-------------------------------------------------- He can't possibly be because "all time" includes now, and he certainly ain't the greatest now is he? Logic, captain!
If you read my first post in this thread, I have Schumacher 5th. Senna's poles to race ratio is far superior to anything Schumacher mustered up. Senna had to share wins with Prost. Schumacher had weak Number 2 teammates who were contractually obliged to move over if they were ahead. So, as per my first post, I have Senna/Prost ahead of Schumacher.
Nope! If Rosberg is the 7th best driver on the grid the last 1-and-a-half seasons, then Schumacher isn't even in the Top 7 these days.
Statistically, as I mentioned in the Schumie thread, he is the greatest of all time. I just think Prost and Senna were better drivers. But we are straying off topic. Don't make delete my own posts...
For a Senna/Vettel fan, its very easy to talk about poles. Of course, we're not running the Qualifying World Championship. Thats done by me, out of interest, not by the world at large. So wins to race ratios: Not looking good for the Church of St. Ayrton, is it?
to be fair Senna only had to 'share' wins with Prost for 2 years and if you look at the rest of his team-mates: Johnny Cecotto Ellio De Angelis Johnny Dumfries Satoru Nakajima Gerhard Berger Michael Andretti Damon Hill .............its not that competitve is it? I'd rate Barrichello and Irvine over most of those chaps - and don't try the contractual obliged thing - apart from when he partnered Prost Senna always made sure he was given number 1 status. But if you're using team-mate logic I already listed Prost's - he had to 'share' wins with Lauda, Arnoux and Mansell! So by your logic Prost is the greatest of all time right?
From a personal point of view i think that Alain Prost would probably be held in higher regard by people if he had been more of a flamboyant driver.
Prost could have easily won 8 championships. The 4 he already won, 1983 - he should have, he would have won in 1988 if it wasn't for that ridiculous scoring system, 1990 he could have won also, and 1984, when he lost by half-a-point. Oh, and 51 victories. He is Mr. Consistent. He was in a title fight for 8/11 years. He is up there with Moss and Fangio, and better than Senna and Schumacher.
Yes I rate Prost high...Very High! 1 = Senna 1 = Prost 3. Clark 4. Fangio 5. Schumacher 6. Stewart I rate Prost very high because he had extremely strong teammates who actually cost him championships, namely Arnoux (who took points off him in 1982), Lauda (1984), Senna (1988) and Mansell (who cost him in Portugal in 1990). Prost also was partly responsible for Senna joining McLaren because he felt Senna - along with Honda engines - would strengthen McLaren. He also made Rosberg and Mansell look very ordinary...and he dismantled Lauda (though you could argue Lauda didn't care whilst Prost was rising and rising...On the other hand, Prost handled Hill eventhough Hill was rising whilst Prost himself was merely phoning it in wanting to get out alive and in one piece.) Imagine how many more wins and titles Prost would have had had Renault and Ferrari ran Shumacher and Alonso era team orders like they did at Benetton/Renault and at Ferrari?
I'm trying to stay out of this thread, but you could easily throw 1982 in there as well, he had the speed to dominate but Renault lacked - badly lacked - the reliability.
PRost 1982 if I remember rightly Rosberg won with 44pts and PRost was 4th with 34pts in the next best car to the Ferrari's He lost the French GP because Arnoux did not move over costing him 3pts and then in Monaco he was leading with 6 laps to go when drops of rain caused him to spin and hit the barrier which created a madness of 5 leaders in the last 6 laps ! 1983 he lost because Renault got too complacent despite Prost leading about Brabham with the almight powerful BMW turbo making a late surge, There was big expectations at the last race with all the bigwigs from Renault and when Prost went it was like they had been given a rude awakening 1984 he lost by 0.5pts which some say it was down to the stopped race at Monaco but he was actually struggling at the time being caught by Senna and Bellof 1988 because of the dropped scores system it meant he finished 2nd I think there is something that everyone has overlooked about Prost...how many great drivers have been fired not from one but two teams in F1 Renault blamed him for not winning in 1983 and fired him despite his warnings...in a cruel twist of fate the team never won another race again as the Renault time until Alonso in 2003. ROn Dennis the opportunist wasted no time in signing Prost and "sacked" John Watson despite finishin 2nd in 1982 and beating Lauda iin 1983. One could say its a bit of luck that the sacking was a blessing in disguise and allowed to land a seat with the best prepared car as it were for 1984 Also Prost getting sacked from Ferrari is a lesson that Alonso that could learn for speaking out about the politics
The Renault sacking was more down to personal issues unrelated to the performance of the team or the driver. The Ferrari comment was unwise, but in hindsight it was undoubtedly true, and he saved himself from the dreadful F92A. A bit of public criticism could galvanise the team to do better, or could turn them against you. Mansell did it too, but he was a more popular figure at Maranello I suppose.
To Be honest with you I think alonso has taught himself that lesson. His attitude has been spot on this season. As for Prost he learnt bugger all from it. He went off to sulk for a year and agreed to come back into F1 as long as he didn't have a competitve team-mate and the one he did had was ordered to sit on his bumper for the year. Prost was a great driver but for me I chose to see his career ending in 1990
Yes, but lets assume that the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix finished after ¾ distance and there were full points. Lets also assume that both Senna and Bellof had passed Prost (and this is Monaco, so its not a natural assumption). But Bellof was disqualified later in the season for Tyrell's tricks with the fuel, so that puts Prost back up to second. Now there are full points - 6 for second. Hence Prost has gained 1.5 points, and with Niki in the wall, he hence takes the title by a point.
I recall that Prost had almost twice as many fastest race laps as Senna. This could be used to justify the view that Prost was faster when it mattered most--in the race, while Senna was a bit like Trulli--faster in qualifying. Also, it has to be noted that "fearless" Senna vetoed Lotus hiring Warwick, and insisted on Dumphries instead!
The second race of 1994 Senna went out, but if I remember correctly it wasn't his fault, he was punted from behind by someone. (I think it was a McLaren) And let's not forget, he was trying to drive around the horrible inadequacies of the Williams that had all of it's electronic driver aids removed, despite the fact the car had been totally designed around it. You say that you just care about points. That's totally fine and understandable, but it's never been the most important factor to me. Prost was a fantastic driver, one of the greatest ever, but to me, in terms of driving skill and making a car go as fast as possible, Senna well and truly had him beaten, and Prost has admitted this on a few occasions. One question. Could Prost have done what Senna did at Donnington 93? Could anyone else have?
The given reason for this was that Lotus didn't have the money to have two title running contenders in the pack, and wanted the main emphasis of the team to be on him. Not sure how true this is
No. It is very clear he couldn't. But points and championships are in general (2008 being a noble exception) decided by who wins the dry races. Prost won 48 of them. ... which finished one point behind in the Championship in the hands of Damon Hill, and won the WCC without its #1 driver.
