I watched the 1988 Season Review recently, which can be find here along with the 1990 and 1991 Season Review - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khQ7ZLpIHCc Throughout the review, the Championship scores are informed to the viewer in a unconventional way, as was McLaren's dominance that year, after every race instead of points totals the viewer is informed the amount of race wins Senna and Prost have against each other. By the end of the year in 16 races, Senna beat Prost by winning 8-7 in race wins (the one reminder being Monza where both retired), which was enough with the best of 11 races system to give Senna the title. Despite this under the rules of today Prost would have won the WDC, due to having scored more points in total.
However, my subjective opinion is that Senna deserved the WDC more despite Prost scoring more points. The race win stats taken at face value show that Senna outraced Prost 8 to 7 times. A closer inspection would show that Senna had fuel reading problems in Spain and Portugal, and a whole host of problems outside his power in Brazil as well that prevented him from competing with Prost. Prost did have a gearbox problem in Japan, but it was not severe enough for retirement, and Senna after stalling on the grid made a classic comeback to snatch the title. In Monaco, Senna was miles ahead before he crashed into the wall and Monza he was also ahead of Prost before things went wrong, but in those cases Ayrton was to blame for his DNF's. I felt over the year Senna performed better. There were times like France and Australia where Prost was better in a straight fight, but more times than not Senna had the measure of his teammate.
1989 is another year of Senna and Prost where stats can be thrown around from both sides. If we again take the stats, Prost won the title under the best of 11 and scored more points, but in races where both finished Senna won a definitive 9 times to Prost's 1. Senna retired from the lead on several occasions through no fault of his own, the DQ in Japan and a car going into the back of him was the tip of the iceberg, as Senna's new engines from Honda were unreliable. Some call this justice due to Prost' not being in favor by Honda, but accusations were thrown around that Mclaren favored Prost at times. Jo Rameriz claims that neither was favored, I tend to believe him. Such are the variables in 1989, its hard to draw a definitive conclusion. My again subjective view is that Senna outperformed Prost again despite what the points stats say, but it is far from conclusive and open to various viewpoints which are equally as valid. This brings me to my general point, can we really judge drivers on stats. I would say at times like with the comparison above, sometimes raw stats should not be taken at face value, and statistical analysis will reveal various viewpoints will be decided on pure subjectivity.
I would say most do not take raw stats as gospel. In various reader, expert and driver polls, the winner of the greatest F1 driver of all time is usually Senna. Sometimes you will see Jim Clark or Fangio top lists as well. Whilst there is chief support from some and the odd list that names him the best, the driver that has the best statistical resume being Michael Schumacher is not at the top of lists as much as his stats suggest he should.
In my lifetime (I am 26) I believe Schumacher is either second or third in the best driver I have lived through, and I am a fan of his, but his stats are in ways misleading. There is a perception that his stats are padded due to winning titles against a depleted field of drivers and driving in the overpowered car. Now some years like 2000 when he faced a prime Mika in a competitive car and won, and 2003 with Kimi and Juan able to compete, you have to say fair play to Schumi. But years like 1995, 2001 and 2002 there was a lack of top flight drivers to challenge Schumi, in 2004 there were drivers to challenge but a lack of cars to compete with his rocketship Ferrari. So again, subjective opinion like the one I again displayed can tell a different story from what the stats offer.
Selective stats are brought out in debates today. The Lewis vs Jenson debate gives us my favorite, depending on which viewpoint you argue from, you will say either Jenson scored more points over 3 years, or Lewis won 2-1 in seasons. I am guilty of this I admit. They are both selective stats that do not really tell us much, there are too many variables involved for either stat to be accepted as definitive proof of one drivers being better than the other. Stats can be listened to by some when it suits their case as well, an in reverse be ignored when it suits their case. Vettel having more WDC's than Lewis and Alonso is a common stat that Vettel fans bring up to prove Vettel is better than Lewis/Alonso. This overlooks car performance and quality of teammate, its just in many ways a blanket stat without much substance in my view.
This is not to say stats cannot be definitive and prove nothing. Take Jules Bianchi and Max Chilton this year. Whilst we do not know how good Jules is from the stats, the stats do support any sort of perception that Jules is better than Max. There is no valid argument there to suggest the stats are wrong. I would say the same with the Vettel vs Webber debate, but a minority still cling to Vettel getting better treatment as the reason the stats are so one-sided. As you can tell I do not put as much weight in stats as other do unless they are definitive, and think that it essentially comes down to subjective opinion to how you judge drivers relative performance in the circumstances and events that occur. I am interested to hear how much other posters read into stats in their judgement of drivers.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
