I'm wholly aware of GP2 and how it is regulated, probably because it's pretty much the only way into F1 today. Sebastien Bourdais is the only current driver who made his way into F1 in a different fashion (though I'm unsure about some of the older drivers like Coulthard and Barichello). I've also noticed that most of the drivers of recent times who have been dropped from teams - the Liuzzis and Kliens of this world (I'm a little unsure about Scott Speed as well) - were also GP2 drivers who, while successful in that formula, couldn't cut it in F1, even if the numbers said they were good enough to do it. The only conclusion I can make is that they didn't make it because there is a huge difference between GP2 and F1.
GP2 is totally irrelivent to the older drivers, as its only existed since 2005
Liuzzi never raced GP2 (F3000 champion back in 2004 - the series that GP2 replaced)) and Klien was also never a GP2 driver (or for that matter F3000, the closest being runner up in the 2003 Formula Three Euroseries. Scott Speed's best result in GP3 was third in the 2005 season, Kovalainen in second place and Rosberg who was the drivers champion that year.
Pretty much any driver who has placed outside of the top three in GP2 has never had more than a passing seat in F1. As such GP2 is generally considered a good feeder series to F1, much better than F3000 was in its last days.
Yes a difference does exist between the two formulas, but as a generalisation drivers that have done well in GP2 are also starting to do well in F1. Dismiss it all you want but getting through a field of cars in GP2 is no easy thing.
Now, I'm not denying that Lewis Hamilton is a good driver. I think he's a great driver and that he's achieved a lot; in some ways he's the anti-Schumacher as he's brouht about a resurgence in the sport's popularity. I just don't think he's the best driver; Pat Symonds said it best when he said Jenson Button is just as good as Hamilton with the difference being that the latter has better hardware (and the former got screwed by Briatore in favour of Alonso). Looking at the current line-up, for me Hamilton is lucky to take sixth place in the "Best Driver" listing, coming in behind the Ferraris, BMW-Saubers and Heikki Kovalainen (because of his brilliant debut season where he just got better and better). Hell, Adrian Sutil out-classes him at Monaco; the German has proven to be a force to be reckoned with in the principality two years running as he topped the timing sheets in one session in a Spyker and was running fourth this year, as we all know.
I don't believe I have said that Hamilton is the best driver on the track at the moment (in fact outside of James Allen, most people will not say that), however he is one of the strongest rookies on the grid.
As for Sutil at Monaco, sorry but are you having a laugh? He is a fair driver, no question about that, but practice sessions have so many variables of set-up and fuel load involved (not to mention the physiological factor of sandbagging, etc) to make they of little real importance. However what I notice you fail to mention in this case was that Sutil went out for practice very early in the session when it was dry, almost all the front runner went out when it was raining. So you appear to be claiming that Sutil is a better driver than Hamilton (and in this example just about every other driver) because he was quicker in the dry than they were in the wet!!!!!!!!!
At the end of the day this is motorsport and winning is what matters, and to throw Sutil's last two Monaco results into the mix in this conversation is daft. He failed to finish in 2007 (and qualified in 19th) and 2008 (qualifying in 19th again).
My point is not that Hamilton doesn't have what it takes. My point is that Hamilton just lacks the skills as a driver in the midfield. That will come with time, but I seriously doubt his name will be immortalised on the trophy for the Drivers' Champion until he gets better at passing when he's not fighting for the lead. Sure, Magny-Cours might be tough, but that's not an excuse: the twenty drivers on the grid are the twenty best drivers in the world and this is the fourth time he's underperformed, each time on a vastly different circuit to the last. Hamiton's made it plain he can fight for the number one placing, he just hasn't proven he can do it where it counts. If he happens to have more results like these last two - even one or two might be enough to do it - he can kiss any ambition of the title good-bye. He might be a statistical outsider come Brazil, but he's already proven he can't hold up under pressure. Sure, he'll get better, but I doubt one year is enough for that. And that doesn't bode well for him because a driver's (or a team's) second season is regarded as the hardest: they know how the sport goes, they know what's expected and there are less excuses than in their first year. If Hamilton's second season pans out in such a way that he's out of contention for the championship with a few rounds to go, it could have serious consequences. Lewis-Love and Lewisteria aren't going to be enough to pull him though because the statistics say that when push comes to shove and Hamilton's in the midfield, the chances that he's going to pull through and produce the goods are not odds I'd play.
Your argument about performing against expectations can be appied to any driver, in any team in any car. They will all have been set targets for the year. I could apply the self same criteria to Alonso, his fail of a pass at Monaco and finishing behind his team mate (
a team mate that many people on here have said should be dropped next year), I could then link that to the huge attention he gets in the Spanish media and say that he is overhyped, has lost his edge and should watch his back next year.
As it stands art the moment we are 8 races into an 18 race season with only 10 points separating the top 4 drivers, a lot is still to play for. At this point any of these four drivers are capable of winning or losing the championship.
Regards
Scaff
