25/03/2004
FEATURE BY MIKE LAWRENCE
 |
My last piece, written after Melbourne, received a mixed mail bag. Those who admire Alonso and Webber thought it was right on, the Kimi is King Klub did not. I suggested that Kimi's sulking after his car let him down is not the sign of a Natural Winner.
The criticism of my article assertion came in three flavours. At the lower end there was the guy who complained that I had spent several paragraphs poking fun at Kimi and talking about his pimples and his girlfriend. Can anyone enlighten me why, of all the planets in the universe, do the denizens of the Slime Pits of Zorg pick on Earth? I have never written about Formula One skin problems or anyone's girl friend.
The second category was the committed Räikkönen fan. There is no point in arguing with a devotee. There is no point in trying to convince me that Sir Stirling Moss is other than the greatest driver who ever raced. Years ago, I worked out the formula of telling someone's age. You ask who is their favourite driver and it usually follows that they were around 15-years-old when such-and-such a driver was at the leading edge. Reason does not come into it, but passion does.
I happen to be very lucky, my enthusiasm was fired when Moss was in his pomp. My favourite driver also happens to be the greatest of all. Isn't that a lucky coincidence? What are the chances of that happening?
It is like my football team, Arsenal FC, Go, Gunners. Go! which I was taken to see by my father when I was four. Imagine, if my Uncle Vic had taken me to see his team, Tottenham Hotspur. I could now be a pathetic Spurs' supporter, sitting outside the Arsenal ground and muttering, "Got any spare league points, Guv?" I have seen at first hand what being a supporter of Spurs can do to a man and, believe me, it is not a sight for the squeamish. (You're a cruel, wicked man - Ed)
You cannot reason with a fan which, after all, is an abbreviation of 'fanatic'. Nobody can reason with a fan, and I include myself when wearing my fan's head. Let's face it, the endless discussion of one driver over another, of one soccer club against another, is actually a game, it is a pub debate and it can be great fun. Only the very sad take the debate seriously. In the past if I have pointed out that Michael Schumacher is the only driver in history to have been excluded from the World Championship, I have received mail best written in purple crayon because the writer is not allowed access to sharp implements.
We come to the third level and one reader, Gareth Bouch, raised the game. I should have known Gareth was a player because he was the only correspondent to offer the word 'psychology'. I put up a standard defence and he demolished it.
It turns out that Gareth has an academic background in psychology, as I should have guessed, and he gave my arguments a real test, but in a proper, gentlemanly, way. Another to do so was Vika Haridas. Vikas is an engineer, in current employment, though hoping to pursue a Master's degree. She tested my argument about Natural Winners as well.
Gareth and Vikas were being logical and in terms of pure logic they had me bang to rights. My only defence is that I have been around longer than both of them put together and have followed the sport for the greater part of the World Championship's history. One develops an instinct for what is going on simply because one has seen it all before many times. They have me on logic and, as someone with a PhD, I respect respect logic. Wearing my Academic Head, I am defeated, but wearing my Workaday Head, I can say, "These white hairs count for something, believe me."
In fact, I did a PhD largely because I sniffed so much bullshit in my particular area of interest, which is the English theatre of Shakespeare's era. I knew there was so much bullshit because I had been subjected to the rigours of writing about motor racing history. Some of my PhD thesis has been published and the book is under way.
Having been schooled in motor racing history, I did something which would occur to few academics, I actually read everything published, 1590-1611. You develop an instinct, and I know which academic had read a particular play and who had read someone who had read someone who had read someone who had actually read a particular work. I sailed through my PhD because I applied motor racing rules.
The argument about Natural Winners is not new. Denis Jenkinson used it in his classic work, The Racing Driver, nearly half a century ago and, for all I know it had been an idea hanging in the ether for much longer. One of the characteristics of Jenks was that he kicked ideas around with lots of people.
Jenks is becoming a rapidly fading memory and it is with profound shock that I realise it is more than six years since he died and rather longer since he was able to write. Some readers may like to know that Jenks rode as passenger to Eric Oliver when Oliver won the 1949 motorcycle combination World Championship, and guided Sir Stirling to victory in the 1955 Mille Miglia. He rode in motorcycle Grands Prix as a privateer because he liked the life, but he knew his limits and became a writer.
I was lucky enough to be chosen by Jenks as a pupil, and he is one of the wisest people I have been fortunate enough to meet. Let me give an example. In 1978 Frank Williams (not then, Sir Frank but, more often 'Wanker' Williams) and Patrick Head entered Formula One with the first car they created together. Another new team that year was Arrows. The two teams finished equal ninth in the Constructors' Cup with 11 points each. People in some teams dream of 11 points.
Williams and Arrows each used Cosworth engines, Hewland transmissions and Goodyear tyres so we are talking about a level playing field. Who, at the time, could have predicted that Williams would score more than 110 Grand Prix wins, seven Driver Championships, and nine Constructors' titles, while Arrows's score in every department resembled the ideal shape of a tyre.
Early in 1979, Jenks told me, "Winning a race can destroy a team. When Williams win a race, and they will, they will build on it. If Arrows ever win a race, and I doubt if they ever will, it will only confuse them."
A few months later Williams was runner-up to Ferrari in the Constructors' Championship, having won four of the last six races. In 1979 Williams scored 75 points to the five of Arrows. It was ever the story until Arrows imploded.
After years of struggle, 'Wanker' Williams got it right. Jenks was adamant about there being a difference in the mind-set of those who win time and again and those who win a few times. I am a life-long a disciple of Jenks, ask anyone in motor racing aged over, say forty, and they will say the same. I have lost count of the number of drivers, engineers, team owners, who have blamed their careers on Jenks because they had read him when they were youngsters.
Jenks was not always right, but he hit the target more often than not. I am not convinced that he was actually wrong when it came to identifying Natural Winners. Remember, you can become World Champion without being a Natural Winner as three drivers called Hill have proved.
You can win lots of races without being a Natural Winner. You can even put in breathtaking drives, as Keke Rosberg did. A Natural Winner would never say what Ralf Schumacher is reported to have said after Melbourne the he would have no compunction in forcing Juan Pablo off the track in retaliation for the way Montoya overtook him in the Australian GP. I could see nothing wrong with JPM's move, but Bernievision's coverage of the race was so inept that I may have missed something.
No Natural Winner would have shot off his mouth as Ralf is reported to have done after Melbourne. If he and Montoya have an incident which is genuinely 50/50, who will get the blame? Ralf will get the blame because he is so dim that he has told us in advance that we should blame him. I have news for Ralf, you first have to be as fast as Montoya to be in a position to ruin his afternoon.
Natural Winners do not behave like this. Were Ralf a Natural Winner, his name would not be linked to Toyota on the grounds that it is the one team that may be daft enough to meet his ridiculous financial demands. A Natural Winner would look where Montoya finished in Malaysia and would also consider the level of Toyota's performance, which is pathetic now that Cologne has been denied information from Maranello. A Natural Winner looks for the best car, not the best pension plan.
Toyota will never win a Grand Prix save by fluke. Toyota is run by a committee, for Heaven's sake. A camel is a horse designed by a committee and the overall intelligence of a committee is the IQ of the least intelligent person on it, minus one point for each member of the committee.
A Natural Winner will make a difference to a team. Jarno Trulli has always been quick in qualifying, but tended to lose the plot in the race. He now has to beat Fernando Alonso and his drive at Sepang was stunning. I am sure that Alonso's performance has lit a squib under Trulli.
I do not think that Kimi Räikkönen makes a difference to McLaren. Give him the right equipment, he can make the best of it and he can win races. A Natural Winner regards winning as his right. As Michael does. Michael has cheated in the past, no question about that, but he makes a difference to a team.
Tell you something else, do not think that Räikkönen is a natural successor to Hakkinen. Mika had a special relationship with Ron Dennis, but Ronzo has already moved away from being centred on Formula One, he is now much more interested in the overall McLaren empire, or so little birdies tell me. McLaren is not at present a happy team because nobody likes the successors to Ronzo's iron rule.
Ronzo has been doing Formula One for close to a quarter of a century and he has many active years ahead of him, should he choose. You cannot blame Ronzo if, after nine Drivers' Championships and seven Constructors' Championships, he is looking for other fields to conquer.
In general, people have ignored the effect that the death of Paul Morgan, co-founder of Ilmor, the MOR of Ilmor, has had on the engines which Ilmor makes and which are badged for Daimler-Benz and used by McLaren. Paul Morgan was essential to Ilmor, he was a lovely guy, a dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast, who was dedicated to engineering, and he cannot be replaced. Ilmor has not been the same since Paul's death.
Kimi does not make a difference to McLaren, as Alonso makes a difference to Renault and Webber makes a difference to Jaguar. Give Kimi the right car and he will deliver the results, but he will not make a difference to any team.
Notice how when he got out of the car at Sepang, Kimi pushed away a marshal? Those who take the ITV link will have heard James Allen, not the sharpest tool in the box, say that it was understandable. Understandable? It was unforgivable. The race could have taken place without Räikkönen, but not without the marshals.
I was at Silverstone a few days ago, and it was a most unpleasant place to be because of the weather. The marshals stuck to their posts.
Räikkönen has proved, two races in a row, that he is not a Natural Winner. A Natural Winner regards a blown engine as an aberration, he does not take out his anger on a marshal because a Natural Winner will not be angry. He may be frustrated, he may be a lot of things, but he will not be angry.
By the way, the British media has gone to town because Jenson Button has had a podium from his 67th start in a World Championship race. Juan-Manuel Fangio started a mere 51 races, but he won 24, finished second ten times, third once, and took five World Championships. Fangio was a Natural Winner and his behaviour was beyond fault.
Go through motor racing history and you will find that the behaviour of the Natural Winner has always been beyond fault, you get the spats of temper only from people like Räikkönen who are good, very good, but are the length of a gnat's foreskin away from being great.
Mark Webber is a Natural Winner, he had a lurid race in Malaysia. Everyone I know picked up on the fact that his car lurched forward while waiting for the warm-up lap, but it was missed by our TV commentators who were surprised by the fact he was in trouble at the start. Nobody else was surprised. Mark was succinct about his race, he made a mistake and he spun his car, that was it. He can afford to admit to a mistake because he is a Natural Winner, he does not push marshals around.
A Natural Winner can be summed up by Shakespeare (who else?). A character says of Coriolanus taking a city, he takes it as the osprey takes the fish, by sovereignty of nature.
All the Natural Winners have had sovereignty of nature. Sovereignty does not encompass pushing a marshal in the chest. I reply to Gareth and Vika's impeccable logic with this telling detail.