Poll: Italian Grand Prix 2018, Monza - Race 14/21

Rate the 2018 Italian Grand Prix out of ten

  • Total voters
    130
  • Poll closed .
Mr Jack said:
Heikki was average, sure, but Massa is pretty ordinary too. For him to get within a point of Lewis needed a serious car advantage. And Kimi was well off his game that year too. He seemed to lose interest after winning the championship.
Click to expand...
A bit unfair on old Felipe I feel. Pre Hungary 2009 he was quite a formidable opponent in 2008. When he returned he was never the same though, that is without question.

That said I did feel after Interlagos that it was probably Massa's only real chance of a title gone, but he had had a fantastic season.
 
this_is_gav said:
A bit unfair on old Felipe I feel. Pre Hungary 2009 he was quite a formidable opponent in 2008. When he returned he was never the same though, that is without question.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was ever a top tier driver and I think his results reflect that. It's true he never really returned to form after his accident but even before he was never an exceptional driver. Likeable and good enough but not great.
 
Mr Jack said:
I don't think he was ever a top tier driver and I think his results reflect that. It's true he never really returned to form after his accident but even before he was never an exceptional driver. Likeable and good enough but not great.
Click to expand...
I agree he wasn't ever going to be a great, but I think it's fair to rate his 2008 season largely as a done well.

He made fewer critical mistakes than the other title contenders, was generally faster than his more illustrious teammate (irrespective of how strong Raikkonen was or wasn't, that's the only real yardstick you can have) and ultimately I feel he was just as deserving of the title as Hamilton, and that was reflected in the tiny margin.

One excellent season doesn't make a driver a top driver of course, but if we're being critical then Hakkinen only had one season at the very top of his game (1998 - he did everything he could to throw away the 1999 title) and some consider him in the top 10 all time drivers.
 
this_is_gav said:
I agree he wasn't ever going to be a great, but I think it's fair to rate his 2008 season largely as a done well.

He made fewer critical mistakes than the other title contenders, was generally faster than his more illustrious teammate (irrespective of how strong Raikkonen was or wasn't, that's the only real yardstick you can have) and ultimately I feel he was just as deserving of the title as Hamilton, and that was reflected in the tiny margin.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he'd have been undeserving but I do think he had the car advantage. That's okay: drivers with a car advantage win all the time. Three of Hamilton's titles came with an Imperious car advantage. Massa was good enough to win with the right car in the right season, and came maddeningly close to doing so.
 
I always thought that the best drivers earn to drive the best cars?

I read through so many threads and everyone bemoans the best car. Since the inception of F1 it has always been the way (there have been a few exceptions).

Senna moved to Williams '94 for the above reason? I firmly believe that had the terrible accidents not occurred at Imola 94, Senna would have probably won multiple championships with Williams...
 
Ninco! said:
I always thought that the best drivers earn to drive the best cars?

I read through so many threads and everyone bemoans the best car. Since the inception of F1 it has always been the way (there have been a few exceptions).

Senna moved to Williams '94 for the above reason? I firmly believe that had the terrible accidents not occurred at Imola 94, Senna would have probably won multiple championships with Williams...
Click to expand...

Senna moved to Williams because they had a year or two of active suspension that made their car unbeatable. Unfortunately, it was banned that year, and Senna had a dog of a car that was designed for active suspension but didn't have it. There's no doubt Senna had the potential to do great things if he'd had a longer career, but there's also the chance that he could have found himself in the wrong team at the wrong time, just like Alonso.
 
Given Damon Hill only lost the championship by a point, I'm pretty sure Senna would have won it, then gone on to win in 1996 and 1997 if he'd wished, as well as probably winning in 1995 (when Williams probably just about edged having a quicker car, but still quite a handful).

That's all theory of course as if Senna hadn't passed away there's nothing to say Schumacher and Benetton would have made the same errors in 1994, or perhaps would have made more.

Of course you could argue if this or that hadn't happened throughout history. Jim Clark would probably be one of the most successful drivers of all time (statistically) had he not been killed at Hockenheim in 1968, or perhaps he would have been in Jochen Rindt's place when he lost his life at Monza.

But all other things being equal, you'd have a very different history book. Senna a 6 or 7-time drivers champion and Schumacher a 5 or 6-time one alongside Fangio and Hamilton or Vettel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom