The closest Michael Schumacher was to being dethroned in his dominant era was when he had a real fight for the title in 2003. Indeed, there is a strong suspicion of Bridgestone's hand being strengthened halfway through the season to get Schumi over the line. However, the best Michelin car did not begat the driver in 2nd; it was Kimi Raikkonen in a McLaren palpably inferior to the Williams.
What's more, although team-mate David Coulthard was never considered a champion, he has always been considered a solid citizen in F1, and won 13 Grands Prix. Even though DC struggled with qualifying back in 2003, for Raikkonen to beat him by 40 points could be seen to be some achievement.
We know the story of Raikkonen after that, 2004 a poor year for a McLaren brightened up by the Finn at Spa, before the breaking down of the fastest car in 2005 meant he could not challenge Alonso for the title. 2006 saw McLaren on the down, but Raikkonen snook the title from the warring McLarens in 2007 as a Ferrari driver. 2008 saw a series of unfortunate events take the title chase to Massa rather than Raikkonen, while 2009 saw him brighten up another poor season at Spa, then be jettisoned by a disappointed Ferrari for Alonso in 2010.
His third place at Lotus on his return in 2012 lead to the feeling that he was back, and back doing very, very well, but 2014 has been rather disastrous. It is the margin, and not the fact, of Alonso's consistent defeat of him in the Ferrari that has been the most shocking. Raikkonen has given weight to the idea that the Ferrari is not up to scratch in a way Alonso has been successful enough to avoid.
So, who is the true Kimi Raikkonen? On the one hand, he has been very close to a title in a car that really shouldn't, in 2003, and he did take the title in 2007. His consistency in 2012/13 seemed excellent, and there's little doubt that beating, say, Hamilton in 2012 and Rosberg in 2013 were impressive achievements considering the available machinery.
But there is an argument to say that we're actually just seeing Raikkonen revealed in his first true comparison to a top class great; similar to Mansell being taken apart by Prost in 1990. In 2003, he was best of the four Michelin challengers, but few consider Coulthard, Ralf Schumacher and Montoya as great drivers. The 2005 McLaren regardless of the failures perhaps shouldn't have been beaten so often by Alonso's Renault.
And was the 2007/08 Ferrari actually a worse machine than the McLaren? The red machine won on both its outings at Montmelo, which is often considered the truest test of a car. Could it be that the Ferraris were quicker than the McLarens, which were simply driven better by two drivers (Alonso & Hamilton) at a different level to Ferrari's boys (Raikkonen & Massa). Kovalainen's performance in 2008 suggests so.
Or is it another factor. Age - he's older than Alonso, for example. Has the motivation gone, and he's just waiting for the paycheck.
One thing is for sure, if he doesn't want to answer the questions he needs to get somewhere close to Alonso's rear wing towards the end of a Grand Prix towards the end of this season. And we all know he doesn't want to answer questions...
What's more, although team-mate David Coulthard was never considered a champion, he has always been considered a solid citizen in F1, and won 13 Grands Prix. Even though DC struggled with qualifying back in 2003, for Raikkonen to beat him by 40 points could be seen to be some achievement.
We know the story of Raikkonen after that, 2004 a poor year for a McLaren brightened up by the Finn at Spa, before the breaking down of the fastest car in 2005 meant he could not challenge Alonso for the title. 2006 saw McLaren on the down, but Raikkonen snook the title from the warring McLarens in 2007 as a Ferrari driver. 2008 saw a series of unfortunate events take the title chase to Massa rather than Raikkonen, while 2009 saw him brighten up another poor season at Spa, then be jettisoned by a disappointed Ferrari for Alonso in 2010.
His third place at Lotus on his return in 2012 lead to the feeling that he was back, and back doing very, very well, but 2014 has been rather disastrous. It is the margin, and not the fact, of Alonso's consistent defeat of him in the Ferrari that has been the most shocking. Raikkonen has given weight to the idea that the Ferrari is not up to scratch in a way Alonso has been successful enough to avoid.
So, who is the true Kimi Raikkonen? On the one hand, he has been very close to a title in a car that really shouldn't, in 2003, and he did take the title in 2007. His consistency in 2012/13 seemed excellent, and there's little doubt that beating, say, Hamilton in 2012 and Rosberg in 2013 were impressive achievements considering the available machinery.
But there is an argument to say that we're actually just seeing Raikkonen revealed in his first true comparison to a top class great; similar to Mansell being taken apart by Prost in 1990. In 2003, he was best of the four Michelin challengers, but few consider Coulthard, Ralf Schumacher and Montoya as great drivers. The 2005 McLaren regardless of the failures perhaps shouldn't have been beaten so often by Alonso's Renault.
And was the 2007/08 Ferrari actually a worse machine than the McLaren? The red machine won on both its outings at Montmelo, which is often considered the truest test of a car. Could it be that the Ferraris were quicker than the McLarens, which were simply driven better by two drivers (Alonso & Hamilton) at a different level to Ferrari's boys (Raikkonen & Massa). Kovalainen's performance in 2008 suggests so.
Or is it another factor. Age - he's older than Alonso, for example. Has the motivation gone, and he's just waiting for the paycheck.
One thing is for sure, if he doesn't want to answer the questions he needs to get somewhere close to Alonso's rear wing towards the end of a Grand Prix towards the end of this season. And we all know he doesn't want to answer questions...