Michael Schumacher - The Greatest?
When Michael Schumacher announced he would retire at the end of the season after the Italian Grand Prix in Monza, I was disappointed. After all, he's a great talent and, despite all that is said about other drivers such as Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen, he is by far the best driver in the field. He may not be the current FIA Formula 1 World Champion, but last year he hardly had the best package. Similarly, for much of this year, he has not had the best overall equipment in the paddock, mainly down to tyres. His only real mistake this season was not, in my opinion, the escapade in Monaco, though I shall come to that later; no, his only real mistake this season was in Hungary, where he was too aggressive in his pursuit of those in front of him. Granted, his accident in Melbourne was uncharacteristic and some blame should lie with him for running wide, but he was also the victim of a slightly precarious bump on the track which didn't just catch the great champion out. He is still the best around - and to be honest, Fernando Alonso is not even the second best in my eyes; Kimi Raikkonen has hardly had the best of times with McLaren and there is no doubting that if his McLaren car had been more reliable last year, it would have been he - and not Alonso - who benefited from the vastly superior Michelin tyres.
Still, the focus here is not to deal with arguments over who should have and could have won last year's Formula 1 Drivers' World Championship, but rather to deal with the debate central to Michael Schumacher's legacy - is he the greatest driver in the history of Formula 1?
The records say it all - with 25 more wins than Alain Prost, more than twice that of Senna and three times that of Mansell; more pole positions than the mastery of the Brazilian himself; well over a thousand championship points, even with his 1997 points discounted, more points than anyone else in a season, twice; more wins than anyone else in a season with 13 out of 18 in 2004 (including an unbelievable 12 out of the first 13), having already equalled Mansell's record twice. I could go on, but you get the picture. Statistically, there is no match.
Of course, statistics can be manipulated in any way you wish. It should be noted that Schumacher has had the benefit of 15 full seasons in Formula 1; Mansell 'only' had 11, Prost 13 and Senna 11 before his death in 1994. Now it must be said, these are also long careers by most people's standards in Formula 1 and few drivers have such long careers, but Schumacher's career has been longer and this must be taken in to account in comparing them.
We could look at how many championships they have all won and compare the drivers solely on this basis: Schumacher has 7, hopefully 8 before he retires; Prost managed 4 titles; Senna 3; Mansell 1 (as well as the IndyCar World Series, in his first season there - a mean feat for any driver). This, however, does not provide the full story: mechanical failure in the last race of 1983 meant that Alain Prost was cruelly denied what would have been his first title, handing it instead to Nelson Piquet; in 1984 it was Nikki Lauda's turn to pip him - by half a point this time - despite Prost winning 7 races to Lauda's 5 (so, had the two been equal, Prost would have taken the title). In 1985 he finally got his first crown with a comfortable 20-point margin; in 1986, he inherited a second crown when Mansell cruelly suffered a tyre blow-out in Adelaide. In 1987, Mansell won more races than anyone else, as he had in 1986, but still he had no title to show for it, beaten by Nelson Piquet. In 1988, Senna took a deserving championship, but in 1989 he was pipped by Prost, despite taking 13 pole positions from 16 races. In 1990, he reclaimed the crown after a dubious first corner incident in Japan and retained the title in 1991 courtesy of a more reliable car than Mansell's; Mansell could feel quite hard-done-by in 1991.
Mansell finally won a deserving world crown in 1992, thoroughly deserved and well overdue, crushing the opposition teams and his team-mate, setting a record 9 wins from 16, 108 points in a season, winning the first 5 races (all from pole). Prost returned from a sabattical to take his fourth title in 1993 - and then Schumacher won in 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. He nearly won in 1997 and would have won in 1999 had it not been for his broken leg in Silverstone, suffered after red flags had come out on the first lap.
You see, Mansell could easily have won 3 world titles. Prost could have won four on the trot on top of his other two. Prost's lost title in 1984 was in part down to a couple of turbo failures throughout the season, which were hardly his fault. Mansell didn't really have much to do with his tyre blow-out. Should we then look at who won more races during the season? By that standard, Mansell would probably be considered better than Senna and Prost. If it were based on pole positions, it really should be Senna.
It's hard to say who is the greatest out of the four. Mansell is oft-forgotten in the debate of the other three. Prost showed at Adelaide in 1989 that he was, perhaps, not as committed as Senna, withdrawing because of the wet conditions. Did he feel unable to master them? Senna, Schumacher and Mansell would never be caught withdrawing from races. Schumacher happily blitzes around tracks setting fastest lap after fastest lap even when there is nothing to play for, two laps down after an unfortunate puncture. Senna would do the same - this perhaps can't be said for Mansell, who would, of course, suffer the blow-out on the fastest section of the track and smack in to a wall, unable to recover - though he might get out of the car and start pushing it instead!
Schumacher has one big weakness, and no, it's not pushing people off the road, or bad parking - I'll come to that in due course. Schumacher's big weakness is overtaking, or, rather, his lack of it. Schumacher isn't the world's best overtaker. When he does overtake, there's often contact with the overtaken - Hungary this year, for (multiple) example(s). Mansell was a much more accomplished overtaker, darting around behind his opponent, sticking his car in dangerous places, daring his opponent to take him off the road, but knowing they wouldn't - Silverstone 1987, Spain 1990, or, for the IndyCar fans amongst us, what about Burke Lakefront, 1993, and that fantastic tussle with Emerson Fittipaldi in Cleveland? To those who cite Senna as the best wheel-to-wheel racer the Formula 1 has seen in recent times, I in return cite you those examples. Mansell is king of that category.
Senna was the king of one-lap speed, of that there is no doubt. Prost was the master of consistency. Mansell was the lion of the racetrack, ultra-clean, immensely focussed and never giving up, on the racetrack at least. So what of Schumacher? He can't match the aforementioned in their respective categories, but don't let that fool you. Mansell's aggression was his downfall - I daresay, to make a controversial (and rather academic) point - if Mansell had managed to control his aggressive racecraft better, he would have had less accidents. He would have won more titles and probably stayed in Formula 1 for longer. I daresay, we may well have considered him above Prost and Senna.
Schmacher is the master calculator. He knows what he needs to do - and he does it. He doesn't usually need to overtake on the racetrack, he others in pitstops. Pole positions aren't what they used to be any more, with race fuel on board. He's the king or ruthlessness. Was taking out Hill in 1994 a sign of weakness? Why, no, it was Schumacher realising in an instant that if he didn't take Hill out, there was no way he would take the title. Hill was sure to win if he got past. In 1997, he realised Villeneuve was faster and would run off in the distance if he didn't do something about it. In Monaco this year, he realised how important it was to stop Alonso from getting pole position. That's not weakness at all, that's a genius at work.
But alas, we all know that some admire geniuses, but they all have those who hate them. Selfish and a cheat he may be labelled, but it makes him a winner in Formula 1 - the most successful of all time. In sport, ruthlessness won't ever win you friends, but you will end up winning. To me, love him or hate him, that makes Michael Schumacher the best Formula 1 has, has had, and perhaps will have. It's just sad that he never really raced on equal terms with those of such equal ability with him.
There are currently 2 comments on this article.
mrs gail j grayI am total agreement with you,i also feel sad that Michael had to retire, I have never met him but in my heart and dreams i have yearned to see him as some of us are more passionate about the guy more than ours, I have enjoyed every moment watching him on the telly I have in the course of 16 following him I can say i have never missed a race, in his career of course he has made errors like the rest so I just cant understand why Sir if you can call him that Sterling Moss and Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve run this multi talented skilled man to death, I think its because they wont admit that they are full of envy and jealousy, I am still a Michael Schumacher I will not change my mind in choosing another driver okay Lewis Hamilton is good full of fighting spirit but can he keep it,so far he is getting a bit cocky for his pants we just have to wait and see, but i still put my in the top,its too bad that people hate Michael they just don't understand.
2007-09-15 13:41:36
mrben
http://www.jedimoose.org
I agree entirely. I think MS is the best driver we have ever seen in Formula 1. He is much hated, but I just don't see anyone coming close to his skill. The moment that solidified him in my mind was the year that he came 2nd (I believe) in Monaco, when racing for Benetton, despite the fact that his car was stuck in 5th gear. Now - racing any track in 5th gear is hard. In Monaco it's downright impossible. And yet he still finished 2nd (IIRC). Unbelievable. He is also a master in the wet, which is where real skill comes into play.
2006-09-20 14:24:23