A few surprises here I thought and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the choices (sorry Crofty 
).
http://www.thepodiummagazine.com/re-jigging-the-f1-grid
).http://www.thepodiummagazine.com/re-jigging-the-f1-grid
David Croft ranks the current drivers from best to worst, if they were all driving the same car
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
I disagree with a few aswell!
Josephiah
Podium Finisher
Yeah, there's obviously been some change of form since that was written (he mentions Canada on Button's bit, so 2 or 3 months old might be about right), for example I reckon Massa, Schumacher, Alguersuari and Sutil have been doing a bit better lately while Kobayashi, Heidfeld and others have been struggling a little.
Alonso "fastest on the grid". Hmm. I think both Hamilton and Vettel would out-qualify him along with a few of the midfield drivers.
In the same car, as the piece suggests, it would be extremely close and of the three, I think Vettel would be third
I don't agree with the top three order but it is the opinion of one (albeit far better informed than me) man, afterall.
P.S. for what it's worth...If I had to bet my overdraft ridden bank account or ageing record collection... in the same car; in the same conditions and given a completely level playing field...I'd go with Lewis Hamilton...WITHOUT HESITATION.
P.S. for what it's worth...If I had to bet my overdraft ridden bank account or ageing record collection... in the same car; in the same conditions and given a completely level playing field...I'd go with Lewis Hamilton...WITHOUT HESITATION.
Some choices are very strange but are perhaps explained by it being done in June - for example the Alguersuari vs. Buemi and di Resta vs. Sutil situations have changed a lot since then. The top three I agree with but you can pick what ever order you like depending on what you're judging on, but in general I think my list would be very different.
It's impossible to come up with a 'correct' answer for things like this though, who's to say Alguersuari/Buemi couldn't have brought home a similar amount of points to Webber if they were in the Red Bull and not the Toro Rosso for example? We have no way of knowing and yet Webber is 5th having been completely outperformed by his team mate this year and those two and others are left at the bottom simply by virtue of the teams they drive for.
It's impossible to come up with a 'correct' answer for things like this though, who's to say Alguersuari/Buemi couldn't have brought home a similar amount of points to Webber if they were in the Red Bull and not the Toro Rosso for example? We have no way of knowing and yet Webber is 5th having been completely outperformed by his team mate this year and those two and others are left at the bottom simply by virtue of the teams they drive for.
Agree with a lot of the choices, but Webber and Heidfeld should be lower while Kovalainen and Glock should be higher. Obviously the Alguersuari situation has changed a lot and he has raced well in the last five or so races.
racecub
Champion Elect
I dont agre with many of those.
Heidfeld 8th Petrov 11th ??(they were in the same car and Petrov was faster)
Suthil and Massa so low??
Alonso1st, Hamilton3rd (they've been in the same car when one was a rookie and one a double world champion)
Some very strange choices here.
Heidfeld 8th Petrov 11th ??(they were in the same car and Petrov was faster)
Suthil and Massa so low??
Alonso1st, Hamilton3rd (they've been in the same car when one was a rookie and one a double world champion)
Some very strange choices here.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
We keep hearing this term "complete". Clicking on the images in Crofty's piece, gives us one line justifications for each of the drivers ranking. Alonso is "complete", apparently, but his two WDC's are now half a decade old. If he's complete he ain't going to get better. Hamilton and Vettel are apparently not complete, so unless they succumb to early onset of dementia they can only improve. Therefore, I submit that in the same car (and based on Crofty's own assessment) Alonso can only be third. I suspect that following Crofty's logic one could re-arrange this ranking in any number of ways and if I had the time to do it, it would be a fascinating excercise. Personally, though, I'm happy to let the guys fight it out on the track with what they've got and to believe that the cream will, as ever, rise to the top leaving the ripe stuff in it's wake.
EvilWhippet
Podium Finisher
Heidfeld should be a little higher, he brings a complete arsenal of might ducks.
Moose should be much, much higher. He can live in a forest with no supplies for years on end.
Moose should be much, much higher. He can live in a forest with no supplies for years on end.
I kind of expected that knee-jerk reaction to someone objectively putting Alonso at 1. I also feel that perhaps David Croft ought to have justified his selections a little more, something like a decent synopsis would be a little easier to make head or tail of the decisions.
I think that the "Complete Driver" assesment is very vague and ambigious, and should possibly be substatiated as I feel you have to be pretty complete to drive in formula one regardless of your name.
My only justifications would be;
a) Experience, has raced in different era/generations per se in F1 and is pretty well travelled now. The experience is probably seen in the consistancy statistics. Recently hitting 30yrs is not indicative of being at the end of the line. Michael Schumacher won 5 titles over the age of 30, while circumstances are completely different, I would not doubt that if Ferrari sort out the race machine Alonso is very capable of adding World Championship(s) to his haul.
b) I had rather touched on this in the experience post, but it can stand as an independant ground for justification. Consistancy and extracting optimum performance. While I would never go so far as to say that Alonso was or is ever flawless, throughout his career and the changing climate of F1, the very consistent trend that comes up is the consistancy of results. While I don't say they have always been exceptional, the overall is pretty consistant.
On the hypothetical assumption that the car is equal there is enough in his driving ability to refute the assumption that Vettel and others are prima facie faster, we have very little data to work on but Vettel has only had a short stint at Torro Rosso that at the time were a little better than seen today and Hamilton has never driven outside of a championship calibre team, while it is very possible that a large number of drivers are faster than Alonso and "better" stats and working off them alone is enough to refute that statement.
Alonso could have been rated 20th, would it be any more or less binding authority, probably not, all that that article is, is Mr Crofts objective opinion. In actual fact I wish he put him as lowly, just to avoid the shock and awe reaction.
I think that the "Complete Driver" assesment is very vague and ambigious, and should possibly be substatiated as I feel you have to be pretty complete to drive in formula one regardless of your name.
My only justifications would be;
a) Experience, has raced in different era/generations per se in F1 and is pretty well travelled now. The experience is probably seen in the consistancy statistics. Recently hitting 30yrs is not indicative of being at the end of the line. Michael Schumacher won 5 titles over the age of 30, while circumstances are completely different, I would not doubt that if Ferrari sort out the race machine Alonso is very capable of adding World Championship(s) to his haul.
b) I had rather touched on this in the experience post, but it can stand as an independant ground for justification. Consistancy and extracting optimum performance. While I would never go so far as to say that Alonso was or is ever flawless, throughout his career and the changing climate of F1, the very consistent trend that comes up is the consistancy of results. While I don't say they have always been exceptional, the overall is pretty consistant.
On the hypothetical assumption that the car is equal there is enough in his driving ability to refute the assumption that Vettel and others are prima facie faster, we have very little data to work on but Vettel has only had a short stint at Torro Rosso that at the time were a little better than seen today and Hamilton has never driven outside of a championship calibre team, while it is very possible that a large number of drivers are faster than Alonso and "better" stats and working off them alone is enough to refute that statement.
Alonso could have been rated 20th, would it be any more or less binding authority, probably not, all that that article is, is Mr Crofts objective opinion. In actual fact I wish he put him as lowly, just to avoid the shock and awe reaction.
In the same car, as the piece suggests, it would be extremely close and of the three, I think Vettel would be third
Exactly my views too. I've never been able to decide between the other two.
Couldn't Webber or Button cut the top 3? they have experience, they have shown that when the cards are right they can match and from time to time beat their team mates, one is a former champion, why could they not make the top 3. One cannot take this on face value as being anything more than ones opinion, I am sure if you take everyone on the forum you will get a very different picture by almost every single user.
racecub
Champion Elect
To make the top three they'd have to be beating their team mate most of the time.So no way no how could Button or Webber be there, not I think by anyones reckoning
Similar threads
