Fresh from an amusing little battle in the comments section of one of Ollie's posts, I find myself reflecting on my preference for the unusual or disregarded viewpoint. It is true that the mention of the phrase "conventional wisdom" sends me immediately in search of an alternative opinion, so yes, I am an awkward customer.
Scott Speed, Monaco 2007
But that is not the only reason for my apparent contrariness; there is also the matter of truth to be considered. Take the Turkish GP, for instance, and Heikki Kovalainen's assertion that he could have won had it not been for his slow puncture. Everyone seems to have accepted that statement without argument but I find it to be unsupported by the facts. Heikki was on a two-stop strategy and so had a heavier car than Hamilton's - and his lap times, even in clean air, reflect that. I just cannot see how he assumes that he would have kept pace with the Ferraris in those circumstances. McLaren, Bridgestone, the mathematical calculations and the rest of the world may disagree but it is quite obvious to me that the only thing that kept Hamilton in contention was the three-stop strategy forced upon him by circumstances.
Of course, taking up the cudgels for the unpopular view means that often I have to own myself beaten. But hey, I have more fun doing it than I would get from running with the herd. How much enjoyment will there be in proving correct in your prediction of Raikkonen for champ this year? Let's face it, you are only one of millions in that case. But, if Heidfeld comes through at the last, my trusty crystal ball and I are going to look pretty good, aren't we?
It's all about seeing what others may be missing and then sticking your neck on the chopping block. Live dangerously, that's what I say. So I notice that Scott Speed is becoming quicker and more consistent than his team mate, Liuzzi - why not give the guy a much-needed helping hand in the face of all the unfair criticism he's picking up? Incidentally, he is doing better in NASCAR already than any of the other F1 rejects. The same goes for Hamilton - the more everyone hates him, the more leeway I'll give him.
It is not as if this is a new thing for me either. When Clark was winning everything in sight, my hero was John Surtees; when Jackie Stewart was the clear favorite, I was rooting for Chris Amon. Both of them were just as good as the popular heroes but were missing that necessary ingredient of luck.
The great misconception in this game is that it's about being right; it is not. It's about being able to enjoy the game to the utmost, to sally forth into the battle against impossible odds, to go down fighting with the standard still raised high. Yes, it's romantic but I reckon romantics have more fun. And, once in a while, it's possible to gain a convert, to convince some hapless soul that he's not really seeing the whole picture and should broaden his sights. Such a victory makes all the defeats more than worthwhile.
Perhaps that was the real measure of Michael Schumacher's greatness - he so polarized opinion on himself that the rebels united in a common loathing and forgot their personal disputes for a while. Any hero would have done the job, anyone who could beat the detested foe. It is just a pity that we had so long to wait until Alonso appeared on the scene.
I see the Heidfeld supporters drifting away as Robert Kubica appears to gain the upper hand; I watch as the BMW hopefuls start buying their tickets for the McLaren and Ferrari camps; but not me. I will hold out to the bitter end, hanging on until it becomes mathematically impossible for my bets to win. And, if the moment comes when I must concede defeat, what the heck, it has happened before and it will happen again.
But at least you can say that I never went with "conventional wisdom"!