This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: Jackie Stewart

Is there a witch hunt against McLaren?

11 September 2007 15:27

Categories: Formula 1

This has turned out to be McLaren’s annus horribilis when it should have been a year of celebration. After an unprecedented series of years in the doldrums on the track, McLaren have finally gone back to their winning ways. But off the track, it is difficult to imagine what else could have gone wrong.

It would have been bad enough had it just been the Stepneygate scandal from which McLaren (at the time) escaped any harsh punishment (probably rightly given the evidence there was at the time). But despite escaping punishment, the cloud of suspicion lingered, the media was not impressed and the tifosi were livid.

But there have also been rows over team orders and the status of the drivers which was kicked off by a deterioration in the relationship between Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton. McLaren probably have the two best drivers in the world in their cars, but instead of being an unmitigated success it has turned out to be a disaster.

At Hungary the FIA stepped in to prevent McLaren from scoring constructors’ points due to what was essentially an issue between the two drivers. It was harsh to levy such a heavy penalty on McLaren due to something that the team itself was seemingly quite peripheral to.

Then at Monza the race stewards decided to fine the team $50,000 for running a lightweight gearbox at the Hungaroring. The race stewards say that the new gearbox should have been crash tested prior to being run. For their part, McLaren say they were open with the FIA at all times about the existence their new gearbox.

Even if the FIA were not made aware of the situation, you have to ask the question: what were the Italian stewards doing passing judgement on something that happened two races ago? There is a discussion on this over at BlogF1. This is the equivalent of a referee in a football match giving a footballer a yellow card for something he did three weeks ago.

This is not to say that the FIA should not have punished McLaren. But the race stewards are not the people to do it. And the scrutineers at Hungary were seemingly okay with the new gearbox. It all looks a bit fishy to me, particularly since it happened at the Italian Grand Prix. Italy is, of couse, the country where Ferrari almost rivals Catholicism as the biggest religion.

A similar thing happened last year at the Italian Grand Prix when Fernando Alonso was penalised for “blocking” a Ferrari that was a hundred metres behind him. The video of the entire lap is still available. Yes, that distant speck on the horizon is meant to be blocking Felipe Massa. The only people in the world who actually believe this are FIArrari.

But the FIA does not have to be in Italy to unfairly find in favour of Ferrari and against every single other team. Jackie Stewart rightly pointed this out today.

Now the whole Stepneygate saga is being opened up again, and the World Motor Sport Council is meeting on Thursday to discuss it. It will be a big day for Formula 1. Will the FIA cave into their pro-Ferrari instincts and award the Scuderia the Championship in the courtroom? Or will they act like the governing body of a sport and allow the Championship to be won and lost on the racetrack?

This series of events has prompted some to ask: are McLaren being picked on by the FIA this season? Craig has also taken a look at this. Many have mentioned the fact that FIA president Max Mosley has a pretty frosty relationship with Ron Dennis. The FIA deny that there is a witch hunt, but they would say that wouldn’t they?

For what it’s worth, I do not think that the FIA are deliberately singling out McLaren. At least, not beyond the extent we have come to expect from the FIA’s pro-Ferrari bias. But I think the adverse reaction to the original WMSC hearing in July has encouraged the FIA to punish McLaren heavily for the slightest wrongdoing.

The FIA are quite right to re-open the Stepneygate case if they think there is sufficient evidence. The integrity of the sport is important, and if McLaren are found to have benefited from Ferrari documents then they should face a heavy punishment.

But to me, it just does not stack up for the reasons I explained in my previous post on Stepneygate. The McLaren car had already been built by the time Mike Coughlan got his hands on the documents, and from then on basing developments on Ferrari blueprints would surely be like trying to piece together pieces from two different jigsaw puzzles.

But the whole saga became much more serious when drivers became involved. It is suggested that Fernando Alonso gained some insight into set-up data as a result of an email conversation with test driver Pedro de la Rosa, who is good buddies with Mike Coughlan.

This could prove crucial because beforehand McLaren had claimed that no employee was aware of the Ferrari information except for Mike Coughlan. If it transpires that de la Rosa and Alonso also knew, then there could be serious consequences.

A lot of people are asking themselves how the FIA could punish McLaren (if they are found guilty) without damaging the great story of this World Championship — particularly the emergence of the hugely exciting Lewis Hamilton. There is a nasty idea in my head that the FIA could end up punishing McLaren and punishing Alonso (because of the emails) but exonerating Hamilton. That way, Hamilton can win the World Championship while McLaren still get punished.

Yesterday Rory left a comment on this blog pointing out that the rumoured conversation between de la Rosa and Alonso was infact a fabrication. But that does not mean that the emails did not exist. They could have contained perfectly innocent information — or it could have been far worse than suggested by La Gazzetta dello Sport.

For the integrity of F1, and for the sake of this year’s fantastic World Championship, let us hope it is the former.

7 comments

A history lesson for the MSM and the FIA

29 May 2007 16:45

Categories: Entertainment, Formula 1, Newspapers, Radio, Television

I am sorry to keep on banging on about this, but the “team orders” row has reached a whole new level in the wake of the news that the FIA will be investigating it. There is just so much you can say.

First of all, it seems as though the world has been split into two camps. It is not the MSM vs. everyone else, for once. It is people who know shit all about F1 vs. people who have a clue.

It was good to see David Croft, in his column for the BBC, saw the team orders row for what it is — a media-driven storm in a teacup. Note for the MSM: The following paragraph is sarcastic.

…let’s talk about Lewis Hamilton for a moment instead. Or rather let’s jump up and down in outrage at Lewis being deprived of his first Grand Prix win in Monaco. In fact, let’s jump up and down so much that governing body the FIA will step in and make sure that Mclaren never dare to put the team first ever again. Why stop there? Why not strip team boss Ron Dennis of his CBE for his unpatriotic judgement call?

I heard the newsreader on Radio Five Live overnight acting as though Jackie Stewart — an actual expert in F1 — was off his face when he said that McLaren were right to tell its drivers to hold back. As Stewart pointed out, not only is there the risk of throwing the cars into the barriers, but there is also the risk that the drivers will push the car too hard and end up stressing it to the point of breaking.

In this age where engines have to last for more than one race, that is something that an F1 team simply cannot afford. It is common sense and, indeed, common for a team to tell its drivers to take it easy once the race is under control. McLaren dominated the Monaco GP in a way which they haven’t for almost a decade. Even when they “lifted off” they managed to lap everyone apart from Massa. So there was no need to push too hard.

The “ban on team orders” was brought in by the FIA in 2002, although it is generally recognised by F1 fans as not a ban on team orders. We all know team orders exist, and they exist for a very good reason. What was banned was a repeat of the kind of blatant move that happened in Austria 2002, where Rubens Barrichello slowed on the very last corner of the race to allow Michael Schumacher to win.

That was an exceptional circumstance. Everyone was expecting Barrichello to let Schumacher through for the sake of the World Championship. But Barrichello had a point to prove — that he was the rightful winner of the race. So, as a protest, he left it until the last corder. It was quite sickening to watch, and one of F1′s darkest moments. Understandably, the crowd booed all the way through the podium ceremony.

The ridiculousness of the situation and the public outcry that followed led the FIA to introduce the “ban on team orders”, although what it exactly entails is very vague. Team orders as we know it are still allowed, and they have been allowed to go on for the past five years, mostly without the FIA batting an eyelid.

It might seem strange to somebody who is not an F1 fan. But team orders have a long history in F1. Indeed, they have probably been around for as long as F1 itself has been. The FIA couldn’t really ban team orders.

The FIA didn’t ban team orders. They just brought in that rule as a fig leaf to outraged supporters. It pandered to the media and the public, but most see it for the hollow rule that it is. It was a ban on public outcry more than anything else.

So of course, when the British media kicks up a stink over what is actually a pretty regular policy for an F1 team to have — particularly on the narrow streets of Monte Carlo — the FIA wheel out the rule on public outcries. The media were pushing for them to do something, so they have done something. But the real scandal would be if the FIA punished McLaren for doing what any other team would have done.

The actual rule on team orders states:

Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

What is meant by this is vague. But you could argue that in Austria 2002, Ferrari interfered with the race result by swapping 1^st and 2^nd positions. In Monaco 2007, McLaren didn’t interfere with the race result because the drivers stayed in the positions that had been naturally established. (Don’t forget that Alonso qualified on pole, he led after the first corner, and he led when he took both of his pitstops. Alonso was the rightful winner.)

Ask yourself this question. If it was two Ferraris leading in Monaco and they did what McLaren did this weekend, would the FIA have launched an investigation? Of course not. Anything Ferrari does is A-OK in their book (Austria 2002 was an exception because it was so greatly against the interests of the sport).

I’m not the only one to allude to the FIA’s pro-Ferrari bias this weekend. During the BBC’s Chequered Flag podcast, Anthony Davidson suggested — if I read his comments correctly — that the only reason he was given a drive-through penalty was because he happened to be holding up Massa. If it was anyone else, he wouldn’t have been given the penalty.

Is it impossible to foresee a situation where McLaren are stripped of all the points they rightfully earned at Monaco? As I pointed out in my previous post on this issue, that would give Ferrari the Championship lead, instead of the 20 point deficit they currently face.

In that situation, Lewis Hamilton would lose the 8 Championship points he earned. And the British media would only have themselves to blame.

These people actually have a clue about F1

3 comments

Team orders? No, just common sense

27 May 2007 23:34

Categories: Entertainment, Formula 1, Newspapers, Television

One side effect of what is now sickeningly called “the Lewis Hamilton effect” (i.e. media-driven bollocks-hype), is that now journalists are being expected by their employers to cover more F1. Moreover, whenever Lewis Hamilton fails to win (which is every race of his career so far, let us not forget), somebody must be to blame. It could not be down to the fact that, for instance, golden boy Lewis was maybe not fast enough to win.

So today Ron Dennis is being criticised for doing what any team principal worth his salt would do — ensuring that his two drivers don’t crash into each other. This BBC News article is called “McLaren deny anti-Hamilton bias”.

The fact that Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso backed off from having an on-track battle is being construed as team orders. Of course, had Alonso and Hamilton had an on-track battle and then crashed into each other, everybody would be pointing the finger at Ron Dennis asking why he allowed them to race each other.

It’s difficult to remember the last time the McLarens were so dominant during a race. Today they lapped everybody apart from Felipe Massa, and even he was far behind due to the Ferrari’s long wheelbase which is very badly suited to the twisty Monte Carlo circuit. I’m guessing the last time McLaren had such an advantage over the competition was Australia 1998.

Despite being the most famous race of the F1 season, the Monaco Grand Prix is usually the most boring. This is because it is almost impossible to overtake on. Its tight and twisty corners are notoriously difficult for F1 cars to negotiate one abreast, never mind two abreast. Racing on the circuit has famously been described as like “flying a helicopter in your living room” by Nelson Piquet.

McLaren’s supreme advantage, combined with the fact that it is near enough impossible to overtake at Monaco, would have made any other course of action complete suicide for the team. Had Alonso and Hamilton crashed out, McLaren would have lost 18 points — net 24 points when you consider the extra points Ferrari would have scooped up.

In F1 championship terms, that is a huge amount of points to give away — almost two and a half race wins’ worth. Had the McLarens crashed out today, it would have been enough for them to lose the lead of the Championship.

It is not as if Alonso and Hamilton weren’t trying. A number of times during the race both McLarens looked a bit sideways, particularly in the Swimming Pool complex. As it was, they were almost chucking their cars into the barriers.

And let’s not forget that in the straight fight in qualifying, Hamilton was unable to beat Alonso (both in qualifying 3 which determines the grid, and in qualifying 2 where the fuel loads are equal). Had Hamilton been faster, the so-called “team orders” would have been to his advantage. So maybe if he wants to win a race, next time he should be fast enough to do so. Hamilton knows this. It’s not exactly rocket science.

In other words, nice try, MSM. Keep digging for that juicy Hamilton story. Unfortunately this isn’t it. I am sure it will come sooner or later without you having to resort to hype or outright distortions.

Incidentally, I was quite amused / enraged by a couple of things James Allen said over the course of the weekend. It is a typical example of how the media has lost sight of the reality, caught up as they are in the rush to create a star out of Lewis Hamilton, thereby allowing them to line their pockets.

[It is Lewis Hamilton's] fifth grand prix weekend. A lot of people say there’s too much hype around Hamilton. But it’s not about hype; it’s about performance and results. That’s what creates the headlines.

Well, that’s what should create the headlines. But what about performance? What about results? Just ask James Allen’s five-year-old son.

My five-year-old son said to me when I got back from Barcelona, “Dad, I don’t think Lewis is any good.”
“Why not, son?”, I said.
“Because he never wins; he always finishes second!”
[Laughs] I tried to explain, but eh… [sentence trails off]

But eh… didn’t your son have a point? I’m not a big fan of kids, but I always admire the way their minds have not been warped out of shape by society. They can think infinitely more clearly than anyone above the age of about 12.

And here we have an example of a five-year-old seeing straight through all of the hype, clearly able to see that Lewis Hamilton has not yet demonstrated very much. Everyone else is too busy trying to create hype, or being wound up in nationalistic pride.

James Allen’s son knows more about F1 than his dad, who happens to be ITV’s main F1 commentator (much to the fans’ chagrin). The bottom line is that Lewis Hamilton’s F1 career is only five races old. And five races do not a career make.

We’ve not seen him race in the wet, we’ve not seen how he copes under pressure, we’ve not seen how he reacts when he makes a mistake. We’ve not seen whether or not he has the qualities required to be an F1 champion. And we won’t know until he is the world champion.

A lot of crass comparisons with Ayrton Senna are being made. Let’s not forget that just a short decade ago Jackie Stewart was describing Jan Magnussen as “the new Ayrton Senna”. Magnussen was subsequently sacked mid-way through his second season for being crap. Where is he now?

6 comments

Lewis Hamilton: The next Jacques Villeneuve?

17 April 2007 11:07

Categories: Entertainment, Formula 1, Newspapers, Radio

Well that’s blown it. The most exciting new talent to hit Formula 1 in a long time is about to find himself in the centre of the dreaded British tabloid hype. Jenson Button wilted under the spotlight. Lewis Hamilton might not cope much better, despite the nerves of steel he has shown in his career so far.

A few people are worried that he will catch the “Formula 1 disease” and lose his racing edge, opting for a safe 8 or 6 points instead of taking the sort of risky moves we have seen from him. More worryingly, Hamilton will have to take the chequered flag soon, otherwise the media will make him pay the price. The fact that Button took so long to win a race suffocated the man. Expectations were too high. The higher the expectations, the bigger the pressure and the worse the performance.

And as Clive James has pointed out, it could be even worse for Lewis Hamilton because he is black. So not only is he a sportsman who is expected to win. He is also expected to be a representative of an entire race.

But Hamilton, as a rookie, has had it relatively easy so far. His first three races happened in relative anonymity as far as the general public was concerned. Now, it seems, everybody knows about him. He has made history, being the first ever driver to finish on the podium in each of his first three races.

Yesterday morning Jackie Stewart moved the hype machine up a gear by saying that he could be the World Champion this year. He would be the first rookie to do so, apart from the very first World Champion back in 1950 (because they were all rookies).

In one sense, Jackie Stewart is absolutely right. What he said is really no more than a statement of fact. Lewis Hamilton could win the World Championship this year. I said so myself yesterday. But there is a difference between me and Jackie Stewart.

I am an arsehole with a blog. I have never raced a car in my life. The ultimate armchair enthuso-dick. Stewart, on the other hand, is one of the most respected observers of Formula 1 in the world, a triple World Champion who has seen decades of racing and knows what he is talking about.

As such, Jackie Stewart’s word is taken as gospel. And because he has said that Hamilton could win the championship this year (a statement of fact), people will now start to expect him to actually win the championship this year (a fanciful tabloid seller).

Jackie Stewart’s appearance on Today was just the first step, and by the end of the morning Matt Bishop, editor-in-chief of F1 Racing, was on Radio Five Live spouting the biggest load of crap I have ever heard about a driver who has only driven three grands prix.

F1 Racing is a good magazine, but it likes its hype and sensationalism. It’s a bit like the NME of motor racing publications. “Why Nico Rosberg will be world champion!” and “Robert Kubica is the best rookie since Alonso!” are two typical headlines you might see in F1 Racing. They said similar sorts of things about Fisichella and Trulli a decade ago.

This is made worse by the fact that Hamilton happens to be British, so everyone in the country will be interested. I can see the next cover in my head. “HAMILTON! The best driver the world has ever seen! And why he will be the first ever rookie champ!”

I can understand this sort of thing when it is designed to sell magazines. But Matt Bishop was there on Radio Five Live representing Formula 1. He is meant to be a level-headed expert. So what did he say?

He said that Hamilton has trounced his team-mate Alonso. Well, he beat Alonso in the last race, but was it a trouncing? It looked to me as though Alonso was just struggling on the soft tyres. He had a bad race in Bahrain. But in the other two races, Alonso beat Hamilton. At best, I would say Hamilton and Alonso look neck-and-neck.

But what Mr Bishop went on to say after that was even worse, almost unimaginable. He said that Hamilton is one of five or six drivers in Formula 1 history who have ever had this much talent. And then a minute later he even trotted out the names of people who Hamilton is meant to be as good as.

Lewis Hamilton is in the same chapter only as Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher. And that’s it.

So, with a career that has lasted just three races, Lewis Hamilton is, according to Matt Bishop, at least the fifth-best driver the world has ever seen; the latest in a short list of Formula 1′s most legendary names. That is just an extraordinary thing to say. He hasn’t even won a race yet. Hamilton has looked impressive, but give him a chance! This is just going to create expectations that simply will not be met any time soon.

And, predictably, it just gets worse with ITV’s coverage. ITV have spent the past few years creaming their pants over the distinctly average Jenson Button. Now that a genuinely good British driver has arrived it is just one big Lewis Hamilton wank-fest.

As if the interviews with his brother (eh? What other sports give you interviews with a sportsperson’s brother?) weren’t bad enough, ITV even manage to spend their whole time talking about Lewis Hamilton even when they are interviewing other drivers.

Before the race at the weekend there was an interview with Robert Kubica where Louise Goodman actually said to him something along the lines of, “But you’re making the sort of mistakes that Lewis Hamilton should be making as a rookie — what do you think of him?”

And then after the race there was an interview with Alonso where the questions about Alonso’s race came across as a chore for Louise Goodman, who obviously couldn’t wait to say, “But Lewis Hamilton had a good race, didn’t he?” Alonso frowned and politely said “yes”, but if I was in his shoes I might have given her a punch.

And the British public will tune into the Spanish Grand Prix next month expecting to see something amazing. And Hamilton will now know what is expected. And he will be unable to deliver it.

Let us just remember the last time a rookie driver had such an impressive start to a career. Jacques Villeneuve came damn close to winning his first race in 1996. He came close to winning that championship. He went on to win the Championship in 1997. But after that, his career was so shoddy that it became just one big embarrassment to the entire concept of the 1997 World Drivers’ Championship.

Something tells me that the next issue of F1 Racing won’t have the headline, “LEWIS HAMILTON: The next Jacques Villeneuve!”

14 comments

The legacy of Michael Schumacher

23 October 2006 02:33

Categories: Formula 1

The world of Formula 1 will be waking up to a very different world this morning. Some say that Michael Schumacher is very important to Formula 1, that his success has attracted fans who want to be able to say to their grandchildren that they watched the greatest racing driver of all time.

I don’t buy that. Michael Schumacher is famous because he is a good Formula 1 driver. Formula 1 isn’t famous because Michael Schumacher was dominant. There are probably a great many sportsmen who are dominant in their field, but are completely unknown because their field is anonymous. Formula 1 was big before Michael Schumacher and it will be big after Schumacher. It might even be bigger in his absence as we see closer competition.

Michael Schumacher is unquestionably the most successful Formula 1 driver in history. He was just one victory short from having as many wins as the two next most successful drivers (Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost) put together. Dizzyingly, he has won more than a third of the 250 races he has entered.

He also has more pole positions, more front-row starts, more fastest laps than anyone else (and actually more than the next two drivers — Prost and Nigel Mansell — put together), more podiums than anyone else, led more laps, scored more points and — of course — won more World Championships than anyone else. Put simply, he has achieved every record worth setting, and then some.

What is also incredible about Michael Schumacher is that he has looked capable of winning every single World Championship since 1994 (apart perhaps from 1996 when he was driving a dog of a Ferrari — and he even managed to score a good few race victories in that).

But these records are just lists of numbers. You can argue that a lot of this is just down to the nature of modern-day Formula 1 racing. In the 1950s and 1960s there were far fewer races per season — sometimes in the single figures compared to today’s eighteen in a season.

So what about Schumacher’s actual racing? This is where there is great debate about Michael Schumacher’s status as one of the sport’s true greats. The phrase “flawed genius” is a bit of a cliche, but it might as well have been invented for Michael Schumacher. It is difficult to think of a more controversial driver. Almost all of the most negative publicity in Formula 1 over the past decade and a half has involved Michael Schumacher in some form or another — last year’s exploding Michelin tyres at the US Grand Prix being the exception.

It was beginning to feel as though Schumacher was mellowing in recent years. And then came Rascassegate, where Michael Schumacher controversially parked his car on the track during qualifying at Monaco to prevent Fernando Alonso setting a faster time.

You can clearly see his movement in the steering wheel — he starts to steer left in the middle of a right turn. Jackie Stewart said, “This was too blatant. When you see it in slow motion, turning the wheel one way and then the other, he had plenty of time to do something.”

The incident brought back a lot of bad memories from the past decade. The July issue of F1 Racing magazine listed some of Schumacher’s transgressions. The list is long.

Britain 1994 — Disqualified and banned for two races after failing to take his stop-go penalty for overtaking on the warm-up lap
Australia 1994 — Crashed into Damon Hill to ensure victory in the 1994 Drivers’ Championship
1994 season — Suspect software found on the Benetton that Schumacher drove
Brazil 1995 — Accusations that Schumacher delibrately put on weight for the twice-yearly weight check so that he could race underweight
Belgium 1995 — Blocking moves lead to the introduction of the ‘one move’ agreement where drivers can only move once to prevent being overtaken
Europe 1997 — Drove into Jacques Villeneuve in an attempt to secure the Drivers’ Championship. “You’ve hit the wrong part of him my friend!,” said commentator Martin Brundle. Williams put Villeneuve’s car on display to show the mark left by Schumacher’s tyre.
Britain 1998 — Wins the race in the pit lane by taking his stop–go penalty after crossing the finish line
Canada 1998 — Forces Frentzen to leave the track by abruptly joining the racing line after a pit stop, leading to the introduction of the pit lane exit line that cannot be crossed
Belgium 1998 — Accuses David Coulthard of “trying to fucking kill me” after crashing into the back of the Scot
Austria 2000 — Following a shunt, manoeuvres his car into a dangerous position in an attempt to get the race red-flagged and re-started
Austria 2001 — Team-mate Rubens Barrichello forced by Ferrari to pull over to let Schumacher through on the last corner
Germany 2001 — Once again moves his car into a dangerous position in an attempt to get the race red-flagged — this time successfully
Austria 2002 — Barrichello again forced to let Schumacher pass on the final corner — this time for the win. The spectators were furious. This leads to the “ban” on team orders
USA 2002 — A failed attempt at a “manufactured dead heat”. Some say it is payback for Austria. Once again, the fans are furious — and of all places, the USA is the one place this should not happen
Europe 2003 — Successfully encourages track marshals to push his beached car back on to the race track
Britain 2004 — Deliberately spins in quali 1 to miss the rain expected in quali 2
Australia 2005 — Yet again helped out by marshals who choose to ignore Nick Heidfeld who is also beached
Monaco 2006 — Rascassegate

The BBC has another list here.

What you have here is a man who is determined to win at all costs. Not all of these incidents were methodically planned in advance. Many of them happened when Schumacher was under great pressure. These decisions were made quickly. Schumacher is a quick thinker, and he knows how to make the best out of a bad situation. Unfortunately, it has left this otherwise outstanding driver with a somewhat tarnished reputation; a reputation as an ruthless, intimidating cheat.

Many argue that this is what you need to become a seven times World Champion. You need a bit of aggression, a do-or-die attitude, a notion that you must win at all costs. It’s just unfortunate that this trait has overshadowed his achievements.

People point at the fact that Ayrton Senna was hardly a clean racer either. He was known for stooping to low levels in order to win, probably most controversially when he crashed into his own team mate and championship rival, Alain Prost in order to win the Drivers’ Championship. Jacques Villeneuve might be known for his outspoken rants, but I think he had it spot on when he was asked about Michael Schumacher in an interview for the September issue of F1 Racing.

Michael simply isn’t a great champion because he’s played too many dirty tricks and because he isn’t a great human being. Yes, Senna played dirty tricks, too, but he did it with more class, more integrity. When he took Prost out at Suzuka in 1990, he said he was going to do it before the race. So, unlike Michael, who ridiculously insisted he was innocent at Monaco this year, Senna said, ‘Yes, I did it. But I told you before the race that I was going to do it.’ That’s very different from what Michael did at Monaco and Jerez [in 1997] and Adelaide [in 1994]. Senna wasn’t lying to his fans. Michael was.

Another dimension of the Michael Schumacher debate that has cropped up this weekend is the fact that it is difficult to remember any great overtaking manoeuvres that he has made. I was thinking the same thing myself before this weekend. Schumacher is certainly quick at getting a car around a circuit, but when he actually has to race other cars? That’s more tricky.

But in retrospect I think that might be an unfair criticism. Even today we saw a few great moves from him. Nevertheless, it has to be said that Ferrari and Michael Schumacher preferred to make gains in position through having a superior pitstop strategy rather than taking a risk on the circuit. This might be the prudent thing to do from Schumacher’s point of view, but it is a very unattractive way to win a race.

Then add in to the equation all of the races that Schumacher has won from pole position. This is another one of Schumacher’s incredible records. He has done it a staggering 37 times. Sometimes it was all too easy for him to win races, particularly in 2002 and 2004. The dominance is not good for the sport. I cannot remember a great deal of the early part of this decade.

When Schumacher hasn’t had such a dominant car it has sometimes felt like he is a bit rusty at actually racing. Nevertheless, Schumacher’s ability to make his way through the field so easily if he happened to start at the back of the grid for whatever reason is pretty much unparalleled. As far as overtaking goes, I’ll give Schumacher the benefit of the doubt.

Another, kind of related, criticism of Schumacher is that for most of the time he has been in the best car. This was certainly true for some seasons. But were the Benettons of 1994 and 1995 really the best cars? Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve benefited more from their utterly dominant Williams cars in 1996 and 1997.

The Ferrari of 1996 certainly wasn’t the best car in the field. Ferrari might have had the prestige, but it was in a horrendous barren spell which had seen little substantial success for the team since the 1970s. And Michael Schumacher can certainly take much of the credit for building Ferrari into a team of world beaters by the 2000s.

But it is true that Michael Schumacher has had little real competition. Formula 1 in days gone by has had so many greats — Prost, Senna, Clark, Stewart, Fangio and so on. But the past ten years has been a barren spell, Schumacher aside of course. Maybe this is genuinely because Michael Schumacher is simply head and shoulders above everybody else.

But really, where was his competition? In the 1990s the closest he had to a championship rival was Damon Hill, and Hill can hardly be considered one of the sport’s very greatest. And Jacques Villeneuve certainly can’t. After Mika Häkkinen won his back-to-back titles in the late 1990s, Michael Schumacher literally had no rivals for years. Now we have a crop of young promising drivers — Kimi Räikkönen and particularly Fernando Alonso look as though they have great futures ahead of them.

We’ve seen a few good seasons of Alonso versus Schumacher, so you can’t accuse Schumacher of running away as soon as the competition got tough. But everybody will remember the way he would never allow a competitive driver to be his team mate. The list of Schumacher’s team mates is hardly a hall of fame: Johnny Herbert, Eddie Irvine, Rubens Barrichello, Felipe Massa. Then there is the fact that the entire Ferrari team was built around Schumacher’s Championship hopes. The team would do everything in its power to manipulate the result even if it meant a gain of just one point for Schumacher.

Now that Kimi Räikkönen has joined Ferrari, Michael Schumacher has jumped ship. There was an opportunity for Michael Schumacher’s talent to be measured against a genuinely quality driver racing in identical machinery. But Schumacher denied the fans a chance to judge his ability in a competitive environment. So we’ll never know. What a great shame.

Schumacher didn’t like racing. He only liked winning.

So will Michael Schumacher mainly be remembered for his amazing skill or for his questionable tactics? I think the fact that the debate even exists means that we already know the answer.

Update: Schumi comes under fire from Hill.

8 comments