Definitely not. The Macca could've dominated nearly every weekend from Miami-Sao Paolo, but execution got in the way. When they got the execution right at places like Hungary, Zandvoort, and Singapore, they dominated.
I have a feeling that the car is not as good as it was since the ban of their flexi wings. It seems that both drivers look to struggle more than they did before.
Ferrari seems very pessimistic about Qatar. On the other hand it has been nearly impossible to predict the pecking order since Monza or so, so Ferrari could very well overperform while McLaren falls flat.
Such a big logical fallacy with statements like this, it's not even worth countering anymore, but I'll chip in this one last time. Won't bother anymore for this season.
Nearly every weekend. There maybe 3-4 weekends out of those where they weren't outright fastest in race trim.Ben1980 wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 19:15Eh? Every weekend? Really?
My argument is not "because they dominated on those tracks they should've dominated on all the others". My argument is that we simply saw them be the fastest car on a bunch of weekends and not convert that into wins. Canada, Spain, GB, Monza, Belgium, Mexico, Sao Paolo. The reason they didn't manage to convert those to wins can be debated on a case to case basis. Sometimes it was bad luck (Canada), sometimes poor strategic execution (GB, Monza), and sometimes poor driver execution (Spain, Belgium, Sao Paolo). Point is the car was great during this stretch, clearly the best and most consistent car in race trim. Domination was within reach if the execution had been there.Emag wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 18:43Such a big logical fallacy with statements like this, it's not even worth countering anymore, but I'll chip in this one last time. Won't bother anymore for this season.
The reasoning of "Since team x dominated on track a,b,c then it must then mean that they should dominate track d,e,f as well" is incredibly flawed. The fact that there are definitely weakly executed races on McLaren's part, does not automatically give you the right to assume total domination was possible with perfect execution without any hint of argument or data to support that claim.
The races they dominated, they did so because they had a lot of pace at hand and no close competitors. The ones they didn't dominate, it's because there was no decisive or overwhelming pace advantage and unless you're incredibly biased, the data speaks for itself in that regard. On top of that, on most of those races there were multiple competitors within arms reach of each other. That means that the slightest mistakes in execution are far more costly position-wise.
Now, of course, you can believe whatever you want. However what you believe and what you can logically conclude on the basis of true statements are two different things. For your reasoning of "The Macca could've dominated nearly every weekend from Miami-Sao Paolo" to be true, then you are also implying a couple of other statements that are associated with that claim. I am only going to list 3 here, for the sake of the argument:
1. McLaren are very weak operationally
2. McLaren's drivers are significantly lacking raw pace to RedBull, Ferrari and Mercedes drivers
3. McLaren's ultimate performance level for every track, must automatically be assumed to be whatever their performance was, at their best-resulting track.
Now, if you want to make a point for the first two, then go ahead. I wouldn't agree with you, but I don't want to focus on that anyway.
The real point I want to focus on, is the third, since it's the strongest implication that comes from your line of reasoning. Do you sincerely believe that McLaren's pace potential has been the same as it was in a track like Zandvoort for the entire Miami-Brazil stretch, yet the only thing that has held them back has been execution (both in driver and team level)?
If yes and you don't see anything wrong with this statement, then you're deluded.
They have definitely thrown points this season with bad execution, but to claim they could have won every race since Miami is just wrong. Expected and pretty easy to justify why people would say it, but wrong nonetheless.
The reason why people say these things it's down to simple human nature really and in the context of this sport it's just Schadenfreude and Cognitive Bias that comes from fans of other teams. It's really not so complicated. Fan of Team X sees Team Y do good while Team X is doing not so good. Since the fan has motivated reasoning to interpret facts or situations in a way that aligns with their desires or preconceived notions, then of course this fan will paint every situation in a light that minimizes Team Y achievements while making Team X look good (or less bad).
Team X wins a race -> "Oh but it's so easy with a car like that, Team Y (or Z) never had a chance"
Team Y wins against Team X -> "Oh my god I can't believe Team X threw so bad to give up the race win while having the fastest car, that was a pathetic performance"
And so on and so forth.
Bias will unfortunately be excessively obvious in discussions here. From all points of view.
I think it's fair to argue we could have dominated the podium in a set period of time, particularly the top step, but I don't think the advantage in pace over a lap or a race, was ever particularly dominant. Yes, if we'd done our jobs properly then we'd have some more wins and who knows, perhaps the WDC might have been realistic, but that doesn't make the car dominant over the field over one lap. It is fair to say that the car was consistently one of the best over most of the season and that the results didn't match the cars potential.Cs98 wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 20:27My argument is not "because they dominated on those tracks they should've dominated on all the others". My argument is that we simply saw them be the fastest car on a bunch of weekends and not convert that into wins. Canada, Spain, GB, Monza, Belgium, Mexico, Sao Paolo. The reason they didn't manage to convert those to wins can be debated on a case to case basis. Sometimes it was bad luck (Canada), sometimes poor strategic execution (GB, Monza), and sometimes poor driver execution (Spain, Belgium, Sao Paolo). Point is the car was great during this stretch, clearly the best and most consistent car in race trim. Domination was within reach if the execution had been there.Emag wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 18:43Such a big logical fallacy with statements like this, it's not even worth countering anymore, but I'll chip in this one last time. Won't bother anymore for this season.
The reasoning of "Since team x dominated on track a,b,c then it must then mean that they should dominate track d,e,f as well" is incredibly flawed. The fact that there are definitely weakly executed races on McLaren's part, does not automatically give you the right to assume total domination was possible with perfect execution without any hint of argument or data to support that claim.
The races they dominated, they did so because they had a lot of pace at hand and no close competitors. The ones they didn't dominate, it's because there was no decisive or overwhelming pace advantage and unless you're incredibly biased, the data speaks for itself in that regard. On top of that, on most of those races there were multiple competitors within arms reach of each other. That means that the slightest mistakes in execution are far more costly position-wise.
Now, of course, you can believe whatever you want. However what you believe and what you can logically conclude on the basis of true statements are two different things. For your reasoning of "The Macca could've dominated nearly every weekend from Miami-Sao Paolo" to be true, then you are also implying a couple of other statements that are associated with that claim. I am only going to list 3 here, for the sake of the argument:
1. McLaren are very weak operationally
2. McLaren's drivers are significantly lacking raw pace to RedBull, Ferrari and Mercedes drivers
3. McLaren's ultimate performance level for every track, must automatically be assumed to be whatever their performance was, at their best-resulting track.
Now, if you want to make a point for the first two, then go ahead. I wouldn't agree with you, but I don't want to focus on that anyway.
The real point I want to focus on, is the third, since it's the strongest implication that comes from your line of reasoning. Do you sincerely believe that McLaren's pace potential has been the same as it was in a track like Zandvoort for the entire Miami-Brazil stretch, yet the only thing that has held them back has been execution (both in driver and team level)?
If yes and you don't see anything wrong with this statement, then you're deluded.
They have definitely thrown points this season with bad execution, but to claim they could have won every race since Miami is just wrong. Expected and pretty easy to justify why people would say it, but wrong nonetheless.
The reason why people say these things it's down to simple human nature really and in the context of this sport it's just Schadenfreude and Cognitive Bias that comes from fans of other teams. It's really not so complicated. Fan of Team X sees Team Y do good while Team X is doing not so good. Since the fan has motivated reasoning to interpret facts or situations in a way that aligns with their desires or preconceived notions, then of course this fan will paint every situation in a light that minimizes Team Y achievements while making Team X look good (or less bad).
Team X wins a race -> "Oh but it's so easy with a car like that, Team Y (or Z) never had a chance"
Team Y wins against Team X -> "Oh my god I can't believe Team X threw so bad to give up the race win while having the fastest car, that was a pathetic performance"
And so on and so forth.
Bias will unfortunately be excessively obvious in discussions here. From all points of view.
