[Iestyn Davies]

Inspired by the current WDC deserving another WDC thread, I posted what I felt was an all-time list of WDCs deserved by amount. Here I will list my choices by year and want to see if you agree or disagree.

1950 – Fangio
1951 – Fangio
1952 – Ascari
1953 – Ascari
1954 – Fangio
1955 – Fangio
1956 – Fangio
1957 – Fangio
1958 – Moss
1959 – Moss
1960 – Brabham
1961 – Moss
1962 – Clark
1963 – Clark
1964 – Clark
1965 – Clark
1966 – Brabham
1967 – Clark
1968 – Clark (Hill)
1969 – Stewart
1970 – Rindt
1971 – Stewart
1972 – Fittipaldi
1973 – Stewart
1974 – Fittipaldi
1975 – Lauda
1976 – Lauda
1977 – Lauda
1978 – Andretti/Peterson
1979 – Villeneuve
1980 – Jones
1981 – Reutemann
1982 – Villeneuve
1983 – Villeneuve
1984 – Prost
1985 – Prost
1986 – Piquet
1987 – Mansell
1988 – Prost
1989 – Senna
1990 – Senna
1991 – Senna
1992 – Mansell
1993 – Prost
1994 – Senna
1995 – Schumacher
1996 – Senna
1997 – Senna
1998 – Hakkinen
1999 – Hakkinen
2000 – Schumacher
2001 – Schumacher
2002 – Schumacher
2003 – Montoya
2004 – Schumacher
2005 – Raikkonen
2006 – Alonso
2007 – Alonso
2008 – Raikkonen
2009 – Button
2010 – Vettel
2011 – Vettel
2012 – Hamilton

In making my choices, I tried to take factors out of the equation that are unlucky/outside of the driver’s control. This can range from reasonably unlucky retirements to career/life ending incidents. But I tried to see if I could arrive at a point that justifies most people’s opinions on the best drivers to have been in F1.

This leaves me with –
6 – Fangio, Clark, Senna
5 – Schumacher
4 – Prost
3 – Moss, Stewart, Lauda, Villeneuve
2 – Ascari, Brabham, Fittipaldi, Mansell, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Alonso, Vettel
1 – Rindt, Andretti/Peterson, Jones, Reutemann, Piquet, Montoya, Button, Hamilton

You could easily change 1968 to Graham Hill, going with Clark’s death, and perhaps give Moss one of Fangio’s championships (don’t really know the 50’s period well), and I think this would then line up very neatly with what most people identify as say a list of the best 25 F1 drivers, e.g. the BBC list (the one I prefer, incidentally).

The list also lines up periods of dominance very neatly, and it looks like we will enter the Vettel vs. Hamilton struggle now, as the Alonso vs. Raikkonen period ends. I see it as periods of dominance by: FANGIO-MOSS-CLARK-STEWART-LAUDA-VILLENEUVE-PROST-SENNA-SCHUMACHER-ALONSO-VETTEL; with periods of being runner up in the history books going to: ASCARI-BRABHAM-FITTIPALDI-PIQUET-MANSELL-HAKKINEN-RAIKKONEN-HAMILTON-BUTTON/ROSBERG.

[Michael]

That’s an interesting post and I commend you for going through every year and picking the driver that you felt deserved the WDC. At the same time, I don’t see how folks can measure Clark, Fangio, Ascari and others unless they were there to watch them. Even today with the advent of HD and the wealth of coverage of all races, qualifying, and practice by folks who really know their stuff it’s still very hard to measure drivers.

But my main question is this one:-) How could you pick Alonso over Hamilton in 2007? Any rookie that loses the championship by a point and at the same time ties a 2-time WDC deserves to win in my book.

[Iestyn Davies]

It’s a good question, and I can only really comment on 1997 onwards as that is the time in which I have seen F1 live on the TV.

For 2007, I agree that Hamilton did a really amazing job, same with 2008, but 2007 in particular for being his debut year. But, I feel that with the team’s backing (I felt they religiously backed Hamilton at the time), Alonso would have picked up more points and been the team’s best chance of a DWC, vs. Raikkonen. Mainly, I feel that the penalty Alonso got at Hungary was very harsh – I found it a team matter and nothing for the FIA/race stewards to intervene in (if they do so there, why not now about a lack of timed laps in Q3). The team said something about Hamilton not letting Alonso past in the fuel burn phase and I guess that was payback by Alonso (in a Schumi-esque style!). Admittedly, Hamilton looks likely to get pole anyway – but Alonso being on the podium here means he has only 4 non-podium finishes for the season, in contrast to Hamilton and Raikkonen’s 5. I concede that this is slightly spurious – as Hamilton was particularly unlucky in China to end up in the pit lane gravel trap (what on earth were the team doing?!).

2007 is definitely one of the hardest years to rate! I imagine Raikkonen would win under the current points system – 25 for a win and so on. I consider Hamilton’s 2007 to be similar to Raikkonen’s 2003 – a lot of consistency and front running which established a new talent as a sure-fire championship contender, and one who could consider themselves unlucky to lose out at the final race.

[Kingshark]

Define “deserving”. Is a driver who has one or two reliability issues considered unlucky, but a driver who has to drive a slower car not considered unlucky?

These were, in my opinion, the best drivers each year, and only lost out because their car was inferior one way or another (whether reliability or speed).

I’m only going to list the post-2000’s since those were the years in my age group/generation.

2000 – Michael Schumacher
2001 – Michael Schumacher
2002 – Michael Schumacher
2003 – Kimi Raikkonen
2004 – Michael Schumacher
2005 – Fernando Alonso
2006 – Fernando Alonso
2007 – Kimi Raikkonen
2008 – Felipe Massa
2009 – Sebastian Vettel
2010 – Lewis Hamilton
2011 – Sebastian Vettel
2012 – Fernando Alonso

Those were, year by year, the best drivers of the season.

[Iestyn Davies]

I suppose my list is more towards the former – it takes the whole picture into account, and that often means heavy team emphasis. I would say your list is more logical when placed squarely on driver ability – heck, I would probably agree with you on it, to be honest. I have a soft spot for Kubica and saw on here Keith rated him number one for 2008.

I also think that with a few changes of luck, your list is also feasible as a WDC list, perhaps more so than mine! For a Raikkonen win in 2008, my list would require Ferrari to keep him as number one driver, develop the car around him rather than Massa, and then beat Lewis to WDC by winning such races as the controversial Spa 2008 (which I still feel he was robbed of, but what a hectic lap that was!), France 2008 exhaust loss etc.

I think the ranking of Schumacher – 4, Alonso – 3, Raikkonen, Vettel – 2, Massa, Hamilton – 1 is a fair reflection of the 2000-2012 years. I would be tempted to look at whether JPM could challenge Schumi for one of those years, likely 2001 or 2003.

[Chiz]

How can you NOT have Alonso in 2005, 2010 or 2012? 2007 is 50/50 as he was screwed over by a dubious penalty. Also how can you have vettel in 2009. Crashes while second in Aus, spins in Malaysia, drive thru+drives over kerb damaging his gearbox/diffuser in Singapore among the many driver mistakes he made that year while driving the fastest car in the grid (Yes, the red bull was faster than the brawn over the course of the season).

2000-2002 Schumi
03 Raikkonen
04 Schumi
05-07 Alonso
08 Hamilton/Massa. I’d say Hamilton (ferrari were faster than McLaren in 06-08)
09 Button
10 Alonso
11 Vettel
12 Alonso
13 Vettel so far

[Diceman]

From the time I have followed F1, I’d say:
1999: Frentzen
2000: Schumacher
2001: Schumacher
2002: Schumacher
2003: Räikkönen
2004: Schumacher
2005: Hmm, difficult one, since both Alonso and Räikkönen were fantastic that year. Can’t decide really.
2006: Alonso
2007: Hamilton
2008: Kubica
2009: Vettel
2010: Vettel
2011: Vettel
2012: Alonso

[safeeuropeanhome]

I find it very strange that you can say the likes of Villeneuve and Senna deserved to win in 83 and 96/97 given they didn’t compete in either season. You’ve tailored your decision based on how many titles in total you think each driver deserved and then tried to make the numbers fit, its your thread but I don’t think that is the right approach. Ones I would disagree with from the original list:

79 I think Scheckter deserved that title
81 Piquet – Reutemann bottled the end of the season, Nelson did what was needed when the time was right
83 Prost
86 Mansell
88 Senna
89 Prost
93 Senna
94 Schumacher
96 Hill
97 Schumacher
99 Frentzen
03 Raikkonen
05 Alonso
07 Hamilton
08 Hamilton
10 Vettel
12 Hamilton

[Magnificent Geoffrey]

I’d say that Kubica deserved both 2008 and 2010.

[Asanator]

LOL, how can you say Senna deserved to win 94, 96 and 97….he was dead! He was being roundly beaten by Schumacher in 94 and errrr…..was DEAD in 96/97. Just ridiculous!

[safeeuropeanhome]

Kubica drove well in 2010, but looked better than he was because Petrov was rubbish in the sister car. Vettel would have walked 2010 if his car had been reliable. 2008 Kubica has a strong claim.

[Iestyn Davies]

I’ll admit I have wanted to see whether their achievements, had they lived, would stack them in an ‘all-time hall of fame’. I do think they would be strong in those seasons (guessing Schumacher would win in 1995, he dominated Hill that year from the looks of it), and I can’t see Schumacher taking out Senna to win the 1994 title! Senna in the modified 94 Williams, 96 Williams and 97 Williams should be unstoppable. In 95 it appears that the Benetton was closer matched to the Williams if not better. But this was all just before I became old enough to follow Formula 1.

82 & 83 Ferrari won the WDC despite such a tragic year for drivers – hard to see Villeneuve not winning 82, admittedly in 1983 Prost and Piquet would be a huge factor. With the amount of retirements, you would really have to watch the season to guess, but I imagine Villeneuve would hold them both off for the title, given some team orders to help him out, bringing the best of both Ferrari’s points that year.

81 – I had as Piquet’s until making this thread. I agree that it seems very Vettel-like in that they did what they needed to do to win (good ol’ Bernie). I do feel that Reutemann deserves a WDC though, and there is a lot of controversy that year, including a disallowed GP, and a car in the final race that didn’t seem the same as before, from what I’ve read :).

I am sure that a pure driver only list would be very different from my list and I would be inclined to agree myself. I notice not much love for Raikkonen in a lot of lists, while I share the admiration for Kubica. I suppose my list is a bit ‘whole-picture’ like, including the team combination. I did support Frentzen in the 1999 season as well!

[Kingshark]

@magnificent-geoffrey

I’d say that Kubica deserved both 2008 and 2010.

How did Kubica deserve 2010 when he couldn’t even beat Rosberg in give or take equal cars? ;-)

[Todfod]

I’m just gonna talk about the last 10 seasons..

2003 – Raikkonen
2004 – Schumacher
2005 – Raikkonen
2006 – Alonso
2007 – Hamilton
2008 – Kubica
2009 – Hamilton
2010 – Alonso
2011 – Vettel
2012 – Alonso

That would make Raikkonen and Hamilton double WDCs and Alonso a triple WDC. If only life was this fair

[Nick]

@Diceman

1999: Frentzen

That’s probably the first time since 1999 I’ve heard that. Not to attack your opinion, but in my opinion, Frentzen drove really well, but did lack the consistency to win the WDC, while the two who battled for the WDC were pretty inconsistent themselves that year.

Since I’ve been watching: (plus any other driver who I would have been content with winning)
1998: Hakkinen (Schumacher)
1999: Hakkinen (Schumacher)
2000: Schumacher (Hakkinen)
2001: Schumacher
2002: Schumacher
2003: Räikkönen (Schumacher, Montoya)
2004: Schumacher
2005: Raikkonen (Alonso)
2006: Alonso (Schumacher)
2007: Raikkonen (Hamilton, Alonso)
2008: Massa (Hamilton, Kubica)
2009: Vettel (Webber)
2010: Vettel (Alonso, Webber)
2011: Vettel
2012: Alonso (Vettel)

2013, so far: Vettel. Alonso and Raikkonen need to step up.

[Author]

Posts