How good were D. Hill and J. Villeneuve?

[SGWilko]

Benetton blamed it on a rogue employee.

Imagine that?

[steveaki13]

I think both were good drivers that found themselves in great cars, like Button.

There are levels of driver for me.

Legends - Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, Stewart, Clark and alike

Greats - Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Mansell

Good - Hill, Villeneuve, Button,

That sort of thing for me.

They were decent drivers who given the car could do the job.

[rjbetty]

An interesting topic this; I actually wanted to start a thread about this a while back.

There are some very interesting and valid opinions here to consider from both sides. Like most of us (I hope) I only want the truth and will be happy to change my mind, but right now my feelings are that Damon in particular was nowhere in the same league as Schumacher, despite the common perception at the time that they were on the same planet.

I actually think David Coulthard looked extremely impressive in 1995. Five pole positions against Damon's 7, and only 8-9 down in qualifying, and 20pts off him in the WDC. This is really not bad for a driver in his first full season. A great deal of wins were lost for DC thru unreliability etc.

Damon was soundly beaten by Frenten, R.Schumacher, and too often by Pedro Dini. Is what I'm saying unacceptable or is this the truth. Though it does have to be said he was advancing in years in F1 terms.

But I always disliked his attitude that he expected to be well paid and felt entitled to a top car. He turned down a McLaren drive for a fat Jordan salary. I need a good reason to respect that and I can't currently see one. And then there's the team orders thing at Spa 98. Just comes across as a manipulator in that youtube video of the radio transmissions, really only caring for his own bacon. That's how it looks.

I feel if drivers want to be well paid, they need to drive like a champion.

He did put in SOME great drives. I don't think Damon was really only a couple of tenths off Schumacher's pace in '94. I think much of that was the car, at least in qualifying.

As for Villeneuve, I was actually thinking today about how he actually was very good in 98-2000, qualifying in the top 3 on the low downforce tracks and challenging McLarens. He beat Frenten, but not as much as Trulli did. But then Heidfeld beat HHF too in 2003 (not on points), and Heidfeld beat JV himself in 2006, yet Jacques rated his season as a good one (till he ran scared at Kubica's speed)

Seems wrong that Kubica only has one win, while these two have 32 combined...

HILL SUMMARY (by season)
1992: Qualified twice in a crapham (sorry), but slightly beaten by more experiences van de Poele (who is actually acknowledged as a real good driver)
1993: Beat Schumacher(!) though had a substantial car advantage (surprise!). Even so, compared very well with Prost in races, though Alain had a year out and wasn't so young. He was also newer to the team than Damon was. Hill was robbed of several wins though. Only 3pts off Senna.
1994: Led the team, took his opportunities, winning ALL 4 races that Schumacher was disqualified from. Car advantage debatable but I can't believe he finished 1pt behind in an inferior car. You serious (question mark - sorry, my question mark and letter to the left of x aren't working)
1995: admittedly poor. DC pretty much equal despite less experience.
1996: Drove better though had rookie team-mate and bigger car advantage. Still took him till the last race to sew it up!!! Though 36 is maybe not peak age...
1997: Should have done better overall. Though Tom Walkinshaw signed him with promises but turned out to be full of it, as a WDC with massive cheque, Damon could have put more effort in. Dini a little too close, though his Hungary drive was great I think, Bridgestone or not (where was Pedro). His Jerex quali was brilliant too, 4th on the grid +0.05 off and would have got pole if not blocked in quali.
1998: Outqualified 10-6 by Ralf. Beat him in the points due to the Spa team orders. But Hill did start 3rd in that race.
1999: I'm sorry, just pathetic. I don't buy his fans excusing his season. His first 3 races weren't that bad. I think what really did it for him was realiing the truththat Frank Williams was right, that Frenten was simply better and he couldn't hack it. Is this true. Because that's when his performance really went off the rails. He was at his most down at Magny-Cours where (because) Frenten won.

Overall: Not bad, but not that great

I agree totally with StekeAvi above, except for Button, who I would put between the Great and the Good in a "Very Good" class.

[rjbetty]

Having said all that, I got a message a while back which made me consider some more stuff. I'll post some thoughts from another angle if I get time.

[Robinho]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

[steveaki13]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

This


People seem to dismiss these titles as though they are a nothing achievement.

Its still an incredible thing to win a F1 title.

[rjbetty]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited.

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

I think you're right guys, but the issue I have is that you can say the same for another 1,000 or so drivers. David Coulthard probably could have taken the title quite easily in their situation.

Out of the 1996 grid I WOULD have also included Jean Alesi, though I can imagine he would find a way to mess it up. Gerhard Berger on decent form could surely have too. Also, Frentzen had the TALENT I think (but had problems accessing it)

DRIVERS IN 1996 FIELD who in their career were also good enough to win the title (IMO)
Michael Schumacher
Mika Hakkinen
Gerhard Berger (but not THAT season!)
Rubens Barrichello (now there's an underrated driver IMO)
David Coulthard
Jacques Villeneuve
Giancarlo Fisichella (on talent, like Alesi and Frentzen)
Damon Hill
Jean Alesi
Heinz-Harald Frentzen
Eddie Irvine came close too

That's half the regular field. Add in Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli (again on talent in a car he likes) from the following year, and suddenly, though Hill and Villeneuve were very good drivers (have to be to score 33 combined wins in any case), but they were just two of many very good drivers.

The 1996 field was quite weak I think, so there would be many more drivers who could have won he title in those guys shoes. That's the issue.



But in Damon's defence, possibly as few as 3 drivers in the 1996 field on their actual 1996 form might have been ready in themselves to mount a title winning campaign that year, and he was one of them.

[wedge]

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Yes, winning a championship is an achievement but there has to be a deep, deep sense of satisfaction of achievement from tested to the limit of your abilities against the very, very best opponents in the 'right' circumstances

Personally, I'd rather lose to Schumi than win a WDC because I had a better car.

[henners88]

It's all about having the best all round package. The best car doesn't always mean you'll win the championship, as Rubens and Heikki have found in the past. Hill didn't win because he had the best car, he won because he had the best package and was able to keep his nerve and drive it to victory. He was quite old coming into the sport and was faced against a brilliant driver in his prime. I say he did a damn fine job and was a fully deserving World Champion.

[BDunnell]

Yes, winning a championship is an achievement but there has to be a deep, deep sense of satisfaction of achievement from tested to the limit of your abilities against the very, very best opponents in the 'right' circumstances

Personally, I'd rather lose to Schumi than win a WDC because I had a better car.

There might equally be much satisfaction to be derived from reaching a level or attaining something that, to some extent, transcends one's own natural abilities.