And it’s a pretty weak argument to claim he didn’t deserve the title simply because he had less mechanical failures.
My argument is, he was all too lucky in the championship chase. He was also very lucky in Indianapolis. Once the rain fell the Bridgestone’s did all the work. Without Kimi’s constant plague in Qualifying and his engine blow-out in Europe, he would’ve won that championship by a solid margin. Same goes with Montoya, who’s car let him down twice when he was leading.
How many people point out how poor Alonso supposedly was in 2010 because he had less car failures than Vettel and Hamilton?
Difference is, Ferrari was the third best car than season (arguably second) while Red Bull had the fastest package by quite some margin. In 2003, no team had any real advantage, that was until Schumacher was gifted the title when all Michelin teams were forced to change to the old 2001-compound midway the season. Despite that, he was still very lucky that he was hardly ever plagued with misfortunes unlike his two biggest rivals – who barely had 3 years of experience, while he was already a 5 time champion.
Schumacher won it fairly, and that’s all that matters.
Don’t even get me started on the Michelin tyre saga. :(
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Schumacher; in fact, he’s in my top 5 all-time greats. However, his 2003 title just happened to be one of the most undeserving in recent history.