Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
I'm not ignoring mistakes during the period between the comments.
The race in Singapore happened on 17 September. The comment 'George is at a key point as to whether he might be considered a genuine topliner in future' was made on 18 September?
I just think it is telling that 'the paddock' is able to make such big swings in their assessment of drivers over such a short period of time.
If Pérez can go from having a questionable temperament, to being a sure-fire cert for a drive in such a short time, then the opinion can swing the other way just as quickly.
|
Actually CR, I think many of the comments here about drivers are run by emotion and spur of the moment rhetoric rather than a systematic analysis of what is really happening in the real world.
Most of them don't carry a lot of weight and aren't anything to get worked up about.
When I did some analysis about Perez this season, I also looked at last season and alsob the performance of drivers who were number two to a dominant number one in their championship years.
Like Schumacher- Barrichello, Vettel-Webber, Hamilton-Bottas, Schumacher Irvine, just to name a few. I also looked at the scoring percentages of much earlier greats in their championship years. Barrichello was outstanding.
In 2004 taking second as his best possible reult on average he actually scored over 90% percentage of the points he could have taken had he been second in every race. One of the most outstanding performances ever by a number two.
Last year on this same basis Perez scored much better than this year, more than 20% better.
And although the RB19 gets talked up as being the most dominant F1 car ever it's not at all.
The Race has an interesting article on it and some replies have thoughtful replies showing that actually its max who makes it work so well. Any comment about car dominance undermines the brilliance of Max's contribution. A truly great year by Max.
For example, in 1965 Jim Clark had a scoring percentage, on my analysis of available points, to what Perez has had this year. And it's not about reliability.
It's about performance.
And how many second drivers were nowhere in relation to their lead drivers in the decades past when Lotus was winning world championships.
Yes, Ronnie Peterson was great but those were Senna Prost type pairings. Many others were nothing like that.
Perez is not in the Hamilton, Verstappen, Alonso, Leclerc, class at all. Norris, Sainz, and Piastri, are also a step up.
Hulkenberg could serve the same purpose Perez was hired to do, but Horner knew what he was getting when he hired Perez.
In his first year in F2 Perez, in 09, Perez drove for Arden, which was owned by? Horner.
George won in Brazil last year, had been talked up as the replacement for Hamilton. Bla, bla, bla.
Same with Perez earlier this year in terms of the championship. What happened in '23? They both had rough years but have still performed.
But people's opinions aren't always well analyzed, thought through, nor enunciated.
We all have opinions, but if they're not supported by some real evidence that's all it is. Nothing to get worried about.