BMW_F1 wrote:nipo wrote:BMW_F1 wrote:He's talented as a driver that I cannot deny,..
Period.. That is that it matters. - Ferrari, the best team in F1 has decided to bring him into their family.. For obvious reasons, if they think like you do, they would never have hired him. It is crystal clear that to most people in the paddock, this notion that Alonso is a bad person, in inconceivable.
Wise men will see how he tends to leave behind a wreck and jump ship to another team. Ferrari are probably safer that way because by now Alonso has run out of teams to jump ship to so maybe he'll be a better boy and not complain too much. Let's see.
On another note, Ferrari management these few years were not the brightest on earth, so I would say they are making fairly funny decisions, esp the way they brought Alonso into the team. But I've written enough about that before so let's not go back to it.
This is just an opinion that has most probably developed out of the negative propaganda thrown at Alonso by the British press.. - It is all part of the rivalry game between Ferrari/Mclaren, Alonso/Lewis. Same as if I was to base my opinion of Lewis from what I read in elmundo.es or marca.
And to give you my personal opinion about your second paragraph, I believe that getting rid of Brawn/MS/Todt was the best thing that Ferrari could have done. As a result - from some personal experience I can tell you that - the worldwide acceptance of Ferrari is now greater then when those bigots were running the team.
Part of the reason why Ferrari was not a likable team was because MS was a cheater and Ross was always behind him covering his lies 100% of the time.. - This infuriated general race fans..[/quote]
Ah you throw the Anti Alonso campaign in the british media as a reason for negative perceptoin but then neatly side step and use the logic against Michael Schumacher, Ross Brawn and Jean Todt. Funny that.
Michael Schumacher has received stick form the Britsh media since he jumped ship from Jordan to Benetton. Why? Because by jumping ship their media saw that as betrayal and we know the Brit media is like a dog with a bone - it won't let go.
Eddie Jordan and Martin Brundle are Michael Schumachers biggest detractors. Why? Because Jordan, once he realised the talent he had, then lost out to Benetton. Jordan actually was not too fond of having a young German he had barely heard of in his car. He wanted an established pay driver to replace Bertrand Gachot.
Martin Brundles career as a driver never took off because Michael Schumacher bested him in the same car. The Brit media will have you beleive that Schumacher was the prefered driver and Brundle was shafted. Really, a german in an English team and said german could harldy speak any english at the time being favoured over an Englishman in an english team in England....surely not. Schumacher won favour simply because he was a better driver and gave better feedback so the cars development went Schumachers way. Rory Byrne is a rational man and deals with events and life and people rationally. If you have ever sat down with him for a chat you will know this.
One of the past events that petrol heads like to dredge up is Rascassegate 2006. Schumi said the car understeered. Brundle was first out the gates to call him a cheat (surprise surprise), and Renault (Briatore never misses an opportunity) were a close second. Alonso then did some play acting and received an Oscar nomination for best actor in a leading role.
Fast forward a year and another red car albeit this time driven by a Finish bloke named Kimi (Anyone heard of him?) parks the F2007 at Rascasse in a similar manner to the way the F2006 was "parked" a year earlier. The FIn said the car understeered unexpectedly - same reason given a year earlier. The event was brushed aside. Why? Because the media did not hop onto it and churn it into an event. Perhaps the stake were different.
The point is that events are twisted to suit the drama at the time. Two similar events, having different importance and the outcry and outcomes are different.
Alonso of course gave a very dramatic speach that afternoon in 2006. One that swung the stewards vote eventually. The Stewards were in fact undecided as to whether it was deliberate or not. The telemetry data showed yes the car understeered as the driver had said but they based their verdict on an opinion that had been spread around the paddock that it was a recoverable situation. Now only the driver knows if it was recoverable or not but trial by media won the day.
there were further events within Ferrari that occured that weekend that resulted in the effective notice of termination of employment by Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne. Schumacher still had two years to run on a freshly signed contract but was asked to stay on as consultant by Todt who had his own plans. Schumacher announced hi retiredment in Italy at Monza in September. The decision taken on the evening in Monaco just before his press conference.
Media portrayal of a driver certainly drives opinions. There are two events that I considered questionable by Schumacher. One was Jerez 1997 and the other Spa 1998 where he wanted to thump Coulthard. Both events he apologised for and admitted wrong doing. An objective eye will cast across history and conclude that Schumacher has been pretty honest with himself and his fans. If he messed up, he admits it. If he did not, he does not take ownership. That is consistent behaviour. The rest is what the media want you to see.
Now we can cast our eyes across Alonso history and lets take a view on that.
On several occasions he has been wrapped across the nuckles for brake testing a driver he feels has wronged him. On no occasion has he ever admitted to it. He always blames his victims.
In 2006 often it was Schumacher on the recieving end, In 2007 it was Lewis and McLaren (including Spy gate), in 2008 and 2009 if was Renault including Crashgate. He learned well from BIll Clinton school of PR and has his masters degree in Deny Deny, Deny.
He does not give the media an opportunity to rubbish him. He does it himself,often in a cynical and very public manner.
Thats the difference. One man is a villan created by the media and the other is a genuine, bonafide villan.
One man builds and the other destroys.
Its just a sad state of the world that villans are allowed to be successful but thats a plot for another movie
, its proven he cheated
