LionKing wrote:You have also listed the achievements of Ferrari's of Micheal and Rubens. Those statistics are also lopsidedly due to Micheal. In those 6 years as teammates: 41 poles for Micheal, 11 for Rubens. 49 wins for Micheal and 9 for Rubens. To put things in perspective: Rubens only managed to be the runner up twice in those six years with those Ferraris!
Ok well I have had time to digest what you have written, but I remain unchanged in my view. Here's why.
The 2 seasons McLaren had a dominant car (98-99) Hakkinen managed
20 pole postions to Coulthards
3. Those statistics are better value than Schumacher's against Barrichello when Ferrari had their dominant cars(2000-20004)...Percentage wise.
If he had 3 more years of car like Schumacher's and his own(99-98), he could have potentially been the all time pole winner.
So using 2001 at McLaren as a yardstick is no indicator at all.
There where 4 huge factors at play for Hakkinen.
1. McLaren's appalling reliability. He suffered 7 DNF's to Coulthards 4, and Memorably lost out on the last lap while leading in Spain for nearly the whole race...so thats 8 DNF's in reality.
2.It had notable aerodynamic issues at certain venues, the car was more nervous and Coulthard dealt with it in superior fashion. A good job by Coulthard, but a hollow victory when you consider Hakkinen trounced him 3 years running.
3. Hakkinens impending decision to retire. He set out what he wanted to achieve and lost his appetite, Finn's do what they want to do.
4. Beryllium piston ban, sanctioned by Ferrari of course.
Then you made mention of Schumacher somehow managing to Destroy the opposition and his team mates could not.
Well Irvine Pushed Hakkinen to wire AFTER Schumacher had his very unfortunate injury.
How Miraculous is that? Main man is out and the Number 2 suddenly becomes a beast? This is a clear indication of what went on at Ferrari, they focussed all efforts on 1 driver. It's a signature of not only Ferrari but also that era.
Needless to say Hakkinen suffered 5 DNFs to Irvines 1.
I do not want to diminish Schumacher's fantastic achievements. But there is very good reason why he is not as good as his stats suggest. And that is because he is also the most fortunate driver to have driven for Ferrari during the greatest period of car dominance yet seen in F1. 5 years straight he had the best car, and he brought home the bacon along with a couple extra cows. Hakkinen too, had the best car in his 2 years of dominance and his stats are comparable to that of Schumacher(5DNFS in 1999 aside) in his 2 years of having superior equipment.
Hope this clears up why I think Schumachers pole stats are blurred en extremis by the cars he's had the pleasure of helming.
