- 08 Nov 14, 00:22#424342
Have you read these replies? What do you think? they ALL address your supposed curiosity for opinions
You seem to be canvasing for a diffrent set of opinions or a specific one, maybe start with telling us how you feel about these replies
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
We are in the end of a season where this question is perfectly acceptable to ask.
On the one hand, you have Hamilton who has accumulated more wins than Rosberg,
so one would assume he is the worthy candidate for the WDC.
On the other hand, you have Rosberg, who is still mathematically in the running for
the WDC, if all the stars in the universe are aligned with the star on his car.
Both would consider themselves worthy of the championship, regardless of how; but,
as the poll asks, is winning the title at the last race, as Rosberg can possibly do, just as
valid as winning it based on having been more successful all season long, like Hamilton?
I suppose the bottom line and only line is "who scored the most points over the season"
Look at Keke Roseberg championship year, he won only 1 race, but he was consistent high finishing in most races all year. Sound familiar
I think it's a case of perspective. People see it as all riding on the last race ( if it's gone to the wire) because that is the final nail in the coffin, or hand on the trophy, depending how that race goes for you.
But in actual fact the race could be said just as easily to have pivoted around an action earlier in the year. A clumsy overtake and loss of points, a wrong tyre call , a spin out. That could be the thing that actually looses the title. People tend to remember the errors and dramas that occur towards the end of the season and forget the earlier ones.
Best way to win the title is to score as many points, be as consistent as possible all through the season.
Hey where's the poll?
A title can't be won in one race.
A title can be lost in one race.
A driver has to be in a position to win a title in the last race in order to win it.
So if a driver is constant enough to be in a situation to win a title at the end of the season it generally means they drove well. It doesn't mean that a driver winning from that position earned the title.
In 2010, there were four drivers able to mathematically able to win a championship at the last race of the season. The fact that four of them could win it certainly didn't mean that they all deserved it. If you "win" something and the only way for you to win is to have another driver fail through some type of extraneous circumstance then IMO that's a benefactor, not a winner of a championship.
What you are not taking into account Sagi, in your machinations is the fact that the Mercedes is such a dominant car, that it allows for mistakes to be made or mechanical issues to be encountered and still award the driver making those mistakes 15 or 18 points. The situation was no different at Red Bull for a few years. Webber always finished 2nd or 3rd int he season because of the power in that car. Barichello saw the same, affect him in 2009. What's clear is that Rosberg is outwardly a better driver than both Webber and Barichello when compared to their teammates to be able to put himself in a position that he's still close enough to be a benefactor.
So in effect, what we have this season is one driver earning a title because he's year in and year out shown that he is consistently ranked amongst the best drivers in the sport (regardless of the car he's driven) and doing exactly what his fans anticipated and the other driver having such an overpowering car, is just able to outscore any other driver on the grid bar his teammate. If you didn't become aware of this effect in Sochi, then I am unable to explain it any better than that and I doubt anyone else could.
Also, to the casual observer the title decided in the last race by a point is sometimes wrongly thought of as if it was a tennis tie break, when instead its generally due to the strategy over the final hurdle and as RC said, 1 point more than the others is the important metric
Also its only at this stage that incidents can truly be said to have made a difference, although previous ones will have contributed
simply because, any incident during the season will affect dynamically all the other players and will be discounted overall. So when Massa says it was the pitstop refuelling Ferrari fiasco that caused him the title, its complete straw grasping as all the other competitors discounted the incident and adjusted towards winning. So I think its not meaningful to say an incident in the past, at least a race before, after which the others had a chance to consider and discount it has any bearing beyond a mere contibution.
Pivotal moments, when some one loses heart or momentum or gains confidence etc etc are different
IMHO
Its a difficult one to answer.
This year, because Our Lewis is in a strong position, Id rather he won it much sooner than the last race.
If its a year when none of my fave drivers are in contention, then I want it to go down to the last corner of the last race....
As a newby, I think the title should be won when won, like Mercedes two races ago.
Don't think it's fair to make one race(the last one) more valuable then the first 18.
Although, I understand why they do(did?) it.
Have you read these replies? What do you think? they ALL address your supposed curiosity for opinions
You seem to be canvasing for a diffrent set of opinions or a specific one, maybe start with telling us how you feel about these replies
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44