Villenueve: I'm not rubbish...

"Jacques has a very American style and just cannot cope with grooved tyres - a bit like Zanardi."

He drove very well in 2000.

"Villeneuve and Frentzen should have been 1-2 in the 97 championship, Hakkinen and Coulthard 1-2 in 98, and so on."

1-3 in the championship means nothing?

Vader seems to have provided the best answer for Villeneuves lack of speed recently

i'd blame most of his lack of speed on gtavity.

____
Tony

I'd blame the application of downforce of his Sauber, must be difficult for him to drive with his big head.

I blame that potato sack that he insists on wearing.

He's past it in my opinion. Maybe he should have a go at CART or something. Maybe rally. He might make a good rally driver.

lol! :P

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Ali Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, Jacques won one of the most exiting
> championships, 1997 was one of the most
> "equilibrated" championships. Among 10-12 drivers
> were in the same second in every grid, so he did
> it perfectly fine. And in 1996 he was an esplendid
> rookie, so he deserves a little more respect,
> that's my point.



Well said. The 1997 Williams wasn't a dominant machine, it's as simple as that. The 1984/88/98 McLarens, the 2002 Ferrari, the 1992/93/96 Williams were all dominant cars but the 1997 Williams was NOT. It's well documented that 1997 was one of the closest eve seasons, team competetion wise in history with no one team or driver dominating every event. in 1997 Benetton, Ferrari, McLaren, Jordan and even Prost had race winning pace at some circuits and in fact by the end of the year, the McLaren was a faster car. The Williams of 1997 was also uncompetetive on low-doenforce tracks such as Hockenheim and Monza. The fact that JV drove so well, making only a few mistakes coupled with the fact that he had a non-dominant car AND in only his second season makes JV's WDC all the more credible. So far Massa has the upper hand but I am confident that over the whole course of the year (as long as he is given a chance) he will have the edge over Massa and if he doesn't, then I will conceed that he no longer has what it takes to be competetive in F1 and should try something else.

As for no wins post 1997: The reason why JV struggled post 1997 was the piece of @#$%& car he was lumbered with, not him. He comfortably beat Panis and even scored podiums in the shitbox 2001 car, one at Spain when he was driving in excruciating pain from his back injury suffered in the trajic accident earlier that season at Melbourne and had to be put on a drip after the race. A truly courageous drive.

Those that say "He did crap cos he didn't win since 1997" are massively ignorant people who clearly can't comprehend just how important a factor the car is to a driver's performance.

Sure JV made the choice to go to BAR and as it turned out it was a mssive mistake and he made that particular bed, but claiming he hasn't got what it takes anymore is something else entirely. NOTHING whatsoever has happened since he left Williams to suggest that.

Apart from last year, BAR had produced nothing but shitboxes and 2003 wasn't an accurate reflection of JB's and JV's relative ability as JB's car was bulletproof most of the time and JV's car was lucky to get him to half distance. This coupled with the fact he was at a team that no longer wanted him there he was dejected, disillousioned and had lost a lot of motivation and I can't blame him. THIS is why Button beat him, no other reason. IN a fair contest JV would have blown him away.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2005 12:26AM by Eff One.

people still making excuses for 2003 eh?

Having said that, theres no question that people are writing him off too early this time, give him the season, and im sure, as a world champion he will manage to rase his game, other than that, everything that need be said, has been said, by a few others, and i cant agree more, give him a chance.

------------------------------------

24 Heures Du Mans 18-19 June 2005



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2005 11:21AM by andrew_S.

Eff One Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well said. The 1997 Williams wasn't a dominant
> machine, it's as simple as that. The 1984/88/94
> McLarens, the 2002 Ferrari, the 1992/93/96
> Williams were all dominant cars but the 1997
> Williams was NOT.

94 Mclaren? Since when?

It was dominant at being terrible from the moment someone plugged the Peugeot into the back of it. Boom!

2003 - Button beat Villeneuve fair and square. Look at the relative qualifying laps and race fastest laps. Button was much faster - end of argument!

Richards favoured Button more, thus better equipment I dont care what they say. When Villeneuve was favoured panis got all the mechanical problems. Last year it was sato who got the mechanical problems. Probably a coincidence though

In my arguments I was trying to defend Villeneuve in the current situation. Althogh he has lost momentum (well, he lost it long time ago) and in 2003 he was behind Button, no question. But in 2000 & 2001 he was quite competitive.

But Sauber didn't give him a chance, I mean, at the very first race he was questioned!!!

And there are some signs that show that he was not "well received" at Sauber after the last three races of 2004 in Renault. Now they have created this strange "enviorment" around him. I supose you heard the radio of Villeneuve in Sepang GP and his engineer saying "don't give up, Jacques..." What the f* is this (sorry for my expression)? This was around lap 20. I think it is not the correct way to motivate your driver.

Now I think it is irreversible and if Jacques is still there is because they don't know who will replace him.

Yep its too late for Jaques, he has had too much bad press and that has dented his image beyond repair. I think he should go back to the US where i think he'd be a lot happier and much more competetive, rather than drive for a team that doesn't believe in him.

"NOTHING whatsoever has happened since he left Williams to suggest that."

Yeah,just the last 6 races.

enzo1981 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richards favoured Button more, thus better
> equipment I dont care what they say. When
> Villeneuve was favoured panis got all the
> mechanical problems. Last year it was sato who got
> the mechanical problems. Probably a coincidence
> though


The main problem ius, that its never jacques fault for jacques performances is it?

------------------------------------

24 Heures Du Mans 18-19 June 2005

Well then I guess schumacher is to blame for his poor performances too. However why is felipe massa has no problem with the car? perhaps he is still wild and reckless?

several cars in the same second :P

okay not great evidence, but I personally think that Villeneuve and Frentzen made that car look worse than it actually was.

lol, there was also the 1st to 3rd covered by 0.000s at Jerez, I'd say that's pretty close!

enzo1981 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richards favoured Button more, thus better
> equipment I dont care what they say. When
> Villeneuve was favoured panis got all the
> mechanical problems. Last year it was sato who got
> the mechanical problems. Probably a coincidence
> though

actually i dont how equipment is judged better...i mean c'mon what could have been different? its like Webber and Pizza boy!

and i believe Panis was favoured over JV, the mechs preferd Panis's input over JV's

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

The _F1_Lunatic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eff One Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well said. The 1997 Williams wasn't a
> dominant
> > machine, it's as simple as that. The
> 1984/88/94
> > McLarens, the 2002 Ferrari, the 1992/93/96
> > Williams were all dominant cars but the 1997
> > Williams was NOT.
>
> 94 Mclaren? Since when?


Hehe. Typo. Meant 98 McLaren.