Schuttelberg wrote:Andres125sx wrote:
Really?
Yes, emphatically. In the Alonso/Ferrari relationship, the strategy calls were generally as good as the Red Bull. Ferrari's reliability was always better than that of the Red Bull. The two drivers (Vettel and Alonso) were evenly matched, however I would say Alonso was overall slightly better. The place where they suffered was in season development, a stronger second driver and on a personal note, team morale. As the years went by, 'how do we make Alonso champion?' seemed to overtake the sentiment 'how do we become champions?'
What is the difference? Massa obviously couldn´t fight for anything, he was consistently half a second slower and very far for the title fight
Schuttelberg wrote: Team spirit? I think this also has been done to death and you may not want to admit it, but it was not as healthy as it could have been.
It was for at least the first three and a half seasons. After loosing two titles so painfully the relationship turned south, agree, but reading this sort of arguments I always wonder what where you (or anyone stating this) watching in 2010, 2011, 2012 and first half of 2013. The whole team was delighted with him, and he continously cheered both the race team and factory team
But if you loose two titles, and then the car becomes 3th-4th car in the grid, that simply was too frustrating for Alonso. Can you blame him for that?
Schuttelberg wrote:I'm sorry but Alonso is one of the most integral parts of that team and also a reason why they couldn't become champions.
Me, like many more people including non Alonso supporters, think it´s the other way around, ferrari only fought for titles thanks to Alonso, as RBR was a far superior car wich made look Vettel faultless even when he was not
Even Hamilton agree with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... ettel.html
Lewis Hamilton wrote:“Fernando, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Sebastian misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn’t do that lap even if I was on the limit’. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.
Specially 2012 was so awesome I can´t understand how someone can say he was responsible for not becoming champions. Without Alonso they would have never been title contenders. Just take a look at Massa perfomance those seasons.
Schuttelberg wrote:You're wrong again! When Alonso was made to box, Massa already had done so (a ploy by Ferrari to get him ahead of Webber) and the main reason to get him in was because the lap times were fading on the soft tyres. Also, if they didn't pit Alonso, they left him vulnerable to the undercut to Webber who was in a better position compared to Vettel in championship standings. We are all smarter after the event. At the time no one knew the softs would come back to life and it only made sense to cover Webber.
Maybe you´re right but think about this, how many times did Ferrari win a strategy battle and how many times they lose it in past 5-10 seasons?
It cannot be a coincidence, their strategy decisions are more often wrong than correct
Schuttelberg wrote:Why don't you mention the fact that Alonso lost a place to Button at the start? Aren't his 'flying' starts often mentioned by his fans as part of his prowess? .
Yes, but if he sometime can´t make one of those great starts, that cannot be considered a mistake. It was not a bad start, but Button made it better. Also, even after loosing that position, they still were on a position good enough to win the title.
Schuttelberg wrote:They simply over estimated the degradation!
And that was his mistake. Mercedes didnt and won the race. Ok they were leading, but Ferrari made it too easy for Mercedes showing their strategy so soon
When it´s a strategic battle, showing your cards is a gift to your rival