Ayrton Senna vs Michael Schumacher
Last week I asked for your suggestions for F1 Fanatic articles. And coming out on top with almost 100 votes was this topic from Tom Bellingham…
It could have been one of Formula 1′s greatest rivalries. Instead, while Michael Schumacher romped to race wins and world championships in the mid-1990s everyone wondered how it might have been if Ayrton Senna hadn’t perished on May 1st, 1994.
Fourteen years on, Schumacher is retired and playing with motorbikes. Between them they scored ten world championships. But how can we compare their careers?
Career stats
| Starts | Wins (%) | Poles (%) | Fastest laps (%) | Podiums (%) | Mechanical failures (%) | |
| Ayrton Senna | 161 | 41 (25.47%) | 65 (40.37%) | 19 (11.80%) | 80 (49.69%) | 30 (18.63%) |
| Michael Schumacher | 248 | 91 (36.69%) | 68 (27.42%) | 76 (30.65%) | 154 (62.10%) | 23 (9.27%) |
Statistics are all-too easily abused so I’ve selected a few that give us clear and indisputable data.
Senna’s prowess in qualifying is well-documented. Although Schumacher set pole position on three occasions more than Senna – the only person to break the Brazilian’s record – he started 87 more races.
It has been suggested of Senna that he concentrated too much on qualifying at the expense of his race speed, which his comparatively lower number of race fastest laps would support.
It’s important to qualify any conclusions we draw about their race performances by looking at the reliability rates of the cars they drove. Despite his much greater number of race starts, Schumacher actually had fewer race-ending car failures than Senna.
Similarly we must also consider how competitive the cars they drove were and this is where the discussion becomes very subjective. For the sake of argument, let’s consider these were the seasons in which each drove cars capable of winning the championship:
Senna: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994*
Schumacher: 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999**, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006
*Senna died in the third race of 1994
**Schumacher was injured halfway through 1999
Schumacher’s victory total of 91 is staggering and exceeds his nearest rival, Alain Prost, by 40 wins. But, given the same equipment and level of reliability, might Senna have matched Schumacher’s record? I think so.
Read more Michael Schumacher stats here
Team mates
Senna: Johnny Cecotto, Elio de Angelis, Johnny Dumfries, Saturo Nakajima, Alain Prost, Gerhard Berger, Michael Andretti, Mika Hakkinen, Damon Hill
Schumacher: Andrea de Cesaris, Nelson Piquet, Martin Brundle, Riccardo Patrese, Jos Verstappen, JJ Lehto, Johnny Herbert, Eddie Irvine, Rubens Barrichello, Felipe Massa
Much is made of the argument that Schumacher ‘never had a real team mate’ and although I have some sympathy for it I do think it can be over-stated.
Senna, for example, vetoed the presence of Derek Warwick at Lotus alongside him in 1986 and the team promoted the far less experienced Dumfries instead. (Not that this practice was unusual even then – Nelson Piquet had barred Senna from joining him at Brabham as a rookie in 1983).
But Schumacher institutionalised the practice of having a dedicated number one at Ferrari. Only the most blinkered fan would argue he would have won as many races between 1997 and 2005 with a Mika Hakkinen or Fernando Alonso alongside him instead of an Eddie Irvine or Rubens Barrichello.
Schumacher never shared a top car with a driver of anything like Alain Prost’s calibre, but we must remember Senna was only partnered by Prost for two years. Their bitter rivalry was unlike anything the sport has seen before or since (Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso included) the spoils were quite evenly split – although mechanical reliability had a substantial say in Prost winning the ’89 title.
The competition
Another aspect of this comparison which, like the competitiveness of their machinery, it hard to assess empirically, is how good their other rivals were.
Were the likes of Piquet, Nigel Mansell, Riccardo Patrese and Gerhard Berger tougher opposition for Senna than drivers like Juan-Pablo Montoya, Jean Alesi, David Coulthard and Mika Hakkinen were for Schumacher?
Within their teams
What sort of a role did the two play within their teams?
Much has been made of Schumacher’s efforts to reinvigorate Ferrari and, whatever you think of the means by which it was achieved, the results were staggering and are still being felt to this day.
Technicians who worked with Senna raved about the detail and accuracy of his observations about a car’s handling, partiularly in the days when on-board telemetry was in its infancy.
But Senna arguably did little to improve McLaren’s lot in the early 1990s as his high salary demands coupled with the team’s need to purchase engines following the departure of Honda stymied development of the team. Ron Dennis can hardly have been impressed when Senna then offered to race for Williams at no cost…
The controversies
Let’s get one thing clear: neither driver was above taking off a championship rival in a deciding race.
Senna may have only done it once but his willingness to do it at a speed of around 150mph (Prost having taken him out at a comparative snail’s pace the year before) shocked and appalled many.
Schumacher on the other hand had the audacity to try it twice – once with success in 1994, and once without in 1997.
Controversy about Senna was generally confined to his robust methods of defence, something that Schumacher also got quite a lot of criticism for. I do feel that a lot of what Senna got criticised for seems fairly tame by modern standards – his squeezing of Prost towards the pit wall at Portugal in 1988 elicited shrieks of outrage at the time but today we would probably consider it a straightforward defence.
Perhpas in time we will come to see some of Schumacher’s defensive moves including the notorious ‘Schuey chop’ in much the same way? But the brazen and transparent stunt he pulled at Monaco in 2006 will surely not be remembered so kindly, nor the arrogance with which he and Ferrari presumed no-one else would figure out what he was up to.
So which was better?
If you ask me which driver I preferred, I can answer quite easily: Senna. Why? Well, when traction control first came into F1 in the early 1990s Senna argued passionately for it to be banned, claiming it detracted from the skill of the driver.
Schumacher never had time for questions such as the sporting merit of Formula 1. He even once admitted that, when he first watched the sport as a spectator, he didn’t much enjoy the experience. I may respect his talent, but as he’s not a fan of the sport I could never really warm to him.
But which was the better driver? That is far harder to answer.
In some ways the two are products of their time. Schumacher perfected the art of strategic racing; Senna was a master at street circuits when they were much more common in the sport.
I still think only Jim Clark could approach Senna in terms of speed over a single lap. However, even taking into account what I’ve written above about car reliability and relative car qualities, I still think Schumacher was fractionally the better driver over a race distance.
But looking at the entirety of their careers, the sophistication of the cars they drove and the opposition they faced inside and outside their cars, for me Senna was the greater driver.
What do you think?
Ayrton Senna biography
Michael Schumacher biography
This topic was suggested by Tom Bellingham. If you’ve got an idea for an F1 Fanatic article suggest it using the “Suggest an article for F1 Fanatic” box and other readers will vote on it. You can also email ideas to Keith using the contact form.
SoLiD said on 29th May 2008, 15:54
I agree, but it is hard to judge.
But I Think the 93 season showed how good Senna actually was… he won races with that car :)
Schumi is a great great driver, but his stats are a bit too much as he had a dominating car and position in his team. Ok it was for a deal because of himself that Ferrari got so dominant, so hats off for that!
underdog said on 29th May 2008, 16:41
1993 was the year when Senna was at his prime and we saw how much can he got from his mechanical means against the all powerful Williams team. 1994 could have seen him win the title but it was never meant to happen. I wonder what would have happened if Senna was able to continue running all through the 90′s? Williams was the team to beat, the powerhouse … the best team in the business. One can only dream anyway.
the limit said on 29th May 2008, 16:58
A very difficult subject, and Senna’s era and Schumacher’s were so different. Its a bit like asking
if Senna was better than Jim Clark for instance? Very, very difficult.
Michael Schumacher is a great driver, but also a genius at making the most out of a situation, and the people around him. By moulding the Ferrari team around
him, Michael maximised his talent to unbeforeseen levels of success.
Senna, on the other hand, never had that support and was never in that situation. Often, his main rival was driving the same machine as him, so it is completely different.
I am convinced that Senna would have won two or three
more championships had he lived, with Schumacher still being the most successfull champion.
In terms of driving prowess, over a single lap, then Aryton was the best. When you look at the Williams team, and the quality of their cars between 1994 and 1998, its not hard to imagine Aryton winning again had he not been killed.
Schumacher showed his class in joining a struggling team in 1996 and building them into the unstoppable force they have become in the sport. Two very different personalities, two very special drivers.
Brar Soler said on 29th May 2008, 17:01
Very nice article;
I would like to add some points about the diference in their driving lives :
-Senna like Clark have something in commom. They were the unlukiest among the quickest.
-Senna Strugled for a good car, a number one position.
Schumacher didn´t.He was under Mercedes contract, and declined it!. Imagine with Adrian Newey at Mclaren how many titles they could win…
The point is that Schumacher was luckier. He could stay in Benetton until they became champions and go to Ferrari when they were not the best team. A luxurious act that Senna never dreamed of.Ayrton needed so badly to win that he sayd he would race for Willians for free. They experienced a very diferent life.
Journeyer said on 29th May 2008, 17:06
Hmmm… If Senna had 1993, Schumacher had… 1996. Remember that horrific F310, which looked like a box and raced like one? Yet in spite of that, he managed to win 3 races in that car.
As for the debate:
Who do I like more? I’m in the minority here: I’m with Schumacher, easy. I was just amazed at how he turned Ferrari around from that stinker of a team to the team it was in 2000 (and to some extent, the present). As for that sportsmanship argument that’s always brought up, both of them have faults, so I think they cancel each other out on that one. Bottom line: I’ve always admired Senna’s bravery and courage, but I’m more attracted to Michael’s accomplishments and continued brilliance (Champions 5 years in a row!).
But who is better? Ah, that is MUCH more difficult. And as much as they DID overlap, the prime of their careers were in 2 different decades: Senna prospered in the 1980s, Schumacher shone in the 2000s. And, much as I hate to say it, that makes this like comparing apples to oranges. They’re both fruits, but that’s as similar as it gets.
TommyBellingham said on 29th May 2008, 17:31
Thanks for choosing my suggestion Keith :) I never got to see Senna drive and I saw Schumacher do so many great things as i began watching F1 in 1996. You pretty much covered everything I would of talked about in the article. Good job :)
Dan M said on 29th May 2008, 17:35
If Senna was racing in todays cars, with qually’s like that, he wouldn’t lose a race. At least back in the day if you qualified second you still have a change to overtake the leader.
Senna was better hands down, Senna won due to ability, where as Shu won because of ability and the team effort, maybe he was the reason his teams were so good, but the debate was about driving ability, right?
Brar Soler said on 29th May 2008, 18:45
Journeyer
I agree with that.
And also Schumacher had a broken leg, Lost a title because of that. He “Strugled”, let say, for 4 or 5 years…
But in the others years he was in confortable position.
From the begining! The start in F1 for Michael was far more easier.After only one race, after 2 curves he went from Jordan to Benetton. A big move.
Senna in Tolemann at Monaco overtaked Lauda, Rosberg formula 1 history and present and nothing happens! He need to show he was better then Elio de Angelis to be the number one at Lotus (there was no need). With Schumacher that never happens. He was never questioned.
At first glance was easy to see that Senna and Schumacher were “the greatest” drivers. But Schumacher was “everytime” if I can say that, in a position he had nothing to loose. Michael was the first german to win a Title.Senna need to “prove” things that he didn´t need to prove.
He had to prove the “big four” battle and after that, it happens to came the worst of all, Schumacher…
Steven Roy said on 29th May 2008, 21:43
Ago,
I like the poles/wins idea. I have never heard that before. It makes some kind of sense but penalises drivers who won in cars that were not good enought to take pole.
Maybe if you only look at drivers who had long careers it could be a meaningful measure but as an overall measure I can prove it is flawed.
Gilles Villeneuve: 2 poles, 6 wins.
Sassan said on 29th May 2008, 23:12
Senna was good on qualyfying pace but not on race distance. He was up against tougher driver’s however i feel Schuey and Senna could be match on their desperste ruthlessness to win. They are both good drivers in their own way. Schuey surpassed Senna’s pole record only because fuel load affected qualyfying pace.
Rahul said on 29th May 2008, 23:51
Its not an easy thing to compare oppositions across eras either. I’d say that the reason the driver field felt shallow was because Michael completely dominated the field. The reason Senna, Prost, Mansell and Piquet are considered great is due to the 11 championships they have between them. In comparison only 2 of Michaels contemporaries won multiple championships and even in that Hakkinnen was pushed to the final race by Irvine of all people. Perhaps if Kimi goes on to win multiple championships we’ll get some more perspective on Michael as well.
__________________
Steven Roy said on 30th May 2008, 1:20
One of my favourite topics is to look at the number of drivers who should have given Schumacher a hard time in his career but for various reasons did not.
Senna – obvious reason
Jacques Villeneuve – went to BAR. Any sensible decision and he would have won more races and championships.
Johnny Herbert – Before his F3000 accident he was being compared to Jim Clark. He was something very special but was never the same afterwards
JJ Lehto – No sooner became Schumi’s team mate than he broke his neck
Allan McNish – How he didn’t get an F1 drive I will never know. Everything he ever drove he was mega quick in and Marlboro gave him an F3 drive in preference to Hakkinen.
Believe me I can list a load more. Schumacher raced against weaker fields than Senna because people who should have been taking races wins from him either died or injured themselves or decided to go and drive for a totally uncompetitive team or were never given the breaks they deserved.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 30th May 2008, 8:29
On Allan McNish, Steven, there’s a new article up today you might want to read.
Sri said on 30th May 2008, 8:48
Schumacher chose to go to a team and started building it up from the scratch. In ’96 as people have already pointed out, with a dogmatic car, he still managed to pull 3 wins against almighty Williams’. Now he was fighting for championships in ’97 and 98, the cars though were not really up-to scratch. Schumacher was flattering the cars with his speed.
Fangio(i know, not in the discussion) on the other hand, drove for all competitive teams and won 5 championships. Schumacher had the chance, but went with Ferrari instead of McLaren/ Williams(perhaps…). Think of the history, what it could have been.
Also, i do not think people would have complained as much, if he was himself British or driving a British car. He drew much criticism early on in his career, cause he was a German, winning against British teams/ drivers. One may not like what i say, but to prove this wrong would be difficult. History would know him differently only if he were British or driving something that was.
Schumacher raced against people who were not as prepared as him(already pointed out by someone), not less talented. The fact that Schumacher was able to build a team from scratch, and yet manage to win, is something that only reinforces this belief of mine.
You all forgot the other Finn that drove for Ferrari. Mika Salo. Remember the speed. Remember gifting races to Irvine. Yet i think, few would have complained about Irvine taking those wins(and even the championship, if he had won that). Also, what about Salo’s drive? He never got a good car, before or after his brief stint with Ferrari.
To me, Schumacher is one of the greatest drivers to grace the grid. Definitely my top 5. Raw speed? People forget Magny Cours’, ’04, with 4 pit-stops. Alonso was good. Renault were fast. So how would you explain that, other than just wonder if Schumacher is really really fast?
My top 5 has Prost, Senna, Schumacher in it. In fact, i’d rather compare Prost with Senna, than Schumacher and again, Senna ain’t getting my vote. I rooted for Senna, but Prost i must say, was simply better.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 30th May 2008, 9:36
On the 161 results idea – I don’t actually think this will tell us very much because however you sliced it up would be completely arbitrary. Should you take the first 161 or the last? Or a group from the middle? Either way all you’re doing is skewing the data for no reason.