Hardly. Just because someone is in a coma doesn't mean you can't go discussing and criticising their successes. What a silly article. Overly sensitive fanboys being overly sensitive.
Of Schumachers titles which were controversial, only 1994 was up there. His cheating in 1997 failed and in 2006 at Monaco it horribly backfired.
For me only 1994 was controversial in a lasting sense, but not for the "traction control they were running" (I'm still very dubious, as if he had traction control he'd have won in Suzuka by minutes
(yes, plural)) but for the move at the finale in Adelaide, which while deliberate, Hill was stupid enough to dive up the inside, a move which might well have got Hill a penalty if it was 10 years ago rather than 20.
I'm sorry, but as I said earlier, Hamilton has beaten Rosberg in a dominant car and Massa in similar level equipment. It's hardly Hakkinen and a top-of-his-game Raikkonen is it? Completely ignoring the fact that Hamilton's still got less than half of Schumacher's titles. You've got a long way to go before you start comparing yourself Lewis, in the stats, in the dry and most certainly in the wet.
He's good, but I don't even think he's quite the best of his generation, let alone any other. I'd have liked to have seen him in the late-70s to early 80s, if Villeneuve had lived and actually fulfilled his substantial potential (though I have many qualms over any claims to his eventual limited greatness too) it would have been interesting... he would have slotted into that era well, but, like Villeneuve, I'm not sure he'd have lived long enough to truly judge him, and perhaps therein lies the problem I have with him. Good driver, great driver on his day, but mixed in with a multitude of good drivers (not great ones), I think he'd have had a hard time. Mix him in with the best (for me Ascari, Fangio, Clark, Senna and Alonso) and I don't think he'd make it into the top 3 in even his best season. Of course that's all fantasy, but that's what opinions are.