FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[BritishBear]

The other day, I was in F1 discussion with someone and he made an interesting statement that I didn't fully agree with, but thought I'd see what you all thought. We were talking about views on the greatest F1 driver of the last decade. I voted for Michael Schumacher (note, I'm not a supporter of his, but I do feel he is the best F1 driver of the last decade), and he for Nigel Mansell. That in itself isn't the interesting part, but the statement he came out with was this:

"In order to be the best F1 driver, you have to be the best all rounder, which includes being the best in the media. You have to be good at interviews to be considered the best in the sport", and it was this that I disagreed. imo, MS never gave a damn about what others thought of him, he did his talking on the track, and personally I felt Mansell was rather uncharismatic in interviews (quite a monotonous voice, not expressive at all). I'm not saying MS was alot better, but I'd rather see an MS interview then a mansell interview.

What this guy did agree with was, statistically MS was better, and in that you cannot argue, but he felt Mansell was a better driver because he was better in the media.

Thoughts?

Edit - Added the poll.

[al4x]

you dont have to be a PRvperson to be a reat driver!

MS for me. cause the question was DRIVER not SHOWMAN

[Juliet P]

I answered no, for one very simple reason:

Kimi

[NateDawg80126]

To be the best driver you have to be the best driver, it's as simple as that really.

[ivey]

To be the best driver you have to be the best driver, it's as simple as that really.

nah, you have to be good at car development and at relationships with team

[Amanda]

Not for me. Jim Clark was hardly a master of the media, he was shy and reserved, yet still one of the greatest drivers to sit in an F1 car. Alonso doesn't seem particularly media friendly and he's easily one of the current greats. In fact I can't think of many F1 drivers that are/were experts with the media, except maybe Graham Hill or James Hunt, and 'expert' might not be the right word to describe the latter.

[zurich_allan]

What this guy did agree with was, statistically MS was better, and in that you cannot argue...

Yes you can. He is not better statistically, he holds a huge amount of records, and the two are utterly different things (in a factual sense). Statistics can only exist with comparable variables, and across generations the variables are completely different, making statistical analysis across generations impossible.

I should point out that as a pure racer, I am a big fan of Shumacher's, and I don't think it's possible to argue against him being the best racer of his generation (save possibly Hakkinen for 2/3 years), so my above statement is not biased in any way, and I'm not saying that Schumacher may not be the best driver in the history of F1 (although I personally would still give that accolade to Senna).

As for having to be able to manipulate the mass media (the word 'mass' is crucial here as mass media, and media itself are two different things), have charisma etc. I don't see that as having any part to play in deciding who is the best in F1. Over the years I've seen hundreds of F1 races, and probably seen thousands of F1 related interviews. I would say I likely remember more about the races I've watched, wins, overtakes, crashes, starts etc. than I do individual interviews I've seen.

[Jensonb]

The answer is simple. No you don't, but it helps.

[BritishBear]

Media can make your life as a racer more difficult in some respects, but it isn't paramount.

@zurich_allan, interesting point, but what your saying would strongly depend on what statistics you are gathering and the different criteria. a direct comparison is harder between MS & Mansell (The bulk of their careers were not in the same period), I would not say impossible. Comparing MS with, for instance, Ascari is near enough impossible, the racing of the 50's against today is just not in any way the same, but the differences between MS's racing days & mansell's are not so great. Just an opinion, I'm no expert.

I confess the other reason for asking this question is that the guy I was talking to used the phrase "your wrong" to me in a way that implied that my opinion was not valid. Red rag to a bull for me that is Must be said though, the rest of the discussion was perfectly amicable.

[texasmr2]

I think anyone with any knowledge will disregard the BS and hype the media dish's out. The only power the media has is over the misinformed.

[BritishBear]

I think anyone with any knowledge will disregard the BS and hype the media dish's out. The only power the media has is over the misinformed.

LOL, like it.

[zurich_allan]

@zurich_allan, interesting point, but what your saying would strongly depend on what statistics you are gathering and the different criteria. a direct comparison is harder between MS & Mansell (The bulk of their careers were not in the same period), I would not say impossible. Comparing MS with, for instance, Ascari is near enough impossible, the racing of the 50's against today is just not in any way the same, but the differences between MS's racing days & mansell's are not so great. Just an opinion, I'm no expert.

Fair enough, but even in the same seasons they were racing, Mansell was nearing the end of his career, and Schumacher was in the beginning of his. They were in different cars with completely different engineering. the only real possibilities for statistical analysis would be for team-mates in the same cars if it can be shown they were given equal equipment / treatment, or analysis of telemetry across all drivers on the grid in the same season.

If you take statistical analysis even at a simple level there are different cars, a different combination of drivers and partnerships, different amounts of testing time, different resources, different levels of experience of tracks in lower formulae, different driver pairings that each contribute different amounts and aspects to the team, different numbers of drivers on the grid from season to season, different interpretations of rules etc. etc.

At a micro level there are literally thousands of differences between variables which does make accurate statistical analysis impossible - literally. (I have a PGC in Research Methodology, having studied nothing but research methods for a year, and have been employed as an active researcher for several years since then).

As I said though, that doesn't prevent an educated guess or ordinary comparison which of course can be relatively easy if looking at drivers who have each driven good and bad cars in the same field for several years together. For example it would be pretty straightforward to make a general comparison between say Kubica and Heidfeld (given the same equipment and treatment for a few years), or Alesi and Berger (same as before, plus they raced as team-mates at more than one team). Not so straightforward but still possible to make a decent comparison between say Schumacher and Barrichello, Hakkinen and Coulthard, or even possibly Schumacher and Hill etc.

Mansell and Schumacher would just be too difficult in my opinion to even really make a general comparison, although if you did - purely on the races they competed in together surely Mansell would come out on top? 1992, whole season together = Mansell 9 wins, Schumacher 1 win and Mansell dominated his team-mate. Schumacher teamed with Brundle and although he beat him, Brundle actually outscored Schumacher from the 4th race to the end of the season (i.e. the majority of the season). 1994 Mansell with virtually no testing and only 4 races can't really be counted.

Overall Races competed together (1991, 1992, 1994, 1995) = 28

Mansell Wins = 12
Schumacher Wins = 4

Mansell Points = 147
Schumacher Points = 93

Mansell DNF = 9
Schumacher DNF = 9

Mansell Podiums = 16
Schumacher Podiums = 12

Mansell Points Finishes = 17
Schumacher Points finishes = 18

The point of all of this? This is a straight numbers comparison that doesn't take into account the variables I mentioned earlier, and what does it show? Other than a negligible (difference of one) victory for Schumacher in terms of points finishes, and an equal amount of DNF's, Mansell is significantly ahead in the majority of key areas.

Numbers alone can be used to illustrate a number of things, but based on this could a reasonable argument be made to say that Mansell was better than Schumacher? Well maybe over the course of a season or two, but certainly not taking their careers as a whole. The variables I mentioned are essential in making a true statistical analysis, but impossible to compare...

[texasmr2]

That would be a good lecture topic for your students .

[BritishBear]

Hat off to you sir, you clearly know your shizzle in such matters.

By what you've said though, absolutely no statistical comparison can ever be made to anything, as what your saying is that in order for a comparison to be accurate, the subjects have to be identical in every way, which is impossible. This is a simpltons interpretation of what you've said, I'm sure you could disprove what I've surmised.

We digress from the point of the question however.

[zurich_allan]

Well in a literal sense, technically that's correct. What researchers tend to do is choose for comparison, subjects within boundaries that have a finite and measurable amount of variables. An example is a guy in an office on the floor below me is carrying out research into consumer behaviour in terms of purchasing food by three specific areas - store own brands, national brands and international brands. There are a number of variables that include gender / age / ethnicity etc. of shopper. Location of store, economic climate etc. but essentially the products are similar and comparable.

The problem with F1 is that each car has approximately 80,000 components, the majority of which will differ, some in a minor way and others in a major way from car to car and set-up to set-up. That's a whole lot of variables to take into account, and that's just the car itself!....

Technically I will admit that such a statistical study may be possible, however this would have to be a massive scale study with a lot of people and a lot of time (we're talking years) to collect the data (much of which may not even exist beyond a decade or so ago), deconstruct the data and then construct and test the hypotheses. Even then, the results would not be conclusive due to certain crucial variables that cannot be tested.

Statistics is a very boring subject that personally (and rather sadly ) I find interesting, I fear if I go on too much that I may send some forum members to sleep (if they haven't done so already!!).

Research is a very tricky field, and this is why I said at the outset that the term 'statistics' is often misquoted and misinterpreted. Often when people mention statistics (particularly relating to sports), what they actually are talking about is records, which are two different things. That was all I really meant at the start of this discussion...