Head To Head Nico Rosberg vs Lewis Hamilton

I'm sure Mark Webber once blamed sun-glare for a crash in Singapore.

RasputinLives Of course Hamilton's in the wrong sometimes. He made two errors in that race, so if you like he was 'wrong' twice. My point was how Hamilton viewed the two incidents.

So it wasn't just him reacting in a strop because he'd gone off?

I can only repeat that he was involved in two incidents, one he felt was completely his fault, one he felt he was compromised. NB Im not saying he was compromised, Im saying HE thought he was.
You're suggesting he goes in a strop when he makes an error. Why then didn't he go in strop when he slid into Ricciardo? And when he lost the places at Silverstone trying to pass Bottas?

It's quite interesting that he's lost places at Safety Car restarts to ostensibly slower cars twice on the spin.

There was a good piece of analysis on sky regarding positioning at the restarts and how Hamilton doesn't place himself in the optimal position.

teabagyokel said:

It's quite interesting that he's lost places at Safety Car restarts to ostensibly slower cars twice on the spin.

Click to expand

Yes it is interesting because in those situations he's generally strong. I'm sure he and Mercedes are analysing it.

racecub said:

You're suggesting he goes in a strop when he makes an error. Why then didn't he go in strop when he slid into Ricciardo? And when he lost the places at Silverstone trying to pass Bottas?

Click to expand

The thing is with human beings is they can react one way one time and another way another time. Hamilton has not talked about the Rosberg incident since most likely because he knows he reacted in a strop because he made an error. Sometimes human beings do that.

Admitting Lewis did react like that is not a criticism of him its just pointing out a human quality. He is a human being who can be wrong just like the rest of us. He knows this.....not sure you do.

This all came about because I pointed out he reacted in two different ways during the race and was trying to suggest that maybe he accepted something that might not have all been his fault because earlier he'd blamed something else.

I wasn't coming after him with flaming torches and a pitchfork.

racecub said:

Yes it is interesting because in those situations he's generally strong. I'm sure he and Mercedes are analysing it.

Click to expand

Is he generally strong?

Don't get caught sleeping/position car better. Done.

Hamilton when behind constantly goes for the overtake or defends hard. He needs to treat restarts like it's the first corner of the race start and he's out of position. With those amount of cars around, room is not to be taken for granted.

Hamberg said:

He needs to treat restarts like it's the first corner of the race start and he's out of position.

Click to expand

Judging on Hungary, perhaps not.

His biggest, and perhaps only, weakness has always been that he is overanxious to be making instant progress whenever there's a problem.

Having said that, Rosberg is the opposite - he's often calm in such a situation; his passivity is a corollary of this.

RasputinLives I know Lewis can be wrong, but this is not about what I think. It's about why Hamilton reacted as he did in the race. He's human and makes errors, that's exactly what he said himself after the race. But to suggest he goes in a strop and blames other people for his own errors is I think wide of the mark. I think the biggest strops Hamilton pulls are with himself, he's very self critical and hard on himself when he's messed up. 'Sulky', Ive heard it referred to. But passing the buck isn't really his style.

I'm glad you're here to constantly correct people on the inner emotions of Hamilton, how he feels and how he's misunderstood.... "his style".

He blamed Rosberg. It wasn't Rosbergs fault. He moaned about it. It was wrong.

If this had been any other driver there would be no argument from you about using the word strop but yes ok if it will make you happy. Lewis is zen and even his errors come from a hereos heart.

I'm not arguing about the use of the word strop. I've seen/ heard him upset many of times. My point is that in that first incident with Rosberg he felt Rosberg moved twice, and that's why he moaned. In the second incident he took immediate responsibility and apologised to the team. End of.
But you are right when you say there would not be pages of discussion over any other drivers motives during a race.

Give up RasputinLives. Love (infatuation?) is blind.

RasputinLives said:

If this had been any other driver there would be no argument from you about using the word strop but yes ok if it will make you happy. Lewis is zen and even his errors come from a hereos heart.

Click to expand

By the same token, if this had been any other driver would you still be belaboring the point?

Lewis was likely on the radio seconds after flying through the gravel. In the heat of the moment I'm sure it was clear to him he had been squeezed. Upon further analysis everyone agrees that the move wouldn't have come off anyway. Hamilton hasn't said word one about Nico's part in his rather pedestrian race since lap 1. I'm not sure why this incident is still being discussed. Oh, that's right, the semantics of a 5 word radio transmission.

The radio message at the end of the race was one of resignation. He realized the race win was out the window so the drive-through meant very little. In my mind he would have reacted differently if a victory was still in the cards. And I certainly wouldn't have faulted him for protesting that penalty. Incidents like that are routinely overlooked, especially on starts/restarts.

As for the restarts in general, Lewis actually paid the price for getting such a great jump on Massa at Silverstone. He couldn't have 'not' had a go there. In Hungary he was just slow. On the whole I would say Hamilton is just about average with restarts, which is to say, it's not his strongest suit.

Lewis usually only gets to practice restarts from the front...

KekeTheKing if it was any other driver no one would have argued about something quite mild I said and started the debate in the first place. If you go back and look at the conversation is was in no way a critisim of Hamilton at all. I was just pointed out he reacted one way on one call and another on another.

It seems though that any slight criticism of Lewis is seen as an attack on him and defended to the hilt. Whether this is because there are people that do attack him for the smallest things I don't know but personally I'm tired of the 'oh you wouldn't say that if it was anyone else but Hamilton it would just be forgotten its just because people don't like him' defence being levelled at me.

I say what I see. When a driver does something I like, I say. When he does something I don't like, I say. Please do not draw me into the game of 'whose side are you on' people like to play. Accept the fact that when I say something it is not a personal attack or some campaign against an individual. Please also note that the more the 'rightous defenders' decided to defend every little thing even when its so blatently wrong the more I will dig my heels in.

RasputinLives said:

Please also note that the more the 'rightous defenders' decided to defend every little thing even when its so blatently wrong the more I will dig my heels in.

Click to expand

That was precisely my point. And to prove what? That Lewis Hamilton fans usually back their driver 110%. Why should that bother anyone?

You can't have 110%

I dig my heels in KekeTheKing because basically you get acussed of a witch hunt everytime you say something remotely percieved as negative on Lewis and I can't stand blind worship without reasoning.

I basically feel like Lewis could come into my house and take a dump on my xmas dinner and if I metioned it on this website I'd be told

a) I wouldn't have mentioned it if it was any other driver

b) that Lewis's intentions were pure and it was done for good logical reasons

c) I obviously have a vendetta against Lewis because I didn't eat it.

There is support and there is being blind to any sort of reason or fact. Once again I say go back to my original post and take it in its original context. This debate wouldn't be raging if I hadn't been corrected on something so minor with such force. I could have just let it go. Didn't feel like it though.