The "difference" between a great and good driver...
Discussion
Hamilton maybe great but as said above, you have to wait until his career is well over to judge by stats. But this is also flawed with so many random variables that influence results.
I struggle to remember who the other guy is in the silver car, such is the lack of personality/charisma.
I struggle to remember who the other guy is in the silver car, such is the lack of personality/charisma.
longblackcoat said:
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.
Yeah fair enough I was more alluding to his past performance. I admit this season he has been much less annoying. You never know I might even warm to him and become a fan as he matures.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 said:
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.
In my view, you've hit the nail on the head here. 
I think the reason I was struck by the article was that it seemed to ignore lots of other races where Rosberg has performed much better, even winning. I'm not saying Rosberg is better than Hamilton, he isn't. I do think however, the difference in ability is calculable in very small measures.
vonuber said:
Difference between a good and a great? In general, the timing of what car you end up in. There are outliers of course, like Schumacher or Senna, but in general that's the case.
I think this aspect of timing or right place/right time has a lot to do with with how things appear.Fernando Alonso is an example of a driver where early career timing worked well and thereafter things went astray. How would we think of him today had he not had the early Benetton years.
vonuber said:
Difference between a good and a great? In general, the timing of what car you end up in. There are outliers of course, like Schumacher or Senna, but in general that's the case.
Not to mention number 1 status in the team. If you get that AND the best car on the grid you are in 'great' territory whether you deserve it or not.Vettel springs to mind. 4 WDCs and then gets his clock cleaned by Ricciardo.
Hamilton has never had No1 status. This current season being a prime example. If Rosberg had his wings clipped, Hamilton's life would have been a lot easier.
Leithen said:
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.
There is precedent if you remember 2012; look past the overall championship standings and examine the individual races. 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.
In that season Button was struggling with getting into the optimum tyre temperature windows whereas Hamilton never had a problem; it was the year of atrociously crap Pirelli tyres that was supposedly to favour Button's driving style over Hamilton's.
There were races where Hamilton made Button look like an amateur in comparison.
Spain - Hamilton had to start at the back (due to fuelling technicality) but managed to finish ahead of Button.
Canada - Hamilton won but Button was lapped and couldn't even finish in the top ten. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formul...
Let's look at some stats:
Fangio - races 52, wins 24 (46%), podiums 35 (67%), poles 29 (56%), fastest laps 23 (44%)
Rosberg (N) - races 191, wins 18 (9%), podiums 45 (24%), poles 24 (13%), fastest laps 16 (8%)
Hamilton - races 173, wins 44 (25%), podiums 91 (53%), poles 52 (30%), fastest laps 29 (17%)
Schumacher - races 307, wins 91 (30%), podiums 155 (50%), poles 67 (22%), fastest laps 77 (25%)
Alonso - races 257, wins 32 (12%), podiums 97 (38%), poles 22 (9%), fastest laps 20 (8%)
Vettel - races 164, wins 42 (26%), podiums 82 (50%), poles 46 (28%), fastest laps 25 (15%)
Only driver in last 25 - 30 years who has won a race in every year of competing = Hamilton.
These show that Fangio is probably the greatest driver ever and that Nico Rosberg is miles away from being a 'great'. The others (apart from Alonso) are all similar to some extent.
Whilst useful the stats do not show that Alonso has made some very unlucky decisions on teams, and that Vettel was extremely lucky to be at Red Bull when he was.
Of the current crop my top 3 (in alphabetic order) are Alonso, Hamilton and Ricciardo.
Fangio - races 52, wins 24 (46%), podiums 35 (67%), poles 29 (56%), fastest laps 23 (44%)
Rosberg (N) - races 191, wins 18 (9%), podiums 45 (24%), poles 24 (13%), fastest laps 16 (8%)
Hamilton - races 173, wins 44 (25%), podiums 91 (53%), poles 52 (30%), fastest laps 29 (17%)
Schumacher - races 307, wins 91 (30%), podiums 155 (50%), poles 67 (22%), fastest laps 77 (25%)
Alonso - races 257, wins 32 (12%), podiums 97 (38%), poles 22 (9%), fastest laps 20 (8%)
Vettel - races 164, wins 42 (26%), podiums 82 (50%), poles 46 (28%), fastest laps 25 (15%)
Only driver in last 25 - 30 years who has won a race in every year of competing = Hamilton.
These show that Fangio is probably the greatest driver ever and that Nico Rosberg is miles away from being a 'great'. The others (apart from Alonso) are all similar to some extent.
Whilst useful the stats do not show that Alonso has made some very unlucky decisions on teams, and that Vettel was extremely lucky to be at Red Bull when he was.
Of the current crop my top 3 (in alphabetic order) are Alonso, Hamilton and Ricciardo.
Credit where credit is due, Nico is (mentally) one of the toughest drivers I've ever seen.
To lose 2 consecutive championships to your team mate, and to come back at the end of last season/start of this season like he has.. Very few would be able to do that.
Most other drivers would be mentally broken, and accept their position as number 2 driver, even if they didn't realise it.
I remember Webber being interviewed and saying something along the same lines last year, he experienced something very similar at Redbull, saying IF Nico lost the wdc, they'd be no coming back for him, but here he is, leading the wdc.
Nico doesn't get near enough credit he deserves, he just so happens to have a team mate like Lewis.
In my opinion, the only 2 drivers that would finish above him over the course of a season are Lewis and Vettel, purely down to the fact they're the only 2 that are quicker over 1 lap/quali.
I couldn't see Fernando overcome constantly starting below him on a regular basis in qualifying and winning the wdc with Nico as a team mate.
His car never worked for him at Monaco this year, even though on paper they has the same problem, it doesn't mean both cars drove the way they should, ending with the result we did.
To lose 2 consecutive championships to your team mate, and to come back at the end of last season/start of this season like he has.. Very few would be able to do that.
Most other drivers would be mentally broken, and accept their position as number 2 driver, even if they didn't realise it.
I remember Webber being interviewed and saying something along the same lines last year, he experienced something very similar at Redbull, saying IF Nico lost the wdc, they'd be no coming back for him, but here he is, leading the wdc.
Nico doesn't get near enough credit he deserves, he just so happens to have a team mate like Lewis.
In my opinion, the only 2 drivers that would finish above him over the course of a season are Lewis and Vettel, purely down to the fact they're the only 2 that are quicker over 1 lap/quali.
I couldn't see Fernando overcome constantly starting below him on a regular basis in qualifying and winning the wdc with Nico as a team mate.
His car never worked for him at Monaco this year, even though on paper they has the same problem, it doesn't mean both cars drove the way they should, ending with the result we did.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Let's look at some stats:
Fangio - races 52, wins 24 (46%), podiums 35 (67%), poles 29 (56%), fastest laps 23 (44%)
Rosberg (N) - races 191, wins 18 (9%), podiums 45 (24%), poles 24 (13%), fastest laps 16 (8%)
Hamilton - races 173, wins 44 (25%), podiums 91 (53%), poles 52 (30%), fastest laps 29 (17%)
Schumacher - races 307, wins 91 (30%), podiums 155 (50%), poles 67 (22%), fastest laps 77 (25%)
Alonso - races 257, wins 32 (12%), podiums 97 (38%), poles 22 (9%), fastest laps 20 (8%)
Vettel - races 164, wins 42 (26%), podiums 82 (50%), poles 46 (28%), fastest laps 25 (15%)
Only driver in last 25 - 30 years who has won a race in every year of competing = Hamilton.
These show that Fangio is probably the greatest driver ever and that Nico Rosberg is miles away from being a 'great'. The others (apart from Alonso) are all similar to some extent.
Whilst useful the stats do not show that Alonso has made some very unlucky decisions on teams, and that Vettel was extremely lucky to be at Red Bull when he was.
Of the current crop my top 3 (in alphabetic order) are Alonso, Hamilton and Ricciardo.
All those stats show is who had the longest time in the best cars. If hamilton had stayed at McLaren, would he be a "worse" driver than he is now with his move to Mercedes? His win / podium / whatever stats would be very different...Fangio - races 52, wins 24 (46%), podiums 35 (67%), poles 29 (56%), fastest laps 23 (44%)
Rosberg (N) - races 191, wins 18 (9%), podiums 45 (24%), poles 24 (13%), fastest laps 16 (8%)
Hamilton - races 173, wins 44 (25%), podiums 91 (53%), poles 52 (30%), fastest laps 29 (17%)
Schumacher - races 307, wins 91 (30%), podiums 155 (50%), poles 67 (22%), fastest laps 77 (25%)
Alonso - races 257, wins 32 (12%), podiums 97 (38%), poles 22 (9%), fastest laps 20 (8%)
Vettel - races 164, wins 42 (26%), podiums 82 (50%), poles 46 (28%), fastest laps 25 (15%)
Only driver in last 25 - 30 years who has won a race in every year of competing = Hamilton.
These show that Fangio is probably the greatest driver ever and that Nico Rosberg is miles away from being a 'great'. The others (apart from Alonso) are all similar to some extent.
Whilst useful the stats do not show that Alonso has made some very unlucky decisions on teams, and that Vettel was extremely lucky to be at Red Bull when he was.
Of the current crop my top 3 (in alphabetic order) are Alonso, Hamilton and Ricciardo.
Leithen said:
What are the Stats for Moss, Clark, Stewart, Prost & Senna?
Here are the ones I have compiled recently:Formula 1 Statistics
Driver Races Wins Pod Poles FastLaps Win % Pod % Pole % Fastest Lap %
Hamilton 173 44 91 52 29 25.43% 52.60% 30.06% 16.76%
Alonso 257 32 97 22 20 12.45% 37.74% 8.56% 7.78%
Vettel 164 42 82 46 25 25.61% 50.00% 28.05% 15.24%
Schumacher 307 91 155 67 221 29.64% 50.49% 21.82% 25.08%
Ricciardo 94 3 11 1 5 3.19% 11.70% 1.06% 5.32%
Verstappen 25 1 1 0 0 4.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Rosberg 191 18 45 24 16 9.42% 23.56% 12.57% 8.38%
Senna 162 41 80 65 19 25.31% 49.38% 40.12% 11.73%
Prost 202 51 106 33 41 25.25% 52.48% 16.34% 20.30%
Clark 73 25 32 33 28 34.25% 43.84% 45.21% 38.36%
Stewart 100 27 43 17 15 27.00% 43.00% 17.00% 15.00%
Fangio 52 24 35 29 23 46.15% 67.31% 55.77% 44.23%
Lauda 177 25 54 24 24 14.12% 30.51% 13.56% 13.56%
Ascari 33 13 17 14 12 39.39% 51.52% 42.42% 36.36%
Farina 34 13 20 5 4 38.24% 58.82% 14.71% 11.76%
Mansell 188 31 59 32 30 16.49% 31.38% 17.02% 15.96%
Moss 66 16 24 16 18 24.24% 36.36% 24.24% 27.27%
Edited to add: Sorry about the format, it lost all the alignments when I posted it.
You have to factor in reliability too - DNF's were much more frequent in the past, as can be seen with Clark's statistics.
The stats are useful and the drivers who spend the longest amount of time in the best cars do so because the F1 team managers and owners believe those particular drivers are the best based on all the evidence from the junior formulas and early career evidence pointing towards signs of promise.
Other signs of a great driver would include how quickly they are on the pace at a circuit at a race weekend, ability to drive in the wet, race raft, decision making, number of pole positions pointing to overall pace, over taking ability and ability to drive round problems and improvise plus dog fighting ability. Winning in a car that is not the best is also a criteria.
On any rational basis, Hamilton does qualify as being among the greats being behind only Schumacher and Prost in number of race victories.
I agree Rosberg does not get enough credit and would be WDC had it not been for Lewis, but Rosberg can't be viewed as a great as some of the stand out criteria listed above have not been witnessed in his career. Like Vettel, Rosberg is a flat track bully.
Other signs of a great driver would include how quickly they are on the pace at a circuit at a race weekend, ability to drive in the wet, race raft, decision making, number of pole positions pointing to overall pace, over taking ability and ability to drive round problems and improvise plus dog fighting ability. Winning in a car that is not the best is also a criteria.
On any rational basis, Hamilton does qualify as being among the greats being behind only Schumacher and Prost in number of race victories.
I agree Rosberg does not get enough credit and would be WDC had it not been for Lewis, but Rosberg can't be viewed as a great as some of the stand out criteria listed above have not been witnessed in his career. Like Vettel, Rosberg is a flat track bully.
angrymoby said:
998420 said:
Fascinating, I would love to know which drivers he would put in that group
the ones who are paid a salary, rather than the ones paying i'd guess?Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff