There appears to be a kind of Vaseline-smeared, soft-lensed, rose-tinted view of Aryton Senna that I simply do not understand. Or rather, I do understand it because I understand how narrative works and that in the process of lionising Senna, his on-track faults and actions, have been forgiven by the passage of time; because that's how story and mythologising operates. It is just that having lived through history the first time around, I just do not believe the story put forward by certain documentary movies as credible. If you're going to have a hero in a piece, then you need to paint someone else as a villain. To some degree if you're going to have a hero in a piece, then also you need to whitewash everything that they do; irrespective of merit. The sad truth is that in Formula One, practically everyone is a villain all of the time. You don't get to be World Champion unless you are either a villain, or a genius, or a generational talent, or a brawler and grinder, or some combination of some or all of these things.
I also do not accept that Senna was the greatest Formula One driver of all but was cut down before he could prove it. Statistically Lewis Hamilton is the greatest Formula One driver and Michael Schumacher is second. Both of these two gents have seven World Championships to their name. Next would be Juan Manuel Fangio with five and he might very well have more if it wasn't for that pesky thing called World War II interrupting the beginning of his career. Next should be Alain Prost with four World Championships and it is he whom is most compared with Senna as contemporaries.
In the case of Prost though, he lost 1983 because of illegal fuel at one race. Had the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix gone full race distance he'd have won that title by one point instead of losing it of a half-point. Prost lost the 1988 World Championship because of operation of the rules and being better than Senna; and he lost the 1990 World Championship because Senna used his car as a weapon and instead of being banned for life was rewarded with the World Championship. Prost could very well be sitting on eight titles, had the cards fallen differently.
This is the base problem with trying to paint Senna as some kind of hemi-demi-semi-quasi-god. Granted that he won three World Championships but two of those are horribly tainted and other World Champions such as Vettel, Piquet, and especially Brabham and Stewart, won their World Championships under far more noble circumstances. Jackie Stewart is my not very well paid opinion the greatest Formula One driver of all; not because he won three titles but because after he retired he pushed relentlessly for better track design, better car safety, better medical teams and he more than anyone else is responsible for the fact that a Formula One driver doesn't die on average at the rate of one every four weeks. Greatness is often not determined by results but by character and legacy.
There is one famous incident involving Senna, which is viewed by his fans as being Prost's fault, by others as a 50/50 incident; which I am not going to mention until the end of this. In many cases in history, if you place an event back into the context in which it exists, then drawing conclusions which are more rational being to emerge.
Senna v Rosberg - 1985 Brands Hatch, European GP
Senna started on the front row and led off the line. Mansell was in second but slid wide at Druids; which allowed Rosberg and Piquet past. On lap 7 when Rosberg attempted to overtake Senna at Surtees, Senna blocked Rosberg, then came back and deliberately chopped the nose off of Rosberg's car, which meant that he was hit by Piquet in third, who had nowhere to go.
I have idea what Senna's beef actually was with Rosberg in the 1985 European Grand Prix at Brands Hatch. The 1982 champion was simply going for a move which makes sense after passing around the outside at Druids, which then sets you up on the inside for the next two corners. Senna's move here seems unprovoked and cynical here. Rosberg would go on to finish the race in third anyway; so Senna's punting him off the track here, seems completely unnecessary to me.
I just don't get it. There wasn't a championship on the line here. There wouldn't really be any advantage to be had since Mansell had the fastest car and the most local knowledge. This is just Senna giving Rosberg a blood nose because it's fun, I guess? At kindest, this is silly. Beyond that, this marks a character flaw; which the rest of Senna's career proves, was never ever resolved.
Senna v Mansell - 1987 Spa-Francorchamps, Belgian GP
The first start was a farce and a series of crashes meant that the race had to be restarted. On the restart and lap 1 of the resumed race, Senna made it to the hairpin at Radillion first, then led most of the lap until the run back down the hill, when Mansell had a faster car and tried to go around Senna at Campus. Senna did not like this and rather than concede the place, he more than likely punted the rear end of Mansell; which sent both of them spinning off into a gravel trap.
Maybe Senna could have won the 1987 Belgian Grand Prix? What is absolutely certain is that he was in no mood to let anyone else win it if he could help it. IN hindsight, Senna's punting of Mansell into the gravel at Belgium, cost Mansell the 1987 World Champioship and handed Nelson Piquet his third.
Yet again, we see Senna being unhappy because someone else was faster than him, and because he ran out of performance and apparently talent and ability, he deliberately chooses to use his car as a weapon and whether or not he took himself out of the race in the process, is of zero concern to him.
Senna v Prost - 1990 Suzuka, Japanese GP
The general story is that Senna took out Prost at the opening corner of the first lap at the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix as retaliation for what happened the year before. Now you'll note that I have not included the incident from 1989 deliberately; this is because although I think that Senna also caused that, this incident is proof of character.
Before the Japanese Grand Prix, at the drivers' briefing meeting, Senna who was unhappy about the positioning of where first and second were on the road, made the comment that he "can not be held responsible for what will happen today". On board telemetry showed that Senna didn't lift off of the throttle; which also serves to prove that not only was this deliberate but premeditated. Now if this incident happened on the road and a judge was faced with this kind of evidence, then you would suspend the driver's licence immediately. Instead though, Senna was rewarded as being the 1990 World Champion.
In a post race interview with Jackie Stewart about why he had taken out Prost, Senna said:
“Being a racing driver means you are racing with other people and if you no longer go for a gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver because we are competing.”
The problem with this remark, is that he was lying; and it took him almost 12 months to admit that he was lying. He was still lying nonetheless. What's insane about this is that the lie lasted just long enough for him to win the 1990 World Championship. After any legal challenges were dropped, the lie was dropped. Personally, winning a World Championship through deliberate criminal action should automatically disqualify someone from any kind of discussion about greatness.
Senna v Mansell - 1992 Adelaide, Australian GP
I have watched this and re-watched this again and again and I simply have no decent explanation as to why this should happen. This is not raw and unrefined Aryton Senna in a Lotus at Brands Hatch in 1985 but Triple World Champion Aryton Senna in a McLaren at Adelaide, with seven years of experience added.
Yet again, there was no gap. There was never any gap. There was not going to be a gap. Mansell never ever changed his line at any point whatsoever. What was Senna trying to do here? If this is mere brain fade, then what does this say about him as a World Champion? If this was deliberate, then what was to be gained? Is this revenge? If so, for what? I simply do not understand; nor can I find any plausible entry to doing so.
Remarks:
As much as I think that he was an undeserving winner of two of his three championships, the record books show that Aryton Senna is a Triple World Champion. The one incident which I have not presented (which is arguably the most famous) is not an event which happened in isolation but one which happened in a cloud of many. There is something to be said about judging each case on its merits but when you have a trail of similar and like incidents which keep on happening, then patterns and likelihoods emerge. At the time of the unnamed incident, James Hunt on the BBC commentary mentions several laps beforehand that he suspected that something might happen; you don't get to make that kind of assessment unless there is form.
So while I can admit that Senna was good, he wasn't as good as Hamilton, or Schumacher, or Vettel, or Prost. I don't think that he was as good as Stewart, or Piquet, or Brabham, or Lauda, or Verstappen. I don't even think that he was as good as Hill, or Fittipaldi for that matter. It is likely the result of him dying and his career being cut short, that the myth making has gone on to make Senna bigger in the Formula One pantheon than he otherwise would have been.
In fact, in re-watching video of five incidents, I think that I have shifted my opinion about the unnamed incident here. Once is unlucky. Twice is coincidence. Three times is suspicious. Four times is a pattern. Five times is pretty much bang to rights.
Senna v Prost - 1989 Suzuka, Japanese GP
I have changed my opinion on this. I used to think that Prost moving over was unfortunate and that Senna ploughing through was reckless. I am now prepared to say that this is not a 50/50 incident but a 0/100 incident and Senna is entirely at fault. Barging through and trying to take a space, including when going for the lead, even if it including taking both cars out of the race, was not mere accident on the part of Senna. This was modus operandii.
"The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”
– Brutus, Julius Caesar, Act II, Scene 1.
Senna never acted with remorse. Power was abused, repeatedly.
No comments:
Post a Comment