired in midfield and anonymous.
I always thought Alesi had the potential to be right in there, because he was thought of as very talented even if he didn't deliver when in barren periods. Like even in 2001 when he joined Jordan, I thought he could have higher highs (though also lower lows maybe) and that he could do better than Frentzen - simply because he was Alesi! So I'd probably put him 5th on that list, for how I imagined he would drive when in the mood!
Likewise for Damon, simply because he was world champion I would put him 3rd or 4th for how I felt he would perform when he felt like it, such as before the 1999 season started. I thought that was his level but he simply underperformed a bit in 1998. I still thought him quite a bit better than Ralf in 1998 even though in Ralf actually outperformed him. It was simply all about reputation rather than reality at the time.
I'm not sure if I actually would put Fisi that high even then?? As time went on (late 2000) I began to realise he was often a bit tepid and he dropped a little in my estimation, though I always believed if he could get a top drive and lots of love, similar to Vettel at Red Bull, he would shine mightily, and ultimately do better than Barrichello etc. Even up to 2005 I still believed this.
I never thought much of Frentzen and Irvine at the time. They were pretty good but nothing special in my eyes, and tbh I couldn't understand how Irvine had managed to get a Ferrari drive! I thought Fisi would be much better. I thought highly of Coulthard thru 1998 thanks to the influence of British press, then he went down a bit, then up again over 2000-2002. But I was frustrated he had a top drive and Fisi didn't, and thought if Giancarlo had that seat he'd prove more talented.
Wurz is up there as in 1998 he was very hot stuff indeed. Finishing 4th 5 times, almost a podium in Argentina and outqualifying Fisi a lot early on too. Even during his struggle in 1999 he still had a big reputation.
Ralf was up there but I didn't think so much of him. I had thought he'd been fairly obliterated by Fisi in 97, only to realise years later it wasn't the case. My opinion of Fisi being better than Ralf stood for years, and I was especially frustrated around 2002-2004 that he was wasting a good drive while Fisi languished. I now believe Ralf was less experienced and actually did do better than Fisi certainly in 1999-2000 - to be fair I acknowledged those 2 years at the time, but still thought Fisi would be better if he could just get a top drive. My perception was that Ralf had been handily beaten by Hill over 1998, reinforced by F198 for the Playstation having a default grid position of 6th for Hill, while Ralf was 10th.
Salo was well regarded and I loved the story of Brazil 95, running 3rd, then onto finishing 5th before spinning due to fatigue. At the time reading of his Tyrrell years, it seemed he was fantastic. Then his Monaco 1998 performance, really in the spotlight. People seemed to really think very highly of him.
Trulli I thought well of, but he was quiet and invisible, no fault of his own. Many other drivers took the limelight which in hindsight was unfair. I still really liked him in the Prost and was sad he was in no way in a position to replicate his Austria or Hockenheim performance of 1997 and was always stuck out of the way. I still thought well of him.
Johnny Herbert - now even in the late 90's, I heard a lot of how he had a great latent talent and would have been on for WDCs if not for breaking his legs. He was considered like Lewis Hamilton is today. I knew that wasn't what we were getting in 1998-1999 but I still believed if he was happy he had that potential. His Australia 1998 performance, plus the end of 1999, even after winning that race only re-inforced this.
Verstappen was another one extremely highly regarded, at times almost as much as Max is now. I remember reading how if the world was a fair place, Jos would have his pick of top drives. Then I found out about his Simtek performance in Argentina 1995, on for points before retiring. I was flabbergasted when I found this out and thought he must be amazing. Then in 2000, he was running right up there in Australia and especially Brazil, 3rd at one point. I read he should have finished on the podium (2nd or 3rd). In hindsight did he really do that well...? Then in Silverstone on pole very briefly then holding off Michael in the race. At the time, he overshadowed de la Rosa for me. He beat PDLR in Monaco, a drivers track, so reinforcing my opinion, then in Canada with his new helmet design, charging up the field past both Jordans (considered an absolute top team then), then ran highly in Austria ahead of de la Rosa iirc. Then in Monza he chased Ralf all the way for a podium.
In 2001, he overtook Frentzen and Hakkinen(!!) in wet Malaysia, and with Ferraris down the order, it really looked possible he might win. I'm sure in Austria he again ran 2nd for a while. Then for Minardi in 2003, 15th in Canada qualifying before pole on Friday in France!! This was after Brazil, when he was running ahead of Fisi with enough fuel to finish the race - think about that, since Jos was considered a rain specialist - Paul Stoddart will insist to that day he would have won! So even then I still thought Jos was the boss.
I considered Takagi a huge talent for qualifying 13th on debut, but realise I hyped him too much.
Around 1998-99 Pedro Diniz was thought highly of, having done a lot to shed his paydriver image. Joining Alesi, he finished strongly in 6th on 3 occasions and looked like joining Benetton for 2000, and there was even a big deal about him joining Ferrari! Which at one point was considered a done deal around the British GP, more so than Bottas now!
In my estimation, Panis' stock was very low while the other drivers below weren't great at all.
Yeah.:) Not prepared to write such a long post right now though.
I think this claim has a point. There is a saying - "form is temporary, class is permanent." It can be seen in any sports. In a football league in an odd match a top squad (Chelsea, ManC, ManU, and the likes) can lose to a backmarker. But over a full season they still come out on top regardless of individual results.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjbetty
In F1 in an odd race even Maldonado can win and Hamilton come last, but over a full season we have a different story based on average performance.
And then... "career performance". How many good seasons has a driver had? % wise how many good weekends in there? I think it becomes more accurate with experienced drivers, who have driven 10+ seasons. Then we can analyze pretty adequately. With those, who have had a short career, it is more unclear. Magnussen drove just 1 season. He was nowhere in the last 1/3 of the season, which basically cost him the seat in favour of Button. So what was it? Did he just have a bad patch of form, and fundamentally he is more talented than that?
As for methodologies. Just out of interest. What was Barrichello's average qualifying loss to Schumacher, when they were team-mates? Because I remember some seasons were pretty close. So based on gut feeling that 1999 was one of RB's best seasons, his Q average of 1999 might be pretty close to the top. Some 2-3 tenths off benchmark only? Which would make him faster than DC, which also has some sense in it in the context of that season.
Also - Frentzen/Barrichello/Villeneuve. I don't have a methodology to separate them for 1999. They all shared some things - drove for 3 separate teams, beat their team-mates consistently and seemed to qualify well (in good positions) relative to car potential. So, what else can be taken into account?
That's ok, you don't need to do that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
Yeah that saying is a better way of putting it. It's like a driver has a natural level from which they can either overperform or underperform for a while. But with overperforming, it seems it can't be kept up forever, only when they pick up momentum and a 'following wind' or something like that. I actually think this probably applies to Hamilton in 2007. And I'd also say Sebastien Ogier in the WRC in 2010, on searing form, but then dropped it a little at the end finishing 4th in the WDC instead of 2nd.Quote:
I think this claim has a point. There is a saying - "form is temporary, class is permanent."
I found 2014 quite hard to understand. My thoughts are it may because the cars were so new and different that to a degree all drivers were kinda like rookies having to learn, a bit like Villeneuve in Australia '96; it was a new track for everyone which levelled the field a bit. Jacques put it on pole and easily led, but he did only outqualify his team-mate I think 3 more times after that.Quote:
Magnussen drove just 1 season. He was nowhere in the last 1/3 of the season, which basically cost him the seat in favour of Button. So what was it? Did he just have a bad patch of form, and fundamentally he is more talented than that?
I think this is also a factor in Kvyat doing well and Gutierrez outqualifying Sutil a lot, though in all 3 cases (Button, Vergne and especially Sutil) their higher weight definitely counted against them, giving their lighter teammates an advantage before anyone turned a wheel. I also think Button was a bit demotivated with the form of the car and his dad's passing, he went a bit missing midseason, before then driving out of his skin to save his job, getting a bunch of 4ths and 5ths at the end, running rings round Magnussen.
As for Barrichello, off the top of my head, his qualifying average in 2000 was around 0.4s off MS. This doesn't include wet Hockenheim qualifying where the time gaps were crazy big. In 2001 it was a disappointing 0.560s, Rubens didn't like the car. The 2001 cars seemed slightly harder to drive with lower downforce and it looks to me like some time gaps opened up slightly through the field for drivers as well as cars, but I'm not sure.
In 2002 he was much happier and I think he qualified 0.23s off MS. I think he improved slightly in 2003 and maybe 2004 but it's hard to tell with that kind of qualifying, and I think the gap opened up to at least 0.3s again in 2005. Not certain about all this though.
As a guess, I would put Barrichello, if he drove a theoretical 3rd Ferrari in 1999, would be around 0.4s off MS pace. Given that Irvine was around 0.54s off if I remember and Rubens was about 0.64s ahead of Herbert, that seems about right to me (then again I don't have a clue really!)
Where does self-belief come into the equation? I'm thinking of how some drivers' performance seemed to take a quantum leap after their first win. Nigel Mansell is the most obvious example.
Yeah that's a good point. I was hoping for the same for Barrichello when he won his first race but he was further adrift in 2001. BTW my personal belief is that the Ferrari of 2001, while I think the best overall package, was actually not at all dominant and it was Schumacher that made the difference. I really don't think Rubens was that bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
Self-belief and generally the factor of psychology is difficult to consider. Every driver and his personality is different. You may make a point about Mansell, who won a race, but there are loads of drivers, who have won just 1 race in their career, or won just a couple, and their careers petered off.
While reaching a benchmark (win, WDC) is an important personal milestone for any driver, I think overall it doesn't influence their performance levels. Because in the end you still need to have the right cars in which you feel comfortable in. If you are talented and get top cars, you'll win races, even if you hadn't won before. If you won an odd lucky race (and got "monkey off your back") and later got only average cars or have lots of unluck with unreliability, you won't win anything.
In Mansell's case, it should not be forgotten that ever since 1985 he got to drive lots of fantastic cars in F1. I think this is a big factor, which also influences motivation. If you are talented and get pace-setting cars, you will win a fair amount. Chances will come your way.
From psychological point of view the most important thing is that you "like the car"/"feel comfortable in it". This will give you self-confidence. Because you know you are fast, and competitive, and can push. And if the car allows, also reach significant achievements.