The "difference" between a great and good driver...

[AdvocatusD]

I came across this article by Benson. It strikes me as slightly fawning over Hamilton and unkind to Rosberg.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36409542

I'm not sure that what we saw yesterday was Hamilton destroying Rosberg at all. If Monaco is the test of a real driver's mettle the surely (in less measure) those who finished 2-6 are leagues above Rosberg as well? Seemed to me that Rosberg was (a) either having a bad day, or (b) had issues with his car or its setup.

Hamilton may not be my cup of tea, but he is a superb driver. Rosberg is not quite at his level, but good enough to beat him on level pegging on a good day.

Anyone else think ths article was a little ahead of itself?

[Crafty_]

Its Benson, you didn't really expect a good article did you ?

Seriously - I'd say you have it about right, Lewis is a step above (however small).

Rosberg is a Prost or to some extent Mansell (without the stubbornness) in that he has to work for it. He has to plan out in his head and then follows it. When circumstances conspire against his plan, he struggles a bit - like yesterday. He will plan and organise every detail to be in his favour as far as he can.

I think Lewis is a more natural driver

[tyranical]

It is a bit over the top in favour of Hamilton however I don't think anyone can argue that Hamilton isn't far superior to Rosberg on equal terms - If they both have a reliable car and everything goes right then 8/10 times Hamilton comes out on top. When wild cards like rain or safety cars happen more often than not, Hamilton comes out on top - of course their are exceptions to this like Monaco last year but if you look at their time together that is how it has normally gone.

The thing I find really interesting is that Rosberg is always made out to be the intelligent driver who wins through thinking, a bit like Prost (But nowhere near as good) but yet we have seen a few times that it is Hamilton who thinks outside the box. Yesterday it was Hamiltons engineers who called him in for Intermediates and it was Hamilton who decided to stay out longer to try and get to slicks. That bold decision won him the race, without it he wouldn't have been in a position to take 1st when Red Bull cocked up.

No other top driver even attempted that strategy, If Rosberg had attempted that strategy he might not have ended up as low down as he did, and losing that place to Hulkenberg at the end is just embarassing, the claim of not having any tyres left doesn't wash with me. Hamilton had been running longer on his slicks AND pumping in fastest laps towards the end whilst keeping a charging Ricciardo behind and his tyres managed ok, if Rosberg wasn't pushing as he claims then there is no way his tyres could be shot at that point and I suspect he was just sleeping but that was 2 points that he could not afford to lose, he has gone from being almost 2 race wins in front to not even 1 race win ahead in the space of 2 hours.

[SmoothCriminal]

Hamilton was about 2 seconds away from lapping Rosberg in equal machinery. I'd say that's pretty much destroyed

[Clevers]

i think Benson's article is pretty accurate in describing what happened to Rosberg. He got into a downward spiral of not being confident enough to push in the wet and his breaks and tyres were cold as a result making life ever harder for him. He said in his own interview that he never felt comfortable on the intermediates or the full wets.

[Leithen]

About the only thing I took from the article was how far Benson is from being a "great" F1 writer.

[entropy]

tyranical said:

The thing I find really interesting is that Rosberg is always made out to be the intelligent driver who wins through thinking, a bit like Prost (But nowhere near as good) but yet we have seen a few times that it is Hamilton who thinks outside the box. Yesterday it was Hamiltons engineers who called him in for Intermediates and it was Hamilton who decided to stay out longer to try and get to slicks. That bold decision won him the race, without it he wouldn't have been in a position to take 1st when Red Bull cocked up.

Never happened at McLaren so you can see a reason to leave whereas Button made some astonished and inspired decisions - though wet-dry conditions is his specialty.

Jo Ramirez rated Senna over Prost because attaining the perfect set up for every GP is near impossible which means you have to drive around the car's inadequacies whether you can or want to or not and Rosberg suffers more then Hamilton - unless his mired in the midfield pack out of circumstance I can't think of a time Hamilton has driven that badly with a car that wasn't to his liking.

The other thing is Hamilton has pulled off some great drives for his wins time and again whereas its difficult to come up with one for Rosberg at the top of my head - apart from his first win with Merc in China 2010.

I dunno why Benson gets a lot of flack on PH. He's ex-Autosport journo - broke the story the Williams were going to replace Hill which Autosport sensationally ran with on the eve of the '96 German GP. Mark Hughes is an authority on all things technical but is a much terrible writer who tries too hard with the English language.

[tyranical]

entropy said:

Never happened at McLaren so you can see a reason to leave whereas Button made some astonished and inspired decisions - though wet-dry conditions is his specialty.

Jo Ramirez rated Senna over Prost because attaining the perfect set up for every GP is near impossible which means you have to drive around the car's inadequacies whether you can or want to or not and Rosberg suffers more then Hamilton - unless his mired in the midfield pack out of circumstance I can't think of a time Hamilton has driven that badly with a car that wasn't to his liking.

The other thing is Hamilton has pulled off some great drives for his wins time and again whereas its difficult to come up with one for Rosberg at the top of my head - apart from his first win with Merc in China 2010.

I dunno why Benson gets a lot of flack on PH. He's ex-Autosport journo - broke the story the Williams were going to replace Hill which Autosport sensationally ran with on the eve of the '96 German GP. Mark Hughes is an authority on all things technical but is a much terrible writer who tries too hard with the English language.

Perhaps it didn't happen in his early years at Mclaren, but his move to Mercedes was his own doing and considered madness at the time... look who is laughing now!

[cgt2]

I've always liked drivers who race hard wheel to wheel.

I liked Mansell for this very reason, always thought it was such a dichotomy that he was a whinging Brummie out of the car (look at the FIA 1991 Review of Imola for a perfect example) but such a demon in the car. This is why he was revered so much in Italy. Mansell pulled off moves like the outside of Peraltada on Berger that you would always have thought were never possibly on.

Not too keen on LH out of the car but couldn't really care less about his extra curricular activities. In the car he is one of the few drivers who will race hard and on the edge. He is always exciting to watch and Sunday was yet another example. I think he is a deserving champion as he knows how to race.

Rosberg does not do this at all, which is why I find him completely uninteresting to watch. In a tussle he usually always comes off worse and I cannot think of any memorable moments where Rosberg pulled something audacious and made it stick.

It would feel wrong if a driver who simply coasts and collects points wins a title (though it does happen).

[S0 What]

Nico was following other cars for the last 2 stints and Lewis had a clearer track so Nico's tyres were allways going to wear more by the end of the race, as could be seen by his being unable to stop into the chicane and having to give Fred the place back, after that he lost even more pace and Fernando pulled away and Hulk caught up passing before the finish as the rian came down as NR's tyres dropped off more than NH's, to me he obv had less grip towards the end of the lap so i beleive him when he says he had no grip left.

Having said that Nico obv had an issue with the car all race, be it confidence, feel or a handling imbalence, he was hobbled and Lewis wasn't, in fact i think Lewis went wide more times than Nico thoughout the race ? at loews after the first start and on his outlap after putting on the slicks.

[swisstoni]

Hamilton drove a great race.
I don't know why Rosberg couldn't get his tyres going.
Unless or until we know the cause of that, no conclusions can be drawn.

But I don't suppose that would fill a blog very well.

[williamp]

Anyone could have won the first few races of the year in Rosberg's car. Very, very few could have won on sunday in Hamiltons car. To me that is the difference.

[deadslow]

Leithen said:

About the only thing I took from the article was how far Benson is from being a "great" F1 writer.

The guy is awful. When I read this I honestly thought it must have been ghost written by Anthony Hamilton Lewis is one of the greats, but this article reads like a fanzine.

[Mr Tidy]

Admittedly the reporter may be a bit of a fan-boy!

But to

SmoothCriminal said:

Hamilton was about 2 seconds away from lapping Rosberg in equal machinery. I'd say that's pretty much destroyed

Well if I was Rosberg I'd not be too happy about that for sure!

[Soul Reaver]

Crafty_ said:

Its Benson, you didn't really expect a good article did you ?

Seriously - I'd say you have it about right, Lewis is a step above (however small).

Rosberg is a Prost or to some extent Mansell (without the stubbornness) in that he has to work for it. He has to plan out in his head and then follows it. When circumstances conspire against his plan, he struggles a bit - like yesterday. He will plan and organise every detail to be in his favour as far as he can.

I think Lewis is a more natural driver

Funny I think Lewis is a knob but anyways. And what on earth is a natural driver at this level of sport? Define?

Crafty how on earth do you know what goes on inside Rosbergs head and how he plans and what upsets him. You know none of those things. Lewis throws epic childish rants when his plans go awry! They all have a plan from what I can see, they all get mired in the details from what I can see and they are all good drivers with the car mainly being the star from what I can see. Put any one of them in the best car on the day and he will likely win.

[swisstoni]

Soul Reaver said:

Crafty_ said:

Its Benson, you didn't really expect a good article did you ?

Seriously - I'd say you have it about right, Lewis is a step above (however small).

Rosberg is a Prost or to some extent Mansell (without the stubbornness) in that he has to work for it. He has to plan out in his head and then follows it. When circumstances conspire against his plan, he struggles a bit - like yesterday. He will plan and organise every detail to be in his favour as far as he can.

I think Lewis is a more natural driver

Funny I think Lewis is a knob but anyways. And what on earth is a natural driver at this level of sport? Define?

Crafty how on earth do you know what goes on inside Rosbergs head and how he plans and what upsets him. You know none of those things. Lewis throws epic childish rants when his plans go awry! They all have a plan from what I can see, they all get mired in the details from what I can see and they are all good drivers with the car mainly being the star from what I can see. Put any one of them in the best car on the day and he will likely win.

Funny how you seem to be able to see into Hamilton's head though.

[TITWONK]

Insulting someone with a playground insult wont make them any slower behind the wheel. Three world championships and one on the way should tell you what you need to know. if Nico was anywhere near Hamilton's level they would have a world championship each no? if Vettel was in the other Merc I am sure that might even be the case! that is the difference really, the car does a lot of work i agree but if Vettel or Lewis are sat in the quickest car you can look out. Rosberg isn't quite on the same page. I like Nico, i like all the drivers, i certainly wouldn't call any of them Nobs.

[longblackcoat]

Soul Reaver said:

Lewis throws epic childish rants when his plans go awry! They all have a plan from what I can see, they all get mired in the details from what I can see and they are all good drivers with the car mainly being the star from what I can see. Put any one of them in the best car on the day and he will likely win.

Not sure about the childish rants. From what I see of Hamilton this season, despite the fact that his car's been as a reliable as a 15-year-old Wartburg, he's been a model of restraint. I'd have been having a truly epic toys-out-of-the-pram strop if I'd had the number of failures he's had - water pressure, fuel pressure, gearbox swap, power units - but he's been pretty consistent in trotting out the win together/lose together line.

And both he and Rosberg were in the same cars last weekend - one could handle the conditions & keep heat in the brakes and tyres, one couldn't. That's not to say that Rosberg's a poor driver - emphatically, he isn't - but there's a very real difference in driver ability, most notably in changing conditions where the driver has to make a call on strategy and decide, as Hamilton did, that he could squeeze just enough life out of some very knackered wets and then do the same from a set of slicks.

[Leithen]

longblackcoat said:

And both he and Rosberg were in the same cars last weekend - one could handle the conditions & keep heat in the brakes and tyres, one couldn't. That's not to say that Rosberg's a poor driver - emphatically, he isn't - but there's a very real difference in driver ability, most notably in changing conditions where the driver has to make a call on strategy and decide, as Hamilton did, that he could squeeze just enough life out of some very knackered wets and then do the same from a set of slicks.

This is so terribly subjective, but....

The problem is that one race where there was a big disparity in performance doesn't make Hamilton great or Rosberg average. Who knows whether the cars were identical in setup - it's highly unlikely. It's a very common occurrence for one driver to gain more confidence on a race day, and has worked both ways over the past few years, wet and dry.

Looking over the longer span of their F1 careers, to claim as the article does that Hamilton is one of the "greats" really requires the elevation of Rosberg to the heights of "almost-great" given that there has frequently been a fag paper between them. That rather suggests that Hamilton hasn't been as great as some might presume. How many "greats" have been on the receiving end of seven straight wins by their teammate?

Several "greats" haven't won championships - Moss, Villeneuve etc. Just occasionally two come at once - Prost and Senna. So Championship count isn't really reliable.

Hamilton can IMHO be regarded as a great only in retrospect, and only if he can be seen to have distanced himself from his peers over his career.

Perhaps that will happen, but it's too soon to tell.

[NM62]

williamp said:

Anyone could have won the first few races of the year in Rosberg's car. Very, very few could have won on sunday in Hamiltons car. To me that is the difference.

Gary Anderson said on one of Sky Monaco midweek reports, that only half the current grid were good enough to step in the current Merc and get a podium.