- 27 Apr 09, 22:47#112844The 1997 Collision vs the 1990 collision? No difference, both Senna and Schumacher were desperate to win. As far as Senna being robbed in 1989, how about the fact that Prost outscored him so badly in both 88 and 89? In the same car! Prost was robbed by that damn dropped score system, the same one that denied Graham Hill being triple world champion.
What would Senna have done at Ferrari? He won his titles with a McLaren team that was on top when he got there. When Prost left, the team petered out in three years. There's no evidence that Senna could take a down team to the top. Where was Bennetton when Schumi got there? Mid field? He took them to back to back titles. Where was Ferrari? 2 wins in 5 years and no title in more than a dozen. Schumacher showed that he can take a down team to the top. Then he left, and did it again. That '94 Season? What was Senna going to do down 30-0? Score 8 points a race the rest of the way? What was Senna going to do to the age of 35-40. I don't think he would have won the '94 title had he lived. He hadn't won a title since he was 31, and his best years were behind him. His 1993 was much like Schumi's 2006, too little too late, and far enough from his peak to win against the younger competition. Schumi was smart enough to quit, Senna was not.
Do I think Senna was brilliant in the rain? Yes, Yes Schumacher, yes Stewart, yes Fangio. Do I think that Schumacher had all of these undetectable devices on his car? I rely on the post race inspection and the FIA. They said his cars were legal.
McLaren are usually the ones caught cheating and lying to stewards. Illegal breaking system in '98? Hamilton this year?Forget about spygate, that cost them nothing. The 15 points lost by McLaren in Hungary 2007 with their qualifying shenanigans would have cost them the constructors title anyway, 204-203!
Let's not forget, Schumacher has been punished for his transgressions. He was disqualified for his 97 collision. Shouldn't Senna have been disqualified in '90 as well. Wasn't he disqualified from Spa and Silverstone in 94 and punished for Monaco '06? Schumachers 94 collision has been debated for years, and alot of people think that both he and Hill were at fault for that one.
Senna was a gifted qualifier, but to what end? If you awarded senna the same points in qualifying that was awarded for the race position, he would have scored 909 qualifying points, but scored 614 race points. Schumacher scored 1354.5 qualifying points, but 1369 race points. Senna's minus 1.83 points per rece is the greatest underperformance of any championship driver of any era. It shows either a lack of race craft, or a large number of mistakes during the event.
Personally, I'll take Schumacher over Senna. He made fewer mistakes and proved that he could take a down team to the top and keep them there. He was equally good in the rain. As far as Senna's teammates limiting his success, Prost took 1 title from Senna at most! Teammates like Cicotto, Dumfries, Nakajima and Berger, the latter being one of the better drivers, posed no more threat to Senna, than Schumachers teammates did to him. As far as keeping a top team at the top, in 2002, Schimacher was driving for the same team that he was driving for to win the previous two titles. Senna was in the same situation in 1991. The difference was, Schumacher kept the team on top. Schumacher showed that he could defend titles in two distinctly different eras as well. Grooved tires and Slicks. Crippled race cars? Schumacher was the master, Spain 95, or France a few years later with a broken oil pump, he was a master at that as well.
Schumacher over Senna? I'll take Schumacher. Now Stewart or Clark or Fangio? That's another matter, but I'd place them ahead of Senna as well.
! I do respect Chris and his opinion a great deal even though I may not agree with him sometimes 
.
