Kimi Raikkonen ‘should be three-times champion’
You’d expect Kimi Raikkonen’s manager David Robertson to have a high opinion of his client but I thought his suggestion last month that Raikkonen should already be a three-timee champion was a bit much to take:
Two championships have been taken away from Kimi. He would be the youngest champion ever without McLaren’s reliability issues.
Saying the championships were “taken away” from Raikkonen is pretty strong stuff but I don’t think the facts are on Robertson’s side.
Robertson did not explicitly state which championships he was referring to but presumably he feels the 2003 and 2005 titles were “taken away” from the Finn. He finished runner-up on both occasions, to Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso respectively.
I would not deny that in both years Raikkonen lost points because of McLaren unreliability, but Robertson is conveniently ignoring the points Raikkonen lost of his own doing.
2003
1 Michael Schumacher 93
2 Kimi Raikkonen 91
Raikkonen retired only once in 2003 due to car failure – while he was leading at the Nurburgring.
The final points difference between himself and Michael Schumacher was just two points and although the ten points lost at the Nurburgring might have overcome that, driving errors probably cost him just as much.
He picked up a penalty for speeding in the pit lane at Melbourne and finished third on a day when team mate David Coulthard won. And he consigned himself to 20th on the grid at both Barcelona and Montreal by going off the track in qualifying. As a result he was eliminated on the first lap in Spain and finished only sixth in Canada.
Full 2003 F1 season statistics
2005
1 Fernando Alonso 133
2 Kimi Raikkonen 112
In 2005 the McLaren MP4/20 was usually quicker than its rivals but champion Fernando Alonso had demonstrably better reliability. He had no mechanically-induced retirements all year, ignoring the debacle at Indianapolis that eliminated all the Michelin runners.
Raikkonen, meanwhile, suffered terminal car failures at Imola, Nurburgring and Hockenheimring, all while leading. His Malaysian Grand Prix was compromised by a puncture (which might have been neither his nor the team’s fault) and he was moved back ten places on the grid at Magny-Cours, Silverstone and Monza after having engine changes.
Again, on the face of it, this would be more than enough to account for his 21 point deficit to Alonso at the end of the year – but this does not tell the whole story.
His suspension failure at the Nurburgring was visibly self-induced, caused by vibrations from a front tyre he had repeatedly locked solid while braking. He stalled the car on the grid at Melbourne and had to start from the pit lane.
At Imola there was suspicion over whether Raikkonen failed to heed McLaren’s warning about not hitting the kerbs too hard which caused the halfshaft failure that forced him to retire.
Full 2005 F1 season statistics
There is no doubt that Kimi Raikkonen is a world-class driver and a thoroughly deserving world champion. But I don’t believe he would have been a more deserving champion than Michael Schumacher in 2003 (ignoring the Michelin tyre row) or Fernando Alonso in 2005.
Photos: Daimler
Read more about Kimi Raikkonen
Number 38 said on 3rd January 2008, 6:19
I’m back for a second re-read and it seems Kimi’s taking a real beating. Gollee, friends, after reading all the above maybe he’s just not the F1 “great” we want him to be. We’ve been worshiping someone who’s just average.
Michael K said on 3rd January 2008, 14:22
To say that Kimi lost in 2005 was not due to McLaren’s shambolic reliability in this year is beyond comprehension. 2003 is debatable, but 2005 is only down to McLaren’s so called “reliability”.
theRoswellite said on 16th January 2008, 7:45
You can’t go down this road. If you start talking about “what if…”, or, “if only the car had….”, you are in Ga-Ga Land. Anything is possible, and trying to keep everything the same except for the one variable that would bring about a certain outcome…….is a fools game (if fun).
And, my gosh, if anyone, with a straight face, can say that Kimi is cursed with bad luck, after his impossible come from behind in the 2007 championship, they are sleepwalking down the boulevard of dreams. You could run the last three races of this year over 100 times and Kimi would come out on top no more than 5 to 10 times, if that.
I love Kimi’s attitude, his talent, his humor (you read that right), and what little I know of his off track life. He has always shown a wonderful stoicism to the travails of the track. And, I think he KNOWS that reality is “what it is”…..no one shows more equanimity than The Finn.
theRoswellite said on 16th January 2008, 8:06
Oh, and a PS to my last comment…Kimi doesn’t need to win a string of championships to be a great driver, he is a great driver.
Can you imagine him trying the kind of tactics MS used in his career, or bringing about the total collapse of a teams cohesion, as FA did this past year?
Ferrari is lucky to have him in their camp, and the Italian public should grow to love him, if they don’t already.
A string of championships don’t make a great champion. If you doubt that statement examine the career of one Sir Sterling Moss……in the end, it’s about talent, courage, and “class”.
We don’t need to spend time trying to build Kimi up, we should just enjoy him while we can, and be thankful for what he is.
Oddball said on 28th January 2008, 21:04
As this thread seems too have cooled down a bit by now, and nobody really has contested the factg that without the mechanical troubles Kimid _would_ have been a triple world champion, I think it should also be pointed out (almost inline with ‘theRoswellite’) that Kimi has
a) never ever, regardless of the obstacles that have been thrown in his way, whinged or thrown his toys out of the pram and
b) whenever he’s been at fault, held his hands up and said so instead of blaming the car, the strategy, his opponents, his team-mates, mechanics or anybody else for that matter.
The bottom line line is – he’s a true racer and you’d struggle to find a more worthy champion – regardless of whether lady luck was on their side or not.
Kun said on 29th January 2008, 12:01
Massa said yesterday:
“I think my countrymen understand that I would have been the 2007 World Champion if my car had been more reliable”
well, Massa think he deserved the tittle, maybe Raikkonen won the championship because Massa didn’t got reliability?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th January 2008, 12:07
I saw that comment, Kun, and did a piece on it here: The Massa delusion
Kun said on 29th January 2008, 12:24
I only say Kimi is not the only driver with fails of realibility, if he broke engines in the past, maybe was because forced too much.
If you know the car is not very reliable you have to drive with care, not being agressive.
Ade said on 1st February 2008, 20:01
Could have been this and could have been that… simply pathetic!
Whoever’s fault I don’t care, IMO those KR fans and his manager are a bunch of ungrateful xxxx! If it wasn’t RD/McLaren picked him up, KR wouldn’t even get a single shot at WDC from 02′-06′! Ferrari wanted him too? How would it feel like to be in Ruben’s shoes?
David Robertson got McLaren to blame, because he saw the money he could have made if KR had been more successful/youngest champion or whatever. KR fan blames McLaren, that is just plain stupid fanboyism.
Lynx rider said on 29th February 2008, 3:01
Whatever dudes, when the race starts the b******* walks :P
JoeP said on 3rd May 2009, 17:01
I like Kimi as a driver, though he needs better media handling … much like Hamilton had up until Liargate. That shot of Kimi eating ice cream in Malaysia…doh! He sets himself up to be slagged off by the media and the punters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B42AW-d89M