I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Except that, in their positions at the top of their sport, the tennis players can afford to buy in the very best coaches, fitness trainers, etc to keep them at their peak. They also don't travel around the world economy class like those struggling with the lower world rankings or have to buy their own clothes and equipment. In any event, these days tennis players only win because they are tall - it makes serving so much easier. Being over 6' 4" in tennis is like having a F1 Ferrari engine; being 6' 8" like having a Mercedes engine. They should be handicapped and made to stand further back behind the baseline for serves.
Anyway, well done Lewis, doing over the Germans.
You are unlikely to get a drive if you are 6' 4" and definitely won't if you weigh 12 stone these days. But you can win at the highest level at tennis being the same height as the likes of Hamilton. As Michael Chang, Lleyton Hewitt and Kei Nishikori have proven.
It's hard to argue against results, but when engineering... when figuring out the best way to bend an exhaust pipe or screw is regarded as the pinnacle of sport... I dunno, it doesn't feel quite the same.
I don't get the tax-dodging remarks. It's a nomadic job that takes him all around the world, so why should he want to pay his taxes in the UK? He only does one race here. Maybe a fairer way of doing it would be that all the drivers pay UK tax for the week of the British GP, as that's where they're earning their wage for that week...........
I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Except that, in their positions at the top of their sport, the tennis players can afford to buy in the very best coaches, fitness trainers, etc to keep them at their peak. They also don't travel around the world economy class like those struggling with the lower world rankings or have to buy their own clothes and equipment. In any event, these days tennis players only win because they are tall - it makes serving so much easier. Being over 6' 4" in tennis is like having a F1 Ferrari engine; being 6' 8" like having a Mercedes engine. They should be handicapped and made to stand further back behind the baseline for serves.
Anyway, well done Lewis, doing over the Germans.
You are unlikely to get a drive if you are 6' 4" and definitely won't if you weigh 12 stone these days. But you can win at the highest level at tennis being the same height as the likes of Hamilton. As Michael Chang, Lleyton Hewitt and Kei Nishikori have proven.
Lleyton Hewitt is 5'11", only one 2 grand slams in his career and only reached one other final. Michael Chang is 5'9", only won a single grand slam, reaching only 2 finals. Kei Nishikori is also 5'11, only reached a single slam final, which he lost.
So far from proving your point, it just shows what a handicap height is in tennis. I don't know a lot about Kei Nishikori, but the other two would have definitely won more slams if they'd been the tour average 6'3" or taller, so their lack of height (and Hewitt isn't exactly a midget) definitely preventing them winning as much as their ability would have allowed otherwise.
F1 is a team sport. Think of it like NFL, the driver is the quarter back. He has the biggest single influence on the result, but there 50 other people in the team that make victory possible.
I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Except that, in their positions at the top of their sport, the tennis players can afford to buy in the very best coaches, fitness trainers, etc to keep them at their peak. They also don't travel around the world economy class like those struggling with the lower world rankings or have to buy their own clothes and equipment. In any event, these days tennis players only win because they are tall - it makes serving so much easier. Being over 6' 4" in tennis is like having a F1 Ferrari engine; being 6' 8" like having a Mercedes engine. They should be handicapped and made to stand further back behind the baseline for serves.
Anyway, well done Lewis, doing over the Germans.
That's not true, the best players in the World (Fed, Djok, Nadal, Murray) are all between 6'1 and 6'3. The very tall players can lack mobility around the court and find it harder to play the ball at their feet.
Indeed that seems to be a good height for footballers, you could play in any position
I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Except that, in their positions at the top of their sport, the tennis players can afford to buy in the very best coaches, fitness trainers, etc to keep them at their peak. They also don't travel around the world economy class like those struggling with the lower world rankings or have to buy their own clothes and equipment. In any event, these days tennis players only win because they are tall - it makes serving so much easier. Being over 6' 4" in tennis is like having a F1 Ferrari engine; being 6' 8" like having a Mercedes engine. They should be handicapped and made to stand further back behind the baseline for serves.
Anyway, well done Lewis, doing over the Germans.
That's not true, the best players in the World (Fed, Djok, Nadal, Murray) are all between 6'1 and 6'3. The very tall players can lack mobility around the court and find it harder to play the ball at their feet.
Indeed that seems to be a good height for footballers, you could play in any position
That's true, I guess but being tall is quite similar to having the engine advantage. How else could lugs like Berdych 6' 5", Karlovic 6' 8", Cilic 6' 6", and particularly Kevin Anderson 6' 8" and John Isner 6' 10" have a snowflake in hell's chance of being a top-ranked player?
I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Except that, in their positions at the top of their sport, the tennis players can afford to buy in the very best coaches, fitness trainers, etc to keep them at their peak. They also don't travel around the world economy class like those struggling with the lower world rankings or have to buy their own clothes and equipment. In any event, these days tennis players only win because they are tall - it makes serving so much easier. Being over 6' 4" in tennis is like having a F1 Ferrari engine; being 6' 8" like having a Mercedes engine. They should be handicapped and made to stand further back behind the baseline for serves.
Anyway, well done Lewis, doing over the Germans.
That's not true, the best players in the World (Fed, Djok, Nadal, Murray) are all between 6'1 and 6'3. The very tall players can lack mobility around the court and find it harder to play the ball at their feet.
Indeed that seems to be a good height for footballers, you could play in any position
That's true, I guess but being tall is quite similar to having the engine advantage. How else could lugs like Berdych 6' 5", Karlovic 6' 8", Cilic 6' 6", and particularly Kevin Anderson 6' 8" and John Isner 6' 10" have a snowflake in hell's chance of being a top-ranked player?
There is a trade off between stature/power and speed/touch in tennis but the balance has definitely shifted towards the bigger players due to better fitness regimes and racket technology.
I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Oh now there's a surprise just look at those final standings:
1. Hamilton - Mercedes - 381 2. Rosberg - Mercedes - 322 3. Vettel - Ferrari - 278 4. Raikkonen - Ferrari - 150 5. Bottas - Williams - 136 6. Msssa - Williams - 121 7. Kvyat - Red Bull - 95 8. Ricciardo - Red Bull - 92 9. Perez - Force India - 78 10. Hulkenberg - Force India - 58
I realise "engineering" is vital to the sport but, in this case, it is merely a euphemism for "manipulating the end result".
The interest in F1 Is as much about supporting the teams as it the drivers. Fans tend to wear team kit and hats, as well as individual drivers product. The better teams attract the money and attract the better drivers so its no suprise about the point standings.
The closeness in the standings of the Williams and Red Bulls (especially) is amazing. Indeed the only big points gap is between the 2 Ferraris.
F1 does tend to get like this, when one car is dominant. The best seasons are when 2 or 3 manufacturers are close enough that driving talent, tactics and luck can make all the difference.
Why does each team get two drivers ? What's the logic behind that ? Seems to cause more problems than it solves and makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
Why does each team get two drivers ? What's the logic behind that ? Seems to cause more problems than it solves and makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
It's because you have to enter a two car team, and it's a bit difficult for one driver and a bit crowded with three.
Some teams ran one car in the past ie Wolf & Ensign and others ran 3 or 4 such as March, but when Bernie took over he standardised the two car format.
Why does each team get two drivers ? What's the logic behind that ? Seems to cause more problems than it solves and makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
It's because you have to enter a two car team, and it's a bit difficult for one driver and a bit crowded with three.
Some teams ran one car in the past ie Wolf & Ensign and others ran 3 or 4 such as March, but when Bernie took over he standardised the two car format.
Sure, but why do you have to enter a two car team ?
The interest in F1 Is as much about supporting the teams as it the drivers. Fans tend to wear team kit and hats, as well as individual drivers product. The better teams attract the money and attract the better drivers so its no suprise about the point standings.
I'd love to see the word "team" defined in the context of F1 because, on the one hand, team orders are allegedly "outlawed" and on the other you only have to see yesterday's interview to recognise that the drivers are anything but a team:
And I'm sorry I do not believe for one minute that the best driver has finished first, the second best has finished second, the third has finished third etc etc because if Hamilton was driving for say McLaren he too wouldn't get in the top 10 let alone win it.
Why does each team get two drivers ? What's the logic behind that ? Seems to cause more problems than it solves and makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
It's because you have to enter a two car team, and it's a bit difficult for one driver and a bit crowded with three.
Some teams ran one car in the past ie Wolf & Ensign and others ran 3 or 4 such as March, but when Bernie took over he standardised the two car format.
Sure, but why do you have to enter a two car team ?
My take on it, for what it's worth, is that it is probably not an economically viable option to run a single car. The infrastructure needs to be huge (much, much more expensive than running a Championship level football club for example). It's estimated that the ten teams spent a total of €2600mn this season. So economies of scale (and double the bodywork surface area to put nice, income earning advertisements).
I will never understand why the best British sports stars are often so hated. Hamilton, Rooney, Murray come to mind.
Hamilton for example should be a national treasure - but not many people like him!
I have nothing against Hamilton and do actually admire him for his success.
However, I do feel that a sport where there is such a heavy weighting on the equipment utilised does undermine the achievements of the individual.
The evidence of all of this is there for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that the final drivers championship will actually look like this:
1. Mercedes 2. Mercedes 3. Ferrari 4. Ferrari 5. Williams 6. Williams 7. Red Bull 8. Red Bull
So, we have four teams who are each better than each other with the rest nowhere. But only one out of two drivers can actually win the Championship and that has, in previous years, actually been determined by the team through what is euphemistically known as "team orders".
As I say I admire Hamilton for what he has achieved. But I will always struggle to be convinced that his achievements match that of tennis players such as Federer, Djokovic or dare I even mention that of Andy Murray. Because none of those players have ever started their matches with equipment that is twice as good as that of their opponents.
Except that, in their positions at the top of their sport, the tennis players can afford to buy in the very best coaches, fitness trainers, etc to keep them at their peak. They also don't travel around the world economy class like those struggling with the lower world rankings or have to buy their own clothes and equipment. In any event, these days tennis players only win because they are tall - it makes serving so much easier. Being over 6' 4" in tennis is like having a F1 Ferrari engine; being 6' 8" like having a Mercedes engine. They should be handicapped and made to stand further back behind the baseline for serves.
Anyway, well done Lewis, doing over the Germans.
It's a shame being a 6' 7'' forward in football doesn't guarantee you domination in the air and a good game every week..........oh sorry wrong thread
Sure, but why do you have to enter a two car team ?
I think it's a question of money. When Eccleston really took over in the mid seventies Grand Prix often had a very long entry list. Cars used to be entered into races as one offs ie in Japan there were a couple of teams using old Tyrell's and local cars, and in Britain a few cars from the Aurora championship like Desire Wilsons old Williams were entered. Teams also used to sometimes enter a third car Gilles Villeneuve and Mansell got drives like these. It was a bit messy and organisers sometimes used to play the teams off against each other, arranging non championship events etc.
Eccleston set up FOCA and made it professional, teams had to agree to his rules to join, and he took control of the finances recieved from advertisers, from TV companies and racetracks. He limited the numbers who could join and he ensured that there were between 20 and 26 cars at EVERY race. In previous years teams used to pick and choose what races to go to, some races would have 11 or 12 cars only. Each team recieved a share of the money from Bernie if they were members, and if they were members they had to enter two cars, otherwise he couldn't guarantee a full grid.
Some teams entered third cars which didn't qualify for points, but may have earned extra sponsorship or gave a young driver experience, but in those days the engines were Ford Cosworths and it was relatively cheap to race another car. Nowadays with the engine restrictions and costs you wouldn't be able to occasionally enter a third car.
The allocation of garages at racetracks was also important. Each team is given the same space and layout because of the kit they have to bring. In the seventies you used to see teams working from car parks and the pit lane verges because there weren't enough garages to go around. At Monaco teams used to work in a multi store carpark and drive the cars to/from the circuit each day, but the amount of kit, transporters, catering and hospitality that teams bring means that space is limited.
When the number of cars fell to 20 Ecclestone warned the teams, that in order to maintain reasonable sized grids, he may require the top five teams to race a third car to keep audiences happy. This "threat" wasn't required as new teams Caterham, Virgin and one I can't remember joined. So there has in effect been a two car team since the eighties, with teams wishing to enter just one being discouraged.
Comments
I think he's okay, personally.
Apart from that he drives a multi million pound fast car.
So far from proving your point, it just shows what a handicap height is in tennis. I don't know a lot about Kei Nishikori, but the other two would have definitely won more slams if they'd been the tour average 6'3" or taller, so their lack of height (and Hewitt isn't exactly a midget) definitely preventing them winning as much as their ability would have allowed otherwise.
F1 is a team sport. Think of it like NFL, the driver is the quarter back. He has the biggest single influence on the result, but there 50 other people in the team that make victory possible.
Indeed that seems to be a good height for footballers, you could play in any position
[stir] [stir]
I would suggest that it's nothing to do with Hamilton's domination of the sport.
1. Hamilton - Mercedes - 381
2. Rosberg - Mercedes - 322
3. Vettel - Ferrari - 278
4. Raikkonen - Ferrari - 150
5. Bottas - Williams - 136
6. Msssa - Williams - 121
7. Kvyat - Red Bull - 95
8. Ricciardo - Red Bull - 92
9. Perez - Force India - 78
10. Hulkenberg - Force India - 58
I realise "engineering" is vital to the sport but, in this case, it is merely a euphemism for "manipulating the end result".
F1 does tend to get like this, when one car is dominant. The best seasons are when 2 or 3 manufacturers are close enough that driving talent, tactics and luck can make all the difference.
Some teams ran one car in the past ie Wolf & Ensign and others ran 3 or 4 such as March, but when Bernie took over he standardised the two car format.
skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/10084112/will-lewis-and-nico-swap-christmas-presents
And I'm sorry I do not believe for one minute that the best driver has finished first, the second best has finished second, the third has finished third etc etc because if Hamilton was driving for say McLaren he too wouldn't get in the top 10 let alone win it.
Sure, but why do you have to enter a two car team ?
I think it's a question of money. When Eccleston really took over in the mid seventies Grand Prix often had a very long entry list. Cars used to be entered into races as one offs ie in Japan there were a couple of teams using old Tyrell's and local cars, and in Britain a few cars from the Aurora championship like Desire Wilsons old Williams were entered. Teams also used to sometimes enter a third car Gilles Villeneuve and Mansell got drives like these. It was a bit messy and organisers sometimes used to play the teams off against each other, arranging non championship events etc.
Eccleston set up FOCA and made it professional, teams had to agree to his rules to join, and he took control of the finances recieved from advertisers, from TV companies and racetracks. He limited the numbers who could join and he ensured that there were between 20 and 26 cars at EVERY race. In previous years teams used to pick and choose what races to go to, some races would have 11 or 12 cars only. Each team recieved a share of the money from Bernie if they were members, and if they were members they had to enter two cars, otherwise he couldn't guarantee a full grid.
Some teams entered third cars which didn't qualify for points, but may have earned extra sponsorship or gave a young driver experience, but in those days the engines were Ford Cosworths and it was relatively cheap to race another car. Nowadays with the engine restrictions and costs you wouldn't be able to occasionally enter a third car.
The allocation of garages at racetracks was also important. Each team is given the same space and layout because of the kit they have to bring. In the seventies you used to see teams working from car parks and the pit lane verges because there weren't enough garages to go around. At Monaco teams used to work in a multi store carpark and drive the cars to/from the circuit each day, but the amount of kit, transporters, catering and hospitality that teams bring means that space is limited.
When the number of cars fell to 20 Ecclestone warned the teams, that in order to maintain reasonable sized grids, he may require the top five teams to race a third car to keep audiences happy. This "threat" wasn't required as new teams Caterham, Virgin and one I can't remember joined. So there has in effect been a two car team since the eighties, with teams wishing to enter just one being discouraged.
He came from 14th to win
But his win has been placed under doubt after he was summoned to report to the stewards for allegedly crossing the pit entry line