Does F1 need Schuey?

[zootv]

hi

What a race we saw when Schuey abandoned! There are so many young guys in F1 who deserve to win and who are really racing against each other. So, I think it would be a positive point for the sport if Schuey retired now. Yesterday's race proved that there's a new generation who is ready to attack attack attack. The Trulli-Button duel was one of the best I've seen in recent years. Let those guys race for victory. Sadly, Schuey is so good and has such a good car that, in normal circumstances, the young guys can't prove themselves. The fans and those drivers deserve to be able to fight for victory.

Peter

[garcon]

No, F1 doesn't need Schuey, but that's no reason for him to retire now. The new generation is in the wings, but they have to take it to Michael to earn the right to replace him.

[Red]

Hmm... Lemme see, the young guys can't prove themselves because Schumacher is good, but this will change if he retired? Strange. What will they prove? That Alonso can beat Trulli and both of them beat Ralf for example? They can surely prove that now, isn't it?

PS: The wins are earned, not deserved.

[Mattracer]

Does F1 need Schey?

Well, does Schuey need F1?

No, he's achieved more than enough. Let soemene else have a go. Thankfully Monaco the grand old circuit that it is gave us that.

[Dani Filth]

so you want guys to win . just because Schumacher is not there .. wouldn't be better if they beat Schumacher ??

[Mattracer]

See how interesting a GP is when MS iis not int? Although to be fair, had this been on a "normal" circuit, you know, a dull one, this might not have happened.

[Mattracer]

See how interesting a GP is when MS is not in it? Although to be fair, had this been on a "normal" circuit, you know, a dull one, this might not have happened.

[Mattracer]

Hmm, I see cloning hasn't perfected independence of thought yet.

[Adam43]

No, it doesn't need Schumacher, but that is no reason to remove the best driver in it.

F1 doesn't need any other drivers individually.

[Bononi]

I would say, does F1 need a package like Ferrari/TGF ????
Pretty much like Williams/Senna would be back in '94, but something was done.

[Aysedasi]

Does F1 need Schuey - no, definitely not.

Straight answer to a straight question.

[twig]

A bit of a stupid question really, no sport needs any personality, but because they are there, and succeeding, is no reason to question their worth to the sport.

F1 does not need Schumacher, but F1 doesn't need anything in particular either. You may as well ask if golf needs Tiger Woods, or if Soccer needs Brazil. (sorry, i don't know anything about soccer)

[Red]

Well, F1 did not need Schumacher. However, now, F1 does need a couple more of him.

[enemy-ace]

F1 is the pinnacle, and Schumacher is the best. F1 doesn't need any driver in particular really, but the best should be there. What F1 doesn't need are the Baumgartners; unfortunately the economics of the series have to allow for these type of drivers.
And Schumacher was beaten yesterday, crash or no crash.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Red
However, now, F1 does need a couple more of him.

A good way of putting it!

[Gt_R]

Well put Red.

It's kinda silly. Does F1 need Schumacher? No...just as much as they don't need any other personalities, Senna inc. F1 existed before these guys come along and would continue to exist when these guys retire.

What F1 needs desperately however is drivers of that quality.. Frankly, there are more than a handful of drivers who are nothing more than has beens or simply not good enough to be a serious challenger. F1's history and future existence does NEED a constant presence of quality driver..from Fangio to Senna to MS. And not forgetting personalities who don't race but is still highly important.

I believe drivers take greater pleasure of beating MS than to win when MS retires...and Trulli drove a brilliant race.

Furthermore, why should we "gift" others wins by removing the best driver on the grid?!

[Red]

Anyway, does or does not F1 need Schumacher is one thing, but to say that "utter domination of the 2004 season and his complete lack of interest in what his success was doing to the sport" is utter bull. (yes, that's my newly found journalist friend from grandprix.com. Only that he doesn't bother to sign his art). His success is doing only good to the sport. The other dudes sustained rate of failures is what does damage this sport.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Gt_R


Furthermore, why should we "gift" others wins by removing the best driver on the grid?!

I have to agree with you, currently, beating Michael, who is the top of his game and in the best car is the yardstick for the other drivers, and i'm sure they take more satisfaction beating Michael than they would winning a race without Michael in it, much the same, i'm sure for Michael, when Senna was about.

There are a few drivers who could take the fight to Michael, but that would need them to sit in the second Ferrari, never going to happen.

F1 has lost it's appeal since the dominance of Ferrari in 2000, thats not Michaels fault, it's up to the other teams to get onto a par with Ferrari.

But it has to be said, given the advantage that Michael and Ferrari enjoy, from a fans point of view, a race without Michael has tended to be more exciting than a race with him in.

[Red]

Only because of the result, Mr V. I didn't see anymore "fun" during the remaining of the race than we usually see. Sure, Button closing in to Trulli was exciting to watch, but according to every "standard" it was just another boring race without any overtkings.

[Mr V]

No different from an Monaco GP then Red

As a F1 fan though, surely a season such as 1998, were you didn't know who would win out of Michael or Mika is more exciting that watching Michael drive off into the distance because his car is so superior and his team-mate seems to always be on the wrong stratergy?

[Red]

Ahh, 1998-2000, yeah, those were great seasons.. Though not always "happy" for me!

However, we're talking about a specific race, half of it to be more specific!

[Mr V]

But the thread was about Michael in F1 in general, not just half a race

[Red]

Originally posted by Mr V
from a fans point of view, a race without Michael has tended to be more exciting than a race with him in.

[Mr V]

Again, i was talking about Michael in general, not just Monaco. Brazil 2003, Hockenhiem 2001 etc etc.

[Red]

Oh well, my fault then... Last race without Schumacher was so long ago, I just forgot..

(still, I stand to my point. Those races were no any different. Except that Schumacher abandonned)