Brundle attacks Michael

What gets me most is that i can't see why you people follow F1.Everyone wants to see more racing and passing yet when it happens it's sometimes an object of criticism.

Good passing is not driving someone off the road. What happened to the wheel to wheel racing at Silvertone?Michael couldnt hack it and put alonso off the road

oleg, EVERY time Michael has been in that situation its ended up with him removing another car. Isnt that a bit odd? I have almost no doubt he would have it to if it had been like that in Suzuka considering the arse up he made under pressure there.

When hes made to make a gt decision like that he always seems to arse up and make the wrong one, and so far, we dont really have any evidence to say hes changed do we?




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

He learnt his trade is sportscars that might have some thing to do with it.

What has racing in sportscars got to do with it? HHF and Karl Wendlinger were in the same team as Michael and weren't known for their hard racing tactics.

Well i remember that brundle used to comment years ago that MS was very hard to race with in sportscars, and yes he did have a number of clashes with other drivers.

He was part of the junior team.

I suspect that's more to do with the way Michael goes racing. Sure, he does race hard, but if he didn't, he wouldn't be a six times World Champion, would he?

About his sportscar career, tt was part of his learning curve during his very stages of his career so he is surely likely to have an accident or two!

I got my Le Mans 1991 video which it features M.Schumacher in the junior Mercedes team. He did fine although he had a small wobble at Indianapolis at one point during the race.

Of course at the time when Michael was driving for Mercedes, the class of the field was high with a lot of ex-F1 drivers and a lot of established sportscar drivers as well.



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

Did your birth certificate come with an apology letter from Durex?

Zcott, I do see what you're saying, but michael's car was never going to finish the race with that damage....so maybe it is a subconscious action to go for the gap, but I don't think so, and he should have waited, knowing that even if MS' car wasn't terminally damaged, he would need to put that lap.

yeah but hill probably wouldnt have known schumacher had gone off badly, only that he had run wide, he wouldnt know aobut the damage, and i think he certainly wouldnt have expected schumacher to turn in on him, i mean you go up the inside, of someone, generally they have to give you room, he couldnt have expect what happend to happen, other than in hinesite



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

24 Heures Du Mans 18-19 June 2005

Fair point, but its still a pretty suicidal place to risk an overtake at imo.



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

She says brief things, her love’s a pony
My love’s subliminal

oleg, EVERY time Michael has been in that situation its ended up with him removing another car

Somehow i can only pick one moment of gross unsportsmanship.Schumacher like any other human is prone to errors,wether they are pressure-inflicted or not.Still i don't believe that he does it deliberately day in and day out.

I have almost no doubt he would have it to if it had been like that in Suzuka considering the arse up he made under pressure there.

Sure,Suzuka wasn't the greatest race of his carreer.But to compare it with the almost must win situations of 1994 and 1997 is ridiculous.Of course there is also a slight matter of the 1st title and the 1st title for Ferrari(in 18 years i may add) versus the 6th in total.Is it too unreasonable to assume that Schumacher would have let it go?I believe not.

When hes made to make a gt decision like that he always seems to arse up and make the wrong one, and so far, we dont really have any evidence to say hes changed do we?

If you seiously believe that Adelaide was deliberate,then how can you say that it was a wrong decision?Still,2000 and to lesser extent 2003 prooved that Schumacher although not totally immune to pressure can handle it as well as most drivers and most(almost all) current drivers have never been in such position.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.

yeah michael has dealt with far more pressure than any other drive i can think of


the pressure for him to get ferrari's 1st world title after 20 or so years must have been immense.

we cant actually have an idea what that pressure must be like. if we could, we would all be physically sick straight away.

Damon should have waited to make a pass at Adelaide in '94, but he might not have know whether MS' car was terminally damaged or not, so when he found himself right on his gearbox, he went for the move, like most of us would do, in the exact same situation.

Jerez '97 was a far worse crime, in my opinion, but it can be understood, if you think of the pressure and expectation put on him by the whole of Italy and the entire Ferrari organisation. Actually coming so far and taking the Ferrari into a title showdown at the last race of the season was a huge success, considering it had not happened for 20 years, so he had to go for it, or else he would have been crucified for not trying hard enough. Had both he and Villeneuve retired from that race and had Schumacher not been punished afterwards, it would have been seen as a smart move. But it didn't work, and rightly he was punished.

I personally don't think he would have rammed anyone at Suzuka because he knows how much people hate him for '94 and '97, and he wouldn't want that again.

But we'll all just have to agree to disagree.

imagine the preasure of having to carry a team, a team like williams, all on your back in your second season, imagine they had just walked the previous 2 championships, and your stuck here with a car thats hard to setup, and not greatly fast, imagine your teammate has been killed, a teammate, world champion superstar teammate, imagine the critisism you took from the press, and the fact an ex driver was brought in to try and do a better job, and undermine you, imagine you had that preasure and beat him imagine the fightback you had to make, imagine the preasure of that, but did damon think about pushing herr schumacher into the barrier, and off the track? not one thought, cause he has integraty



Post Edited (01-13-04 18:35)

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

24 Heures Du Mans 18-19 June 2005

Or you can spin it the other way.Few would have thought that Damon would be there after first 7 races.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.

I can't really add anything that Oleg hasn't already. I almost entirely agree with him, he's talking sense. But there are a few things from earlier on.

He refuses to lift and gives another driver the choice of lifting or going into the wall

It's been covered already by Oleg but once again: what is racing if it isn't this? This is one area where Michael is good, and where Senna was great. Senna would give his opponent the option of either backing off or letting him through (depending on whether he was infront or behind), or having an accident. He took no prisoners. And his track presence was all the greater for it - you didn't mess with Senna, and today, Michael's stance is similar, but not quite as fanatical (I think Senna really was prepared to end up in the gravel). Schumacher is comparable only in his defence, where like you said above, he puts his opponent in a position of having to back off - and he knows they will. This is racing, for crying out loud. Racing F1 cars is dangerous.

2003 goes to the wire and Schumacher makes a pigs ear of the race

Who made a pig's ear of the race before, under championship pressure? If you're so willing to assume that Michael is still susceptible, why not assume that Montoya would react similarly in that situation?

What it would be nice to see people appreciate is that Michael's Jerez blunder was just that - a blunder. You said it yourself, Ellis - he was presented with two options: let Villeneuve come steaming through (he probably didn't realise Jacques was heading for the gravel trap), or turn in. This was to be a split second decision, with a multi-million person audience and multitudes of multi-million dollar sponsors watching and expecting you to come away with the most number of points. Pressure. He messed up the decision, and chose the wrong one, more through desperate reflex under pressure than cunning deliberation (which you would have it be). Olivier Panis reckoned that he, as well as most of the grid, would have done the same, given the circumstances.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

Every one last year made a mistake under pressure out of the three people going for the title.

Yes MS cracked a few time but JPM makes mistakes when not under pressure i.e melbourne and hungry. I still feel rubens squeezed him in the USA and am sure if JPM had been MS Oleg and others would have agreed.

Kimi made his 2 mistakes in quali for Spain and Canada. He failed to find a good set up for Japan as he crashed his race car in practise.

They all made about the same number of errors last year just kimis did not involve any other cars, do not say spain as anyone would have hit that car.

Just what brundle is getting at is that MS defends his position hard but he is the only drivers racing now days that faught against Prost, Senna, Berger, and mansell so he is still from the hard core days. Not that is an excuse its just that most drivers now days are not that tough.

Watch mexico 1991 or could be 1992. Senna and alesi the way they raced alot of people now days would complain about that. They were all over each other forcing each other from one side of the track to the other nearly banging wheel but they had respect for each other and gave just enough space. Same as senna mansell in spain that year.

Just one question do u think u can do that with MS like senna and mansell did in spain? I do not think so but then again he would not have let the car get along side as proof with alonso at silverstone



Post Edited (01-13-04 22:08)

It's been covered already by Oleg but once again: what is racing if it isn't this?

In the 60s it was unheard of that a driver would block (for saftey reasons). Are you suggesting this wasnt racing? Putting people off the track is all part of racing? What kind of racing are you referring to where it is all part of it to force another driver off a track or into a wall?

Schumacher is comparable only in his defence, where like you said above, he puts his opponent in a position of having to back off - and he knows they will

And what about when he doesnt? What happens when a driver finally thinks "No. No, i will NOT move for this guy, i WILL keep my line" and then Michael, because the other driver has refused to give up his position on the race track, runs into him and causes an accident. What happens then? Whos fault is it? Because the TV will clearly show that in a stright line Michael delbratly drove into another car. Then what? Delbrate punting of another car. Isnt that illegal? What happens when that finally does happen? and why is it acceptable to do it on strights when another driver is along side? Why in Silverstone did it give Michael the right to fore alone, in a stright line, to get off the throttle and off the tarmac to avoid an accident which michael was half way to causing. Does he actaully care about others saftey? Obviously not if he feels putting drivers off the track and into walls is a fine thing to do.

Who made a pig's ear of the race before, under championship pressure?

*cough* tyres*cough*

Who was running around in weather perfect for Bridgestones wghilst he was on Michlins? You Ferrari fans make a deal about how you think Michelin was better for the entire year, but then forget when it rains, Michaelin runners have less than zero chance of doing well. Why is that?

let Villeneuve come steaming through (he probably didn't realise Jacques was heading for the gravel trap)

Cept for the touch he made with Schaumcher didnt help slow him down much, if even any at all and he made the corner fine anyway.

So what your sayng is, with everything at stake, Michaels first decsion, without having to think was "screw saftey, hes going off"? Yes, he was under alot of pressure, but his very first thought was to actaully drive into another car? why would ANYONE think that as there first though?




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

*cough* tyres*cough*

Raikkonen managed fine.

What kind of racing are you referring to where it is all part of it to force another driver off a track or into a wall?

Firstly, nobody has forced anybody into a wall. So drop that one. Secondly, drivers are forced to put wheels on the grass all the time. It has been said on countless occasions - Raikkonen did it to Michael at Melbourne last year. Going by your argument, Michael could have thought "No. No, I will NOT move for this guy, I WILL keep my line" and they probably would have touched. But Kimi forced Michael to back out of it, squeezing him so he had to put two wheels on the grass, which is totally fair and a significant element of racing.

Why in Silverstone did it give Michael the right to force alonso, in a stright line, to get off the throttle and off the tarmac to avoid an accident which michael was half way to causing

Because he was infront. It's quite simple.

why would ANYONE think that as there first though?

Neither you nor I will know that until we are in that position. Consequently, I think it's only fair to assume that Michael succumbed to the sort of pressure we don't fully understand.

You've said it yourself and you can't go back on it:

When hes made to make a gt decision like that he always seems to arse up and make the wrong one

He had to make a decision - in a split second, remember - and he made the wrong one. It was a mistake. And you said it. So like Oleg made clear, you have effectively now lost the right to accuse him of being a "cheat". He exposed a weakness to the world, and that weakness is failing in a split second to make the right decision. The pressure got to his head, and he turned in instead of sticking by his instinct which was to turn away (because if you watch the footage, that's what he does at first). You cannot now accuse him of being a cheat because you have admitted yourself that it was a blunder of judgement.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

In the 60s it was unheard of that a driver would block (for saftey reasons). Are you suggesting this wasnt racing?

Racing naturally evolves.Between 1950 and 1973 there were only 3 race-ending collisions and as i said above,the evolution of technology,change in circuit layouts and commercealization of the sport would naturally make racing more agressive.You can't judge what is happening today on the basis of what it was like over 30 years ago.

What happens when that finally does happen? and why is it acceptable to do it on strights when another driver is along side?

I don't remember this actually happening.On the basis of what i have seen,Schumacher moved first and kept going with a pretty constant steering input while Alonso went for a closing gap which he wasn't able to make.To say that it was deliberate attempt to force another driver off the road and left Alonso no choice is wrong,because he could have gone to the left and probably passed Michael round the outside because he had a better run onto the straight.

You Ferrari fans make a deal about how you think Michelin was better for the entire year, but then forget when it rains, Michaelin runners have less than zero chance of doing well. Why is that?

Because there was 23 fully wet laps since Brazil and 850 dry or drizzling.Hardly comparable.

Cept for the touch he made with Schaumcher didnt help slow him down much, if even any at all

You mean all that damaged Williams stuff that we heard about for 6 years is actually bullshit?

why would ANYONE think that as there first though?

Pressure,panick.A lot of the drivers openly admitted that they would have done the same.I guess this makes the grid full of low-life corrupted individuals from your point of view?

I still feel rubens squeezed him in the USA and am sure if JPM had been MS Oleg and others would have agreed.

I see extreme pettyness here.I didn't object to Schumacher being penalised for hitting Trulli in a pretty simillar incident.Your point is a mute one.

Just one question do u think u can do that with MS like senna and mansell did in spain?

We can only speculate.I believe that it was 97 with Coulthard at Spain that he let ot go.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.

U were not happy Oleg when JPM passed MS in the european GP.

JPM did not hit RB up the back, when JPM tried to pass RB there was a gap MS just smacked the back of trulli he was not even trying to pass he was watching DC on the outside, a very basic mistake.

U were not happy Oleg when JPM passed MS in the european GP.

So?The fact that unlike Montoya Schumacher did everything he could to avoid the two cars coming together,he wasn't trying to pass but was being passed and there was probably a different mindset involved(read the interviews after both races) makes it comparable?

Tbh my biggest worry was the glorification of Montoya's manouvre.I am not against hard racing,i just find it a bit odd when one driver is vilified and the other is lauded for it.

It was an interesting experience to see the same people who criticize Schumacher defend Montoya for the same thing.

As for your second point,whatever the circumstances the move wasn't realistically on in both cases.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.