2013 Comment: Sebastian the Great?

[eytl]

Hi everyone,

In the last of our 2013 season comments before our season review, I risk a barrage of papayas and starting a brand new flame war by asking the question: is Sebastian Vettel an F1 great?

I'd like to think that I have considered both sides of the debate, even though ultimately I reach my own views on the question.

http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/2013/sebgreat/index.html

Hopefully this promotes some polite debate!

Links to all three recent articles are now available on the main page of the site. Next up: our 2013 season review.

Cheers,
Enoch

[mario]

I do think that, on balance, your analysis of the situation - that Vettel's story does currently seem to lack the aspect of triumph over adversity, which makes it harder to relate to him and to appreciate his performance, does play a strong part in the antipathy towards him.

There was something of that in a comment that Darren Heath made about the end of the 2012 season - his comment about Horner's congratulatory message over the radio almost feeling mechanistic, as if it was pre-recorded, against Alonso's more emotive arrival in parc ferme, which was a mixture of resignation at defeat and yet contentment that he had gone down fighting. As he put it, even in a sport that is normally obsessed with performance over emotion and used to arrogant attitudes, Vettel's success and the attitude that Red Bull have developed of accepting plaudits but giving none seems to have turned quite a few against him for that reason.

It's kind of why, in some ways, Vettel's success seems, if anything, to have done more for Alonso's reputation rather than Vettel's - the fact that Alonso has been seen as consistently battling away and taking the fight to Vettel despite of, rather than because of, the car he has at his disposal has created the image of the underdog and created that image of triumph over adversity that is so much more enamouring and, ultimately, engaging than the slightly too perfect image that Vettel and Red Bull have created for themselves.
It feels as if Vettel, and Red Bull as a whole, want to be liked, leaving a slightly unpleasant feeling when they seem to be trying a little too hard to be popular, whereas Alonso popularity comes about despite, and sometimes even because, he doesn't actively seek to be popular.

Alonso may have his flaws, but in some ways it has helped him feel more human, more like the vox populi - we would be angry and frustrated when being constantly offered inferior equipment to a rival, we would be critical of processes that have continually failed to deliver results and so on, but Vettel doesn't have that outside agent against which he can battle and win in a manner that inspires.

[Collieafc]

I was looking forward to this article as soon as it was mentioned on the podacsts

I think that, and Marios comments above, some up the whole "Vettel question" very well and I agree with both of you. I also dont feel Vettel has had to beat any adversity so far either - it feels almost as if everything has conveniantly went his way but without much input from him. For example, he joined Red Bull just as they started producing winning cars. Almost all Vettel victories are the same - start from the front row and just drive away. It feels like he has never had to actually fight for anything, unlike most champions (and many other drivers) past and present. It doesnt even feel like he built the team around him either before romping away with titles - he was just lucky to join when he did. Same goes with the tyre change midway through this year - he had no input into it but it was through circumstances that gave him this lucky break. And it wears on me (in any field) when one person constantly keeps getting lucky breaks as opposed to working for what they have, and doubly so when it is abused like it was in Malaysia against those who have gotten where they are on the basis of working harder than most (Webber).

Mario hits on another point I agree with - Vettel and Red Bull are trying to be liked by everybody. My word of advice is if you try that, then you will be liked by nobody. The way he kept changing his story in Multi 21 proved that.

[watka]

I totally understand the views in this article. I think the primary point that Vettel is not considered a great because he's not had to struggle through adversity is one which should be universally acknowledged. I, and most others, find it hard to appreciate Vettel's achievements when he already seems to have a head start on the opposition. His lack of popularity therefore taints our judgment when assessing whether he is a great or not.

The question of definition is a good one. If "sporting great" = "one of the best sportsman", I have no hesitation in saying Vettel is a great. The stats speak for themselves. We can point to the lack of battling that Vettel has had to do to achieve his wins, poles and fastest laps but to an extent it is a testament to his greatness that he has achieved so much for seemingly such little effort. That was a particular hallmark of the Schumacher-Ferrari era - Schumacher was so good he just made everything look easy. And we know that Vettel has the capability to beat everyone into the ground further still. Singapore showed what he was capable of when let off the leash - he was seconds quicker than everyone else/

However, if "sporting great" = "sporting hero", Vettel is not a great. 2011 and 2013 were walkovers, 2012 he was able to close rapidly in the championship in part due to a quickly improving car, and although the 2010 championship was very close indeed, he still had probably the best car on the grid. His story is really lacking the adversity element and that endears him to no one. Most people in the world has been told by their parents to just "try their best" when they were growing up and just seems that Vettel doesn't have to give 100% to achieve what he achieves. As a personality, Vettel has traditionally been a bright and breezy character, with little to dislike about him if you were to ever meet him face to face. It just goes to show how much the world appreciates a hard worker that despite his fun personality, Vettel is more goaded for Multi-21 than Didier Pironi is shamed for his disobeying of team orders at the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, which indirectly led to the death of Gilles Villeneuve.

[rachel1990]

Very good article. Its nice to see that someone else agrees with me about how everyone gave up in 2013 and let Vettel run away with it (30 second win? In a dry race. For gods sake)

Until Vettel like Mr Schumacher (1996) has a year where he has to fight for wins in a car that is not the best on the grid he will never be a great in my eyes.

[Alextrax52]

Very good article. Its nice to see that someone else agrees with me about how everyone gave up in 2013 and let Vettel run away with it (30 second win? In a dry race. For gods sake)

Until Vettel like Mr Schumacher (1996) has a year where he has to fight for wins in a car that is not the best on the grid he will never be a great in my eyes.

Most say that Seb must switch teams if they want to see him do it but I think he could prove it just as well if the Red Bull is not the best car in 2014 (Provided the rules live up to the hype everyone has been giving them)

[Nessafox]

Something about great people is that there's a lot of debate about their greatness, and debate about Vettel's greatness is defenitely there.
A great person evokes emotions amongst people, and Sebastian defenitely evokes emotion. His admirers admire the perfection, the others hate him because of the same reason, but everybody has an opinion about him.
I don't like him. Well, that is an opinion.
Even some people hate him because they can't think of things to hate him for, that's still an opinion, that's still an emotion.

There is not a single great person in the world that is not debated. Of course, because one is debated, that doesn't make a person great, as we would all agree Johnny Cecotto Jr. is heavily debated, but not quite a great

[good_Ralf]

Most say that Seb must switch teams if they want to see him do it but I think he could prove it just as well if the Red Bull is not the best car in 2014 (Provided the rules live up to the hype everyone has been giving them)

He proved it in the Toro Rosso in 2008, when he was less experienced than he is now.

[girry]

Boos and jeers of fans were met with what seemed like a deliberate and concerted effort - not only by Red Bull, but even by publications like Autosport - to convince us of the German's merits.

Its nice to see that someone else agrees with me about how everyone gave up in 2013 and let Vettel run away with it

Personally I have failed to come across with opinions any more on Vettel's side than Enoch's article (apart from relatively few Seb fans on internet forums, of whom half are probably trolls). I'd be glad to have some of the links to articles revering Vettel's infinite greatness pasted here - I don't read Autosport that actively, nor watch Sky/bbc broadcasts so I wouldn't know if the people you are fighting against are lying there.

[fbjim]

I have to wonder if Vettel, for many fans, including, to disclose things, myself, is becoming the symbol for a period in Formula One that is likely not to go down in history as one of it's brighter spots. Granted, the first few years of the post-2009 era weren't bad, but the KERS/DRS/Pirelli package seems more unpopular to my knowledge than any other set of rules I can remember- even grooved slicks weren't hated with this much vehemence.

Maybe I'm mixing up cause and effect here- say popular drivers like Webber and Alonso win in 2010, and 2012, and perhaps he doesn't become so unpopular? Regardless, the utter lack of popularity Vettel has interests me, mainly due to his unpretentious, and humble personality, which seems, for whatever reason, to be winning absolutely nobody over.

[eytl]

He proved it in the Toro Rosso in 2008, when he was less experienced than he is now.

I do agree that, for all those on the "anti-Vettel" side who say "he's won all his victories in the best car", there is Italy 2008 to consider. Which is why I had to make mention of it in the article. I think the counter-argument is that freak results including a dominant victory in a wet race are a measure of driving talent (and no one would dispute that, for all the fortune that has gone his way, Vettel does have sheer driving ability in abundance), but does not necessarily outweigh evaluation of a career as a whole. If Nico Hulkenberg won in Brazil 2012, he wouldn't be called a great without being assessed on the bulk of his career. Similarly Jean-Pierre Beltoise creamed the field at Monaco in 1972 in a BRM. Or there's Vittorio Brambilla winning in Austria in 1975.

Personally I have failed to come across with opinions any more on Vettel's side than Enoch's article (apart from relatively few Seb fans on internet forums, of whom half are probably trolls). I'd be glad to have some of the links to articles revering Vettel's infinite greatness pasted here - I don't read Autosport that actively, nor watch Sky/bbc broadcasts so I wouldn't know if the people you are fighting against are lying there.

I think it was more the timing. There was a palpable attempt around Italy/Singapore time by Red Bull to try to soften Vettel's image and make him even more PR friendly. There were also a series of articles, say on autosport.com, on the Sky F1 website, saying why Vettel should be considered a great, or why he should be appreciated. I don't have time right now to find them and link to them (and in Autosport's case, it was pay content). The timing seemed to coincide with a rise in anti-Vettel sentiment, it felt like a bit of a deliberate reaction.

his unpretentious, and humble personality, which seems, for whatever reason, to be winning absolutely nobody over

In some ways the question of Vettel's character is bound to start a fresh debate altogether. There will be those who say that, for example, Turkey 2010 and Malaysia 2013 exposed that beneath the smiling veneer lies a ruthless competitor who is far from unpretentious and humble when things don't go his way. It doesn't make him any worse than half the drivers out there (after all, even Webber on Top Gear used the phrase "as arrogant as us boys are" to describe Grand Prix drivers), but it means he certainly ain't the saint which is often portrayed.

[dr-baker]

I have to wonder if Vettel, for many fans, is becoming the symbol for a period in Formula One that is likely not to go down in history as one of it's brighter spots.

I wonder if the preceeding period had anything to do with it? If we take the period from 2004 (the last year of Schumacher's multiple consecutive championships) to 2010 (the first of Vettel's multiple consecutive championships) inclusively, you had 7 championships with 6 championship winners (Schumacher, Alonso, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Button, Vettel) for 5 different constructors/teams (Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, Brawn, Red Bull). Having a period where the eventual champion is often different to the previous year raises expectations - a close, competitive field with many strong, competitive drivers and teams. The latter half of the last decade was unpredictable and varied. That's what's missing now and what people are wanting, I believe. It's not necessaily Vettel - the annoyance would be against whoever the dominant force was, as it seemed to be a decade ago with Schumacher.

[Yannick]

Vettel's win at Monza in the Toro Rosso was epic. You just got to love the guy for that. Too bad that Red Bull's PR specialists ruined Sebastian's public persona (like is so often the case with young drivers these days once they start winning). When he won Monza, he was still the real deal: there was no "finger" to be seen that day.

He helped shape that whole RBR organisation into winners (as did Webber, too.)

[fbjim]

I have to wonder if Vettel, for many fans, is becoming the symbol for a period in Formula One that is likely not to go down in history as one of it's brighter spots.

I wonder if the preceeding period had anything to do with it? If we take the period from 2004 (the last year of Schumacher's multiple consecutive championships) to 2010 (the first of Vettel's multiple consecutive championships) inclusively, you had 7 championships with 6 championship winners (Schumacher, Alonso, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Button, Vettel) for 5 different constructors/teams (Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, Brawn, Red Bull). Having a period where the eventual champion is often different to the previous year raises expectations - a close, competitive field with many strong, competitive drivers and teams. The latter half of the last decade was unpredictable and varied. That's what's missing now and what people are wanting, I believe. It's not necessaily Vettel - the annoyance would be against whoever the dominant force was, as it seemed to be a decade ago with Schumacher.

Yeah- I have to say, when Schumacher retired, and 2007 happened, I was really, really optimistic for the next decade- I thought it would be spent between Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen, and even Massa fighting each other for titles. I didn't like all these drivers, but I certainly thought there was the potential for some enthralling sport between strong personalities, like the 70s and 80s were. So, when it goes back to a rather boring German winning everything once again, one can't help but feel a bit robbed.

[dr-baker]

I have to wonder if Vettel, for many fans, is becoming the symbol for a period in Formula One that is likely not to go down in history as one of it's brighter spots.

I wonder if the preceeding period had anything to do with it? If we take the period from 2004 (the last year of Schumacher's multiple consecutive championships) to 2010 (the first of Vettel's multiple consecutive championships) inclusively, you had 7 championships with 6 championship winners (Schumacher, Alonso, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Button, Vettel) for 5 different constructors/teams (Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, Brawn, Red Bull). Having a period where the eventual champion is often different to the previous year raises expectations - a close, competitive field with many strong, competitive drivers and teams. The latter half of the last decade was unpredictable and varied. That's what's missing now and what people are wanting, I believe. It's not necessaily Vettel - the annoyance would be against whoever the dominant force was, as it seemed to be a decade ago with Schumacher.

Yeah- I have to say, when Schumacher retired, and 2007 happened, I was really, really optimistic for the next decade- I thought it would be spent between Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen, and even Massa fighting each other for titles. I didn't like all these drivers, but I certainly thought there was the potential for some enthralling sport between strong personalities, like the 70s and 80s were. So, when it goes back to a rather boring German winning everything once again, one can't help but feel a bit robbed.

Exactly.

[eytl]

If you have an Autosport subscription, there's an article by Jonathan Noble which asks if F1 has forgiven Vettel this year - an odd question if I may say so.

I will only mention some choice quotes in the article:

After a year of supreme brilliance behind the wheel - with so little to fault - it became in vogue this season to talk down the four-time champion.

...

But to view Vettel as a negative force on the sport, and label 2013 as anything but a huge positive for the German, would be a mistake.

...

[Quoting Vettel] "It was a difficult season for me especially. A difficult start, especially on the political side, which is never nice to deal with.

"It was difficult also to deal with booing, even though you've done nothing wrong. For all of us, for the whole team and myself, it just made us mature and to step on to another level."

...

But however much he tarnished himself that afternoon at Sepang, he did much to redeem himself the following month at Shanghai when he explained his actions.

...

He was an unstoppable force that did not accept being held back, and he deserved no resentment because of that. What is he supposed to do – try not to win?

...

The limited snapshots on display at grand prix weekends, in heavily formal and often stilted press conferences, do no justice to the tremendous personality Vettel has.

He is also tarnished by the perception of being the entitled one at Red Bull – with Helmut Marko's rigorous defence of anything he does, allied to Adrian Newey's brilliant cars, making it too easy to suggest wins and success are handed to him on a plate.

Fans prefer the underdog, the driver who has battled against the odds and triumphed in a heroic way, something that for some reason Vettel is never given the credit for.

And that does a disservice to his brilliance, for things are not as cosy as the image suggests. [Noble then goes on to cite only one example, namely how Vettel got a bollocking from Helmut Marko for making a mistake on his Q3 lap in Hungary which then cost him victory the following day.]

...

The real Vettel who can laugh at himself, who can entertain, who is unhappy when he is not on top, who has his bust-ups with Red Bull bosses, who has his faults and makes mistakes but has the ability to learn from his errors is there right in front of us.

...

Perhaps only when the success stops, when Vettel has to deal with defeat and plot a path of recovery, will the outside world come to understand and appreciate him fully.

In true Pantomime sense, only when 'he is behind you' will the world get to realise who the real Sebastian Vettel is. And they will certainly then love him for it.

I don't normally get quite so worked up about something. But as much as I respect Autosport, this is the kind of ill-thought-through article (if I may go so far - and yes I know, "people in glass ceilings" and "pot, kettle, black" and all that) that really infuriates me, and is another example of what I perceive to be an attempt by some quarters to convince the unbelievers about how awesome Vettel is, as if there is a need for that.

What it completely fails to do is define the question - by what measure are you evaluating Seb? All this article seems to be (and I appreciate I have only quoted very selectively above) is a mish-mash that conflates several different ideas as to why Vettel is meritorious, such as:

• he has a great will to win and has been unstoppable this year - granted, no-one can dispute that
• he has recovered from having endured a backlash after Sepang and getting booed - poor diddums
• he doesn't have things his own way because he gets told off by Marko - if that's the worst that happens I'm sure Alonso, Raikkonen or Hamilton would happily settle for that
• he redeemed himself by coming clean at Shanghai - alternatively it just showed he was wishy-washy and there's a disconnect between his sunny disposition and selfish streak
• he has a tremendous personality - some would say that about Raikkonen, who on the marketability spectrum is the polar opposite of Seb, so what does that prove?

What I particularly object to is that there is only a half-baked attempt to distinguish between: Vettel's results; his skill level behind the wheel; the context in which he's done it; and the person. It kind of splits the F1 fanbase out there into a simplistic "you're either for him or against him", without recognising that there are many knowledgeable fans out there who, for example, acknowledge his results and skill but choose not to appreciate the fortunate context he's been in or his type of personality. Why must I "appreciate him fully" and "love him for it"? He isn't Christ, y'know ...

Why is there a need to try to convince us like this? I just don't understand why fans are being treated like idiots and why it seems unacceptable for a driver to divide opinions and for that to be OK? To adapt the Kimi-ism: "Just leave me alone, I know what I think about Seb."

(And to make the point crystal clear: this post is not a pro or anti-Seb comment. My views are made clear in my article. This post is a rant about the quality of simplistic journalism we're getting on the issue.)

[Nessafox]

And eytl, the fact that you even bother to do all that effort for eplaining this, proves he is a true great. (Don't get me wrong, personally i can't stand his face and i agree on your point about the journalism thing)

[SgtPepper]

Vettel's win at Monza in the Toro Rosso was epic. You just got to love the guy for that. Too bad that Red Bull's PR specialists ruined Sebastian's public persona (like is so often the case with young drivers these days once they start winning). When he won Monza, he was still the real deal: there was no "finger" to be seen that day..

If anything the Red Bull PR men have worked wonders recently in light of the regular podium booing, to sway the public with the various little tricks - Vettel's 'getting out the car' Singapore qualifying stunt, Newey's cynical interview about Senna's death to the BBC to try cover his side of the public dissent too, and the failed attempts to make him stop the accursed 'finger' as well have worked wonders in shifting the viewing public from outright contempt to begrudging respect, judging by the shift in various online forums. Plus David Coulthard has certainly been giving Red Bull their money's worth in PR as well.

I think it tends to be overlooked that a very specific set of circumstances led to the events in Monza, with Heikki Kovalainen the only lead car left with the potential to attack his lead. Sebastian Bourdais, a driver dropped from the sport altogether the following year only qualified 3 positions further back, and the Toro Rosso itself had certainly improved massively as a car, something that seems oft forgotten. However, the 'winning in the wet in an inferior car' story as a whole fits perfectly with the general trajectory the great drivers follow (a la Monaco 1984, Spain 1996), however I would argue analysis of the closer details proves this false. The same with Abby Dabby 2012, looks amazing on paper, but was an actually incredibly flawed and lucky drive.

And eytl, the fact that you even bother to do all that effort for eplaining this, proves he is a true great.

Why?

To me, 1996 showed how truly great Schumacher was, not 2002 or 2004 with a subservient teammate and a ludicrously superior car, and with Prost years like 1984, not 1993. However I can also understand why people respect statistics so greatly, as they are far more precise, emperical and definitive than more emotional measures, about something already extremely vague like 'greatness'. Is Schumacher 3x greater than Alonso? Vettel 4x greater than Hamilton? The problem is the 'debate' is using different data, different ways of thinking, a differing ideal of what 'greatness' itself is, and it seems they will never really mesh. I would also argue this is another reason Vettel's achievements continues to remain so divisive - his greatness is extremely apparent in statistical terms, but in vaguer notions it is left lacking, which then reflects in the fanbase. One side are pointing at a chalkboard with numbers on it, while the others are pointing at philosophy books. For me personally, I will happily withdraw all criticisms of his driving ability if he puts in a performance like Hulk's in Korea this year, but from where I'm sitting there is not a single performance of his that stands out as anything beyond competent. Double diffusers are often given as the reason for Button's 2009 championship, and as much as I really like Button, I'm generally in agreement, and I'm yet to see anyone defend Villeneuve, so why is it so controversial to apply the same theory just because it's four, and not one?

Popularity is the only thing Vettel has not been lucky in - although certainly not a terribly likeable character to those able to detect underlying currents of personality beneath smiles, no teammate ever paired with fan favourite AussieGrit would ever come out better off in PR terms. Although despicable, can anyone honestly argue that his move in Malaysia was any worse than Alonso's in Hockenheim 2010, to a newly recovering Felipe Massa? And I need not even mention Barichello's treatment at Ferrari. However Alonso has managed to increase in popularity in recent years, if not purely off the back of Vettel's loathing, and Schumacher also seems forgiven for many of his indiscrepancies as simply signs of his legendary status. So what causes this, is it purely due to Webber's fan status? Or the promise shown in the late 2000s as Dr Baker alluded to, and maybe a subconscious association with monotonous German domination? Would he be less loathed if the team was still called Jaguar, rather than a fizzy drinks company, and ran by a personality like Flavio, rather than 'Call me Christian' Horner? Kimi acts far worse than Vettel does in public, yet is lauded for it, Alonso treated Massa like dirt, yet this is constantly overlooked.

Two final points -

Webber was actually beating Vettel until he injured his shoulder, and then never got close again after the switch to Pirellis.

I think Freeze Kimi is absolutely correct that this debate will be stymied, one way or the other, how he performs if the 2014 Red Bull is a weaker car, rather than specifically moving teams.

[girry]

thanks for the AS quotes Enoch, I'll take your word that it wasn't the only article, which would make me understand the comments about Seb-Fans trying to force his greatness down the fans' throats a bit better.

It seems Red Bull Marketing has been extremely puzzled as to why Vettel isn't revered by the fan-base, and for some reason they haven't really managed to solve that; first they thought maybe it's the boring races, where they started to add the "Seb, your tyres are falling/that device is broken" team radio action every race, which I still deem as happening too often not to usually be a PR trick. Well, it didn't make it any more exciting after the first three times, as he always finished anyway... Then when the boos started, they scratched their collective heads even more and saw: "Hey, it must be the celebration why fans hate him! Let's make him a new one! Mexican Wave....oh no, Zanardi Donuts is better!" Again, that worked first one or two times, but after the tenth time it will get a bit repetitive.

I think that, instead, the root problem lies in that Red Bull, whilst often being criticized of being in F1 just to sell fizzy drinks, actually thinks about its racing side - winning championships at all costs.

Racing team Red Bull never let the events Malaysia this season escalate and forced its drivers to sprout out the same boring PR speak even if the atmosphere was vitriolic between the drivers - if RBR was thinking about selling fizzy drinks instead, it would have let the drivers compete against each other, have an epic intra-team rivalry covered all over the world, and perhaps lose a couple of WCC+WDC points in the process - plus have Vettel not in as favoured position as before, consequently depriving his haters of the old 'he's favored by his team' argument.

Racing team Red Bull never wanted to have an established driver partner Vettel as it would have risked the harmony of Vettel being #1 in the team, which scores them championships, thus they promoted Ricciardo. On the other hand their marketing side, and Vettel's reputation, would have benefit much more of Alonso, Hamilton or Räikkönen - Vettel never has faced an established great in his time and only raced all-conquering Red Bulls instead (which probably is the reason why people, incl me even if I occasionally do defend him in arguments, don't view him as belonging with F1's greats), and rivaling one would now have attracted worldwide attention and the "winner" in the battle would most likely be seen as deserving great champion.

Red Bull should decide whether it's in F1 to sell its drinks or have a racing team, because if it's the first, it's not doing a good job - and if it's in F1 for the success, it really should stop with the "why isn't Seb popular, let's try to solve it" tricks.

[mario]

Popularity is the only thing Vettel has not been lucky in - although certainly not a terribly likeable character to those able to detect underlying currents of personality beneath smiles, no teammate ever paired with fan favourite AussieGrit would ever come out better off in PR terms. Although despicable, can anyone honestly argue that his move in Malaysia was any worse than Alonso's in Hockenheim 2010, to a newly recovering Felipe Massa? And I need not even mention Barichello's treatment at Ferrari. However Alonso has managed to increase in popularity in recent years, if not purely off the back of Vettel's loathing, and Schumacher also seems forgiven for many of his indiscrepancies as simply signs of his legendary status. So what causes this, is it purely due to Webber's fan status? Or the promise shown in the late 2000s as Dr Baker alluded to, and maybe a subconscious association with monotonous German domination? Would he be less loathed if the team was still called Jaguar, rather than a fizzy drinks company, and ran by a personality like Flavio, rather than 'Call me Christian' Horner? Kimi acts far worse than Vettel does in public, yet is lauded for it, Alonso treated Massa like dirt, yet this is constantly overlooked.

Two final points -

Webber was actually beating Vettel until he injured his shoulder, and then never got close again after the switch to Pirellis.

I think Freeze Kimi is absolutely correct that this debate will be stymied, one way or the other, how he performs if the 2014 Red Bull is a weaker car, rather than specifically moving teams.

I guess that part of it comes down to the fact that, to a certain extent, what Ferrari did in 2010 at Hockenheim wasn't entirely without support from other people. Some supported Ferrari because they support the notion that team orders should have be legal, having been extensively used in the past, whilst others preferred the fact that Ferrari finally exposed the fact that team orders were still being used despite being ostensibly banned and finally forced the FIA to come clean on the issue.

Whilst, in a number of ways, events in Malaysia were not as bad, the issue was that nobody really addressed it in a clear manner and essentially spiral out of control. Ferrari had to fudge their response in 2010 because otherwise they'd invite heavier penalties, but their approach to team orders has always been consistent - they have always insisted that they should be legal - whereas Red Bull's approach has varied over recent years.

Now, Red Bull's decision to start using team orders has a certain logic, but the fact that Red Bull happily adopted them in 2011 jarred with the rather virulent criticism they'd given Ferrari in late 2010 about team orders. It was the very fact that Red Bull trumpeted the fact that they didn't use team orders and complained about Ferrari bringing the sport into disrepute, before doing exactly the same time less than a year later, that made the action of using team orders that much worse than Ferrari.

Similarly, the situation with Massa's treatment at Ferrari is not quite the same as at Red Bull - Ferrari have traditionally run a tiered driver system and have explicitly stated in the past that the strongest performing driver would get priority over the weaker one, so there is no ambiguity over the status of either driver. Massa himself benefited from that system in the past, with Ferrari officially giving him precedence in 2008 over Kimi, and in 2011 there were instances of Massa getting priority over Alonso in the latter stages of the championship (for example, Massa was given priority over pit strategy in the 2011 Korean GP, with Alonso told over the radio that he had to wait for Massa to decide on his strategy before he could decide on his). Similarly, we know that it is in Alonso's nature that he seeks signs from the team that he is being supported by them - although Alonso's time at Ferrari seems to show that the relationship is mutual in that respect - and that he has not hidden that desire in the past.

In some ways, it is somewhat reminiscent of champions of the past - Ron Dennis was asked about how the relationship between the team and both Prost and Senna had developed, and Ron Dennis described Prost as being constantly suspicious of Senna's relationship with Honda and key McLaren personnel, whilst Ron described Senna's constant questioning of the loyalty of McLaren towards him and suspicions that Prost might get preferential treatment as "bordering on paranoia".

Red Bull, by contrast, have sort of stumbled into such a model of driver management - which inevitably means that there is some friction between earlier recollections of fair treatment and more recent examples of drivers being given priority. Moreover, it is one that has generally been developed in light of problems on track in recent years - Ferrari are fortunate that they'd had many years over which to hone their systems, whereas Red Bull are having to do it in front of increasing media scrutiny.
If anything, what made it worse was the fact that Vettel kept changing his story to try to appeal to different groups - Brundle commented that, when he asked some fans why they were booing Vettel on the podium, the response mainly centred around Vettel's response to Malaysia. It wasn't necessarily just the act of passing Webber that was resented, but the fact that they felt Vettel was trying to deceive them by lying about not understanding the order. It was the fact that they felt he was playing them for fools that hurt the most and aggravated things, not just the original course of action.

I suppose, though, that the idea of privilege is the one that rankles the most though, something which also clung to Hamilton for some time too (and perhaps still clings to him). Vettel's position at Red Bull was marked out at an early age - some feel that Vettel's golden path into the sport, whilst drivers like Hulkenberg are struggling to stay in the sport and Frijns is sidelined because he rejected being forced into a young driver program, is emblematic of the endemic problems that plague the rise of drivers through the ranks of motorsport.

Equally, in their early days, Red Bull did kind of play on their reputation as a "party team" by using it to paint themselves as a breath of fresh air within the sport and the playful underdog fighting against the old guard - look at their old publication, the Red Bulletin, as an example of that joyful and cheeky attitude to the sport.

However, several things have changed that perception since then - that sense of playfulness has been swept aside by a determination to win and stamp their mark, or rather their marque, on the sport, as perhaps typified by the Red Bulletin being phased out as being no longer appropriate to Red Bull's new image. There have been the questions over whether the relationship of key personnel at Red Bull with Bernie is appropriate - Vettel in particular has an unusually close bond with Bernie (when did you last hear of Alonso celebrating a victory with Bernie?), and the increased discontent with Bernie and FOM will inevitably include their close associates too.

Equally, the image of a modest organisation punching above its weight that they cultivated in the past has been well and truly shattered in recent years - instead, their wealth has now grown markedly to the point where they are one of the wealthiest teams in the sport, and there is some anger that the latest revisions to the FIA's voting structure seems to be geared towards keeping the wealthiest top teams in that position at the expense of the lower half of the field. As the most public face of the team, Vettel is also the target of most of the opprobrium to the team, and so gets an increasingly harsh reception by the fans.

[Nessafox]

And eytl, the fact that you even bother to do all that effort for eplaining this, proves he is a true great.

Why?

Would people even bother arguing like that if i told something like 'Charles Pic is the greatest driver ever' ? No, because it's a short debate, Murray. The fact alone that people waste so much energy on arguing about someone says really a lot more than the arguments themselves.

[mario]

And eytl, the fact that you even bother to do all that effort for eplaining this, proves he is a true great.

Why?

Would people even bother arguing like that if i told something like 'Charles Pic is the greatest driver ever' ? No, because it's a short debate, Murray. The fact alone that people waste so much energy on arguing about someone says really a lot more than the arguments themselves.

I wouldn't say that provoking debate automatically equals being a great, because the arguments over whether figures like Fangio or Clark were great drivers or not tend to be pretty short too.

[Nessafox]

Why?

Would people even bother arguing like that if i told something like 'Charles Pic is the greatest driver ever' ? No, because it's a short debate, Murray. The fact alone that people waste so much energy on arguing about someone says really a lot more than the arguments themselves.

I wouldn't say that provoking debate automatically equals being a great, because the arguments over whether figures like Fangio or Clark were great drivers or not tend to be pretty short too.

Was it a short debate at the moment? Maybe it was, but times back then were a bit more behaved than they are now. And yes, i've actually heard lot of people debating Fangio's greatness (most of them were Senna-fanboys though, but that's not the point) It does indeed not really 'prove', but it's quite an obvious sign that many of you will look back differently on things.
Doing such an effort to prove somebody isn't great. Why is it worth the effort to all of you? Why does that one specific driver raises up so much emotions amongst a forum? Well, that's partially answered here, but part of the answer is the fact that it does bring up so much emotion and discussion.
And why am i even defending a driver that i can't stand? That's what scares me the most. Probably because i've seen what useless discussions people used to have in the Schumacher-domination-era, and i'm seeing the same sort of discussions rise up again. Even if these discussions are different, i know people enough to understand that these kind of discussions could tear forums and even friendships apart.
You've got to be damn great at what you're doing to tear forums apart!
The impact somebody has says more about someones greatness than the actions he's done. At least, that is how things will go down in history.

[DemocalypseNow]

Would people even bother arguing like that if i told something like 'Charles Pic is the greatest driver ever' ? No, because it's a short debate, Murray. The fact alone that people waste so much energy on arguing about someone says really a lot more than the arguments themselves.

I wouldn't say that provoking debate automatically equals being a great, because the arguments over whether figures like Fangio or Clark were great drivers or not tend to be pretty short too.

Was it a short debate at the moment? Maybe it was, but times back then were a bit more behaved than they are now. And yes, i've actually heard lot of people debating Fangio's greatness (most of them were Senna-fanboys though, but that's not the point) It does indeed not really 'prove', but it's quite an obvious sign that many of you will look back differently on things.
Doing such an effort to prove somebody isn't great. Why is it worth the effort to all of you? Why does that one specific driver raises up so much emotions amongst a forum? Well, that's partially answered here, but part of the answer is the fact that it does bring up so much emotion and discussion.
And why am i even defending a driver that i can't stand? That's what scares me the most. Probably because i've seen what useless discussions people used to have in the Schumacher-domination-era, and i'm seeing the same sort of discussions rise up again. Even if these discussions are different, i know people enough to understand that these kind of discussions could tear forums and even friendships apart.
You've got to be damn great at what you're doing to tear forums apart!
The impact somebody has says more about someones greatness than the actions he's done. At least, that is how things will go down in history.

I kind of get it. I mean, I remember before the Vettel era, seeing YouTube littered with stupid Schumacher vs Senna comments, their respective fanboys squabbling over which is better when, mostly, these people are just sheep and want to win an argument on the internet to make themselves feel nice, while I'm just sitting there staring at the screen and disbelief and thinking to myself "If I could be bothered, I'd write a big script about how both are very flawed and Jim Clark is the ultimate racing driver. But, I can't be bothered, so I won't."

I get a somewhat similar feeling with Vettel, but the reason is different. Some might say there is a parallel betwen Vettel and Clark, in that they stayed their entire careers in one team (Toro Rosso and Red Bull were essentially one and the same when Vettel was there, what with Red Bull Technology supplying the Toro Rosso cars, so don't be going all boring and picky on me). But, Clark bothered to go out of his comfort zone, to go race in touring cars and the Indy 500, while he was in F1. Yes, it was a different era, and you can't really double-duty anymore (look at what happened to Kubica, Webber, etc, it's a liability), but it would be nice to see him dabble in something outside of the Red Bull F1 team, and be quick at it. Even in recent times, Tonio Liuzzi went over to Surfers Paradise in between F1 events to do V8 Supercars. I imagine if he doubled up with Lowndes at the Red Bull 888 team for that race, and they won it, his popularity would rise. Then again, maybe Red Bull PR would be so stupid, they'd put him in JDub's car, they'd trounce everyone and he'd become the most hated man in all of Australia definitively

[dr-baker]

they stayed their entire careers in one team (Toro Rosso and Red Bull were essentially one and the same when Vettel was there, what with Red Bull Technology supplying the Toro Rosso cars, so don't be going all boring and picky on me)

Seb scored his first point for BMW Sauber! But otherwise, you point stands...

[Cynon]

Probably because i've seen what useless discussions people used to have in the Schumacher-domination-era, and i'm seeing the same sort of discussions rise up again. Even if these discussions are different, i know people enough to understand that these kind of discussions could tear forums and even friendships apart.

People have NO reason to be offended over this kind of discussion. It makes HWNSNBM and kittens cry.

You've got to be damn great at what you're doing to tear forums apart!

At successfully trolling the haters, absolutely!