The Alonso Way: Driver first, or team first?

[niky]

I was going to post this in the team orders thread, here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=131866

But I wonder if it might be a good discussion in and of itself.

Now, the last driver to build a team completely around himself, before Alonso, was Schumacher. He was focused. He was ruthless. He brought in his own people to Ferrari. He was in on all the meetings. He was dedicated to testing. He demanded first seat, and got it. If you were Schumacher's team-mate, you were as important as Toni Kukoc on Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls... you're simply there to pick up the slack when Michael has to go to the bathroom.

Now... Alonso is like this. We know what that did at Renault. We know it didn't work at McLaren. But here we have Fernando at Ferrari. Has Alonso's me-first policy been good or bad for Ferrari this year? And does it take a strong-willed, self-centered driver to win the championship?

 

[Boundary Layer]

I'd argue the last driver to do so was not Schumacher, but Villeneuve at BAR - he just did a much poorer job of it.
Not important though.

Honestly, I think Alonso involvement and direction are good for Ferrari... if for no other reason it must be creating a similar climate within the team as when Schumi was there. The team struggled out of the gate this year and I'm sure it is in some part down to his ability to assist in the development of a vehicle and tailor it to himself over the course of a season that they received any championship opportunites down the stretch. So I'm making an obvious point that it is crucial to have someone that interfaces well with the engineers and will ask for exactly what he wants. I wouldn't call that a selfish driver, I'd call that an intelligent driver.


Whether a team needs an alpha driver with over-bearing personality is a more difficult question. McLaren has demonstrated how difficult it can be to manage a team and deal with conflicts and controversy when you get two such drivers in the same team in 2008, and in the late 80's during the Senna-Prost battles... depending on how close the competition is it can be disastrous.
Brawn demonstrated that you can put two wet blankets behind the wheel and still walk away with both titles if the car is up to it.

There's no clear cut formula here in my opinion, so I guess my answer is no.

 

[KobayashiFan]

In my opinion, a driver who needs to build a team around him to win a championship is not as talented as a driver who can win against an equal or equally treated team mate. In my mind, this is why Alonso will simply be a very good driver and never a great one.

 

[niky]

But as a driver, per se... not as a competitor, or sportsman... Alonso is arguably one of the greats.

And contrawise, if you have a driver whose concept of racing is showing up, driving, and going home and getting drunk... you've got Kimi... arguably one of the biggest "what-ifs" ever in F1. A potential multiple champion... regarded by some as one of the best of all time in terms of skill... yet he just didn't seem to have the drive when it mattered.

-

@Boundary Layer: I was thinking along those lines... Alonso has definitely been good for Ferrari. They seem to have been vociferous, pompous and arrogant this season. But they've always seemed to exude an air of petty arrogance. This time, though, there was a purpose... a direction for all that pent up passion and energy that simply wasn't there after Schumacher.

Where I'm struggling with the question... is whether other teams need it... Look at Red Bull... yes, they won with a faster car and evenly matched team-mates, but Vettel has a touch of selfishness himself... if not selfishness... maybe arrogance. Something that Webber lacks.

McLaren: Hamilton doesn't seem all that selfish this season... but he's got Button behind him... a guy who simply can't match him in skill and is merely happy to back him up.

Brawn was a fluke. They won by exploiting a loophole that wasn't closed. But it was nice to have a season where you have a nice, laid-back guy win it all.

Still fifty-fifty on it.

 

[The Outlaw]

In my opinion, a driver who needs to build a team around him to win a championship is not as talented as a driver who can win against an equal or equally treated team mate. In my mind, this is why Alonso will simply be a very good driver and never a great one.

Alonso doesn't necessarily "need" a team built around him in order to become a Champion, but it certainly helps his cause. With that said, I personally don't understand how you can consider a driver to be less talented simply because he would prefer to have a team built around him and has the means and influence to do so.

IMO, being able to put together a great team (like Schumacher did) is just another aspect that makes a driver that much better. In many sports, it's not strictly about your capabilities (driving in this case) alone - there are also other important aspects off track, like how you communicate and how involved you are in order to motivate the team and develop the car further...something the 2x Championship Alonso has done very well this year.

Too many are under the impression that Ferrari are all of sudden "built around" Fernando for whatever reason. The fact is, Fernando has clearly outperformed Massa fair and square this season and dedicated himself very much to Ferrari, and that's the simple truth. Yes, in Hockenheim Massa had to give up a potential victory, but in the end it was for the best interest (to maximize one drivers already fading hopes at the title) of the team and the entire picture - the WDC...not one single race where people wanted to see Massa get his glory. If Massa has what it takes to match Alonso fairly and squarely next year, Fernando will probably accept that as that, as there doesn't seem to be any overbearing "Ron Dennis" character (with his lap puppy - Hamilton) in the Ferrari garage atm, which only make for a walking on egg shells situation (especially with two drivers of that caliber) when questionable situations arise. But atm, time will only tell.

McLaren: Hamilton doesn't seem all that selfish this season... but he's got Button behind him... a guy who simply can't match him in skill and is merely happy to back him up.

.

I surely doubt that - I personally feel that when Button decided to jump ship to Mclaren after winning the title last year, he was looking to maintain his position as a contender with the powerhouse Mclaren (as Brawn wasn't looking hopeful for '10) and felt that he could take on Lewis, or was at least up for the challenge. I really doubt he is genuinely happy just to back up Lewis on race day and play second fiddle time and time again - I don't think any driver at this level has this mentality.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Boundary Layer]

I really doubt he is genuinely happy just to back up Lewis on race day and play second fiddle time and time again - I don't think any driver at this level has this mentality.

Perhaps just a poor choice of words on niky's part.
I don't disagree with you, but I doubt Button walked into McLaren thinking he could steal the #1 spot from Hamilton, especially after he chased Alonso out of there a year earlier. The best he could hope for was for equal treatment (and I'm not saying he didn't get it).

As you suggest, it may be that McLaren was simply the most appealing option for him. He would have known that the 2010 Brawn/Mercedes GP car was designed conservatively on a shoestring budget (in F1 terms) and would not offer him the chance to defend his title... I'm really not familiar with the details behind why he left. But I think the fact that he did go to McLaren to pair up with Hamilton shows that he's not the me-first kind of guy that this thread is about.

 

[The Outlaw]

Perhaps just a poor choice of words on niky's part.
I don't disagree with you, but I doubt Button walked into McLaren thinking he could steal the #1 spot from Hamilton, especially after he chased Alonso out of there a year earlier. The best he could hope for was for equal treatment (and I'm not saying he didn't get it).

As you suggest, it may be that McLaren was simply the most appealing option for him. He would have known that the 2010 Brawn/Mercedes GP car was designed conservatively on a shoestring budget (in F1 terms) and would not offer him the chance to defend his title... I'm really not familiar with the details behind why he left. But I think the fact that he did go to McLaren to pair up with Hamilton shows that he's not the me-first kind of guy that this thread is about.

I agree with that. He definitely seems just fine with the policy of equal treatment within the team - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If I were a team principal, this is probably how I'd do it: I'd allow my drivers to compete with one another for most of the season. In fact, I'd probably demand that they did. I'd set a deadline - like, say, the end if the European season - after which time, the team will start favouring whoever is in front. The further in front they are, the more support they'll get, so if it gets to the point where my drivers are within one good result of one another, then the driver who is behind isn't completely shafted.

 

[niky]

Personally... I'd probably do the same. But then, knowing how hungry Ferrari is for another WDC and how much hungrier Alonso is... it's not unexpected that Massa got shafted so early in the season.

RE: Button: maybe a poor choice of words... as Button's pit strategies always seem geared towards minimizing his disadvantage against Hamilton and we all know the cute stunt he pulled in Turkey. But Button isn't quite as eager as Webber to stick it to his younger team-mate... and this year, he just didn't have the handle on the car to actually do that. Maybe if next year's car is a bit gentler, we will see Button's true pace, and whether he can take the fight to Hamilton.

 

[astrosdude91]

I think driver first worked good for Ferrari, but team first worked better for Red Bull. Having both drivers compete with eachother really pushed Red Bull. And in the end, Red Bull came out on top.

 

[Small_Fryz]

So I'm making an obvious point that it is crucial to have someone that interfaces well with the engineers and will ask for exactly what he wants. I wouldn't call that a selfish driver, I'd call that an intelligent driver.

Look at Valentino Rossi as another great example.

I think its very important to be able to lead and communicate with the engineers and developers in order to give yourself the best chance. Now your teammate can either help this process, or stay out of it and appear to be the "2nd" driver. I don't think its a case of I want to get it and not him, its just a case that the 2nd driver might not be as skilled or good at developing, or in some cases not want to. At the end of the day the team has to listen to someone in order to develop the car and the very best drivers make that person them.

 

[niky]

That brings up the interesting question: How helpful was Jenson Button this season in setting up the Mclaren car?

It's possible that both Webber and Vettel were similarly helpful in setting up the RBR car... since they both obviously got along well with it... but in Button's case... where he had trouble even getting the car to "talk" to him, did he contribute as much to Mclaren?

 

[Stevisiov]

I think driver first worked good for Ferrari, but team first worked better for Red Bull. Having both drivers compete with eachother really pushed Red Bull. And in the end, Red Bull came out on top.

I don't think Red Bulls success should be attributed to their drivers competativeness. More likely, the designers doing the job on the car. With the RB6 it was really Red Bulls season to loose, and they certainly did a good job of nearly loosing it.

Ulitmately, I think how you setup your team, depends on the relative skill of your drivers. If one driver clearly dominates the other, then it makes sense to build the team around the fast driver, this is a good way of maximising your points, which can give an advantage over the equal status appraoch.

If both drivers are of a similar level, then your best bet is probably to support them both as best you can, until one practically is out of it. While the drivers may potentially take points away from each other, this setup has the advantage of not putting all your eggs in one basket, so if one driver has bad luck, the other driver is there to pick up the pieces. We saw this working at its best in Red Bull at the end of the year, if the team had decided to back Webber at Brazil, Red Bull Would have thrown away the drivers championship.

 

[Ardius]

That brings up the interesting question: How helpful was Jenson Button this season in setting up the Mclaren car?

It's possible that both Webber and Vettel were similarly helpful in setting up the RBR car... since they both obviously got along well with it... but in Button's case... where he had trouble even getting the car to "talk" to him, did he contribute as much to Mclaren?

Button's struggles may have helped the team understand their car far better as they search for setups that work better for him. (like Bourdais with Toro Rosso in 2008).
Also, you may have noticed that Button was running different upgrades to Lewis in the latter stages of the season, which meant they could test two different parts at the same time. It was Jenson's choice to do this (he was gambling on them finding him something). The only place this really boosted him was at Monza.

I would say that Button's quest for perfection might be exactly what McLaren needed to guide their development. Sometimes a driver like Lewis isn't competely helpful for development as they tend to be happy with anything as they are more adaptable, which is not necessarily the fastest setup. The real benefit of Lewis is that he will find results with a car that might not be perfect.
Schumacher was never much of a development driver, he left that to Luca Badoer.