It's that man Mosley again, this time suggesting that Michael Schumacher would win a straight contest with the rookie sensation of last year, Lewis Hamilton. We all like to indulge in these hypothetical questions, pitting stars of yesterday against those of today and Max's opinion is as valid in such musing as anyone's. But the reasoning behind his choice is flawed, to say the least.
Apparently, Max thinks the Shoe's team mates were "almost all very strong, and some of them were tremendously strong - but he was always the strongest." That is an interesting point of view, considering the consensus is that Michael made pretty sure that he was never teamed with a driver who might seriously threaten his position.
Let's have a look at these "tremendously strong" drivers. Brief research (and I'm sure I didn't dig out all the combinations so, if you think of any I missed, let me know and I'll rubbish them too!) has revealed the following list (with my comments on each):
Andrea de Cesaris - I liked Andrea but he was always a little out of his depth; Nelson Piquet - in his last year of F1 and definitely past his sell-by date; Riccardo Patrese - quick on occasion but never one of the best; Jos Verstappen - I would like to think that Jos could have been great but sadly he was never given a decent chance to develop; Johnny Herbert - the great might-have-been if only he hadn't ruined his ankles in a pre-F1 crash; Eddie Irvine - always good for a laugh, but never in the top flight; Rubens Barrichello - honest, competent, but lacking the flair of the fastest drivers; Felipe Massa - greatly improved by learning from Schumacher, he was never a serious threat.
That is not exactly a list of the strongest drivers in F1 and most of them were in decline or yet to realize their potential. Compare that to Hamilton's only team mate so far, Fernando Alonso - double world champion and at the height of his powers.
I am not arguing on the outcome of this suggested contest - it is not something we will ever know the answer to and I doubt that we have seen the best of Hamilton as yet anyway. Max's reasoning strikes me as inaccurate at best, however, and I suspect that he is swayed by the Schumacher record of titles and race wins. Which is hardly a relevant measure since we have no idea what Hamilton's tally will be by the time he retires.
Perhaps a more interesting way to look at the Shoe's talent is to consider the thoughts of those who competed with him. Jean Alesi left Ferrari, rather than be number two to Michael - surely evidence that he thought he could beat the man if given an equal opportunity. Johnny Herbert mentioned that he was never allowed to see Michael's settings, although the same did not apply to Michael. And we all know that Irvine and Barrichello were given their drives on the understanding that Michael was top dog.
As a result, comparing Michael with his team mates in a quest to assess his real ability is a fool's errand. It is in his performance on the track that we see just how capable he was - and there is no doubt that he was one of the quickest drivers of his era. I will grudgingly admit that he has put in several race performances that can be compared with Senna's. But we cannot do the same for Hamilton yet - one season is not sufficient evidence to make a judgement on.
Steven Roy thinks that Hamilton will prove to be one of the all-time greats of F1 and I would not disagree with him. It is more in my nature to wait and see, however, and I make no prediction at this stage. Much more to my taste is to seek out the unregarded drivers, looking for that one amongst many who exhibits the spark that sets him apart from his peers. And in that vein, I'll repeat: watch Kazuki Nakajima - he is going to surprise everyone.