2Catch
It's just that you wrote "clearly the best car" for 5 years in a row, but when analyzed, it turned out to be only 2 out of five. Of course, the concept of a "car" should include not only speed, but also reliability, tires, mechanics, etc., but
Schumacher had exactly all of that. And by "best car," I also meant the best team. Schumacher would not have been Schumacher without Ross Brawn and Jean Todt. This is especially evident now, when Ferrari lost the last of the Mohicans, Jean Todt, and problems started immediately, just like with other teams—either fuel doesn't reach the tank or a nut isn't tightened. Under Todt, such things simply didn't happen.
I think the issue is not stupidity, but simply that Michael is faster than Mika. With everything else being almost equal, that was the deciding factor.
Yes, he stalled, but he was leading by a solid margin on the most indicative track of the championship, so Ferrari was better, though not critically. In a similar situation, but with the opposite polarity in 2000, Schumacher managed to pull through and became champion; I won't even mention 1994.
Better remember. Speed was more or less okay, but there were some problems every other race, if not more often. On the other hand, Williams had a period when they should have done 3-4 double wins in a row, but didn't because of infighting and their own mistakes. And Schumacher took advantage of this, unlike Kimi, although there are no particular complaints about him, after all, they had incomparably different experience.
You cannot compare Fangio and Schumacher—completely different eras. As for Prost and Senna, I am not particularly enthusiastic for at least one reason. They raced back when the minimum weight of the car was taken WITHOUT the driver (whereas now it is WITH the driver); it's not a fact that they were the fastest, but it is a fact that they were very light. Compare Senna, 160+ and just bones, with Mansell, nearly 190 and by no means a small boy in terms of build. So they had a difference of 25kg on board; I think I don't need to explain what that translates to per lap. Yes, Prost won 1993, but he was still a good driver, though even a monkey could have tried its luck in that Williams.
I agree that you can't, and I'm not comparing them, otherwise I would have clearly ranked everyone. The current situation with the driver actually gives an advantage to the small guys. And as for the monkey :) Hill tried his luck in 94 in the same car :)
Key words. It's very difficult for you to be objective.
I don't consider myself a fan of Schumacher (I'm not prone to fandom in general), but he always fought passionately, at the limit. Yes, sometimes breaking the rules, but he only did it openly. Everyone talked about team tactics at Ferrari, but almost no one said that Irvine clearly let him pass only once—in the penultimate Grand Prix of 1997—and in return received an absolutely identical gift in Malaysia 1999. Barrichello let him pass twice, and in return received it at least four times. Mika himself enjoyed no fewer bonuses from Dennis (if not more), but everyone remained silent and hypocritically pursed their lips.
I liked watching Michael COMPETE, because does anyone really like watching movies or reading books about white and fluffy bunnies or about tricksters wearing an angelic mask? No, people love and hate (which is often almost the same thing) direct and open heroes. Those are the ones who are remembered. That's why I look at the current Formula characters, and most of them don't please me at all.
