FORUMula1.com

[Big Azza]

A tribute to the greatest driver ever in the sport. I usually wouldn't come out with this outlandish statement but Murray Walker did:



Of course his return hasn't been soo great. But flipping heck, would a 43 year old be able to put his F1 car on pole in modern circumstances?

Walker in a way contrasted Schumacher with Fangio. Fangio was mostly in the best car all of his racing career. Schumacher voluntarily left Benetton, sacrificing more titles to bring Ferrari back to the front. When you think of that, the fact that he won 5 in a row is just phenomenal, although I do know that it would have made for terrible viewing. 5 in a row was like a reward for all his effort the 4 years before.

When you consider what he sacrificed, he could have been on, what 11 Titles? As Murray would say: "INCREDIBLE!"

[madbrad]

I do not care what Murray Walker says. Schumacher was not the best. He was the most successful. A championship is just points. The two major teams he drove for focussed all the points on the one driver, making the other driver run interference for him. He only ever won things when he had the best car. His 94 car may or may not have had illegal traction control. Don't get me wrong, he was really good, and he was not the only one to use dubious or unsportsmanlike tactics on the track, but other champions did not have these luxuries. Had any of a good dozen or so drivers I can think of had his help or went on the path he did instead of him, the result would have been the same for that driver, instead of him. I'm just saying...

[Big Azza]

Fair enough madbrad. I need to do more research on Murray's statement that Schumacher brought all these people to Ferrari.


There is more to racing than just racing and overtaking other people. I didn't know why I got into racing as a kid. I just liked all the crashes. But when I started following F1 in 2008, there was something a bit different about it. I stopped watching just to see crashes. In fact I don't like crashes anymore.

Formula One has a finesse about it. And I started to appreciate F1 as a sport of people driving to their pure limit. It's not about beating the guy in front of you. It is about the best driver and the best car advancing the sport.

It's a shame that I still don't know much about Schumacher. But one little tidbit that jumps out at me: In his first race for Benetton, two thirds of the way through the season, and the second race of his career, Schumacher beat his 3-time world champion team mate, Nelson Piquet.

Think about it: Just learning the new car, driving his first race for the team, and goes out there and takes it to his seasoned, daunting team mate. I think Schumacher did prove himself against the best, Piquet and Senna for one hand, he was more than capable of taking it to them at such a young age.

I really wish I got to watch all of Schumacher's career so far.

Here's another little Schumacher-esque moment:

[andrew]

In his day he was the best or at least up there with the Fangio's, Prosts, Surtees etc etc, seeing as there can never be an overall best driver. In his 2nd F1 stint, I would still class him as one of the best in the field but the car is a pile of steaming .

People always moan about Schumachers domination from 2000 - 2004 but it was great to watch. I am too young to remember Prost's career but seeing most of Schuamchers career was a privledge as I was seeing one of the true greats at work. It's not often that you see one of the true greats at the top of their game for so long.

From what I've read, he was a bit of a trend setter in terms of driver physical fitness levels and the amount a driver is involved with the development of the car. Now this is the way all drivers seem to roll.

Think about it: Just learning the new car, driving his first race for the team, and goes out there and takes it to his seasoned, daunting team mate. I think Schumacher did prove himself against the best, Piquet and Senna for one hand, he was more than capable of taking it to them at such a young age.

You missed out Prost. They shared the grid in 1991 and 1992.

I really wish I got to watch all of Schumacher's career so far.

Well worth a watch.

[madbrad]

MS also had Ross Brawn, who is the best tactician in the paddock. He had him at Benetton and he brought him with him to Ferrari.

[andrew]

And? All the greats have had some help in the pitlane. It is a team sport. Being successful is about several factor coming together such as the right people, the driver and the car.

[racechick]

I do not care what Murray Walker says. Schumacher was not the best. He was the most successful. A championship is just points. The two major teams he drove for focussed all the points on the one driver, making the other driver run interference for him. He only ever won things when he had the best car. His 94 car may or may not have had illegal traction control. Don't get me wrong, he was really good, and he was not the only one to use dubious or unsportsmanlike tactics on the track, but other champions did not have these luxuries. Had any of a good dozen or so drivers I can think of had his help or went on the path he did instead of him, the result would have been the same for that driver, instead of him. I'm just saying...

Completely agree

[andrew]

So many Schuamcher fans in one thread. Oh it's wonderful.

[What's Burning?]

What does it all mean? Is Rosberg better than Schumacher or is he just better than today's Schumacher? Or does Schumacher just have a crappy car? I'm so confused because the Vettel and Hamilton threads are very persuasive in making the argument that a driver out scoring and out qualifying their team mate means they're better.

[andrew]

According to those in the know it is a combination of factors.

[LewEngBridewell]

I hated the Schumacher and Ferrari domination when it was actually happening, but looking back now, it's just another memorable era in the sport.

[zurich_allan]

You missed out Prost. They shared the grid in 1991 and 1992.

Not quite - they only had 4 or 5 races together in 1991 since Schumi didn't come in until Belgium and Prost had already left Ferrari by Australia. And Prost didn't race at all in 1992.

They did however compete against each other in 1993, and that was a classic season!

I wouldn't read anything into Schumacher beating Piquet as that was literally the last half a dozen races of Piquets career, and Piquet beat him the very next race anyway.

Also, cars back then were much simpler beasts to jump straight into if you were used to racing in other series - totally different to the technological beasts that modern F1 cars are now.

That said, I've always said too that it's impossible to say that there's one 'best ever' F1 driver. Different eras, different rules, different drivers competing, different reliability, different teams and other personnel, different circuits etc. It's literally impossible.

If you look all round at what Schumacher achieved, and lets not forget that F1 isn't as simple as a game of football or tennis - it includes being able to gain levererage in the market and getting yourself into the best seat, surrounding yourself with the best people, commanding respect, getting the results consistently and looking bloody fast whilst doing it - then it's very difficult to argue against Schumacher being considered one of the all time greats. I certainly think he is.

[Hammer278]

I do not care what Murray Walker says. Schumacher was not the best. He was the most successful. A championship is just points. The two major teams he drove for focussed all the points on the one driver, making the other driver run interference for him. He only ever won things when he had the best car. His 94 car may or may not have had illegal traction control. Don't get me wrong, he was really good, and he was not the only one to use dubious or unsportsmanlike tactics on the track, but other champions did not have these luxuries. Had any of a good dozen or so drivers I can think of had his help or went on the path he did instead of him, the result would have been the same for that driver, instead of him. I'm just saying...

Says it all really.

[deMuRe]

I do not care what Murray Walker says. Schumacher was not the best. He was the most successful. A championship is just points. The two major teams he drove for focussed all the points on the one driver, making the other driver run interference for him. He only ever won things when he had the best car. His 94 car may or may not have had illegal traction control. Don't get me wrong, he was really good, and he was not the only one to use dubious or unsportsmanlike tactics on the track, but other champions did not have these luxuries. Had any of a good dozen or so drivers I can think of had his help or went on the path he did instead of him, the result would have been the same for that driver, instead of him. I'm just saying...

Says it all really.

Ferrari was the best car in the pitlane?

You missed Murray's point, people like Senna always wanted to drive the best car, Schumacher made the Ferrari the best car through leadership, skill and determination.

Most drivers would love to be the team number 1, Schumacher asked for it and because he was so good the team granted it. No arguments and no conflict.

Look what happened, the results speak for themselves.

[andrew]

You missed out Prost. They shared the grid in 1991 and 1992.

Not quite - they only had 4 or 5 races together in 1991 since Schumi didn't come in until Belgium and Prost had already left Ferrari by Australia. And Prost didn't race at all in 1992.

They did however compete against each other in 1993, and that was a classic season!

My mistake and one that I should not have made! This sort of error can land a chap in DD's House of Fun.