Tell that to Ross Brawn - who was doing the comparison.
What do you expect Ross to say? He would say the same thing if Rubens was doing all the winning. What better way to boost your driver's confidence than to compare him with the best in the world. Ask him 10 years from who he thinks was the better driver.
Crikey. If only there was room in the universe for two differing opinions.
Guess what? There is. If you want to believe Button is better than Schumacher, go right ahead. He's not... Hell, Alonso is a better driver, but go right ahead.
Now who said anything about "equal"? Is this why you're getting all bent out of shape?
Actually I'm in pretty good shape. Lost 70 lbs, and I'm pretty sure I can now fit in those Russel racing school formula cars which was my goal. Anyways, a lot of people in the media who compare Button to Schumacher always claim being able to put in fast laps when you have to as proof that he is on par with Schumahcer. All I'm saying is that if that's the criteria then we might as well put Alonso, Kimi, Lewis, and Felipe up there with Schumacher.
Wait... two renowned expert wet drivers failed to finish a wet race (Schumacher's car failed 3 laps from the end, but he was classified 8th and got a point), and Button in the 4th best car (of 10) that year managed to beat both finishing drivers in the 3nd best car, the finishing driver in the 2nd best car and his own teammate to win and that was in some way unremarkable?
Lest we forget, Schumacher never challenged Button's lead in that race even before he "failed to finish the race".
My mistake, but still, until now Button has never won flat out, rain or sunshine. A win's a win, but a win like Senna in 1989 Japanese GP, Schumacher in Spain 1996, and Lewis Hamilton in Silverstone 2008, is remarkable. Hungary 2006 was won by inheriting the lead. The only reason that's remembered so much is because it was Button first win after a long time racing in F1.
What is it with British drivers? Last two years it was "Senna-esque", now it's "Schumacher-like".
That's a very good point. Now, let's see what Schumacher drove and how he did with them.
1992 - Benetton inferior to Williams, Mansell took the trophy.
1993 - Benetton inferior to Williams, Prost took the trophy.
1994 - Benetton the fastest car out there, Schumacher took the trophy.
1995 - As in 1994.
1996 - Ferrari inferior to Williams, Hill took the trophy.
1997 - Ferrari approximately on a par with Williams, Villeneuve took the trophy.
1998 - Ferrari approximately on a par with McLaren, Häkkinen took the trophy.
1999 - As in 1998.
2000 - Ferrari superior to McLaren, Schumacher took the trophy.
2001 - Ferrari superior to anything by quite a margin, Schumacher took the trophy.
2002 - As in 2001.
2003 - Ferrari superior to McLaren, Schumacher took the trophy.
2004 - As in 2001 and 2002.
2005 - Ferrari inferior to Renault, Alonso took the trophy.
2006 - Ferrari slightly inferior to Renault, Alonso took the trophy.
The quick survey shows that every single year when Schumacher was crowned the champion he had the best car out there. Surprise surprise. Was he all that good after all? Undoubtedly one of the best ever, that can't be denied, but not the end-of-all driver when it comes to pure skill. There have been better ones, there are better ones and there will be better ones.
In everyone of those years he didn't win the Championship, Michael won races. In 2006 he had 7 wins. One of the reasons Michael is considered the best ever is because he had so many performances like Spain 1996. Michael was a master at overtaking people. He didn't win 7 World Titles by lucking into it. IMO the only other drivers that can be compared, and might be better than Michael, are Senna, Nuvolari, and Fangio.
If Brawn really had a hand in those decisions, would Rubens still be racing? I think not.
