1. A gentleman from Scotland said that Schumacher was put into capable Teams from the start of his career. Please tell me when did Benetton Win or come close to winning prior to Schumacher joining them ? Then he said that Schumacher never left a winning team. Well, after winning in 94 & 95 he left Benetton to join Ferrari - which in Senna's own words (end of 93) was NOT COMPETITIVE! And Ferrari only got worse in 94 & 95. When was the last time a Ferrari driver won a championship prior to Schumacher ? Well, it was in 1979. (They won the Constructor's in 1982 & 83).
Question for you, why didn't Senna join Ferrari in 1994 ?? Further, Senna was with Toleman only for one season before moving to Lotus. Lotus had won a Championship before (1978) though I agree that it wasn't comparable to McLaren & Williams. Then he jumped ship to McLaren, which WAS WINNING ANYWAY, and won his three Championships!!! Then when he couldn't win anymore he left McLaren for the Williams Renault, which was by far, the Best Car of the 90's. Now tell me who has only moved to a better car all the time & who has dared to leave a winning team for an inferior one & also turn it into a winning Team ???? Mate, the Answer to this question is the biggest reason why I say Schumacher is better. Hang the six Championships & 70 Wins.
As for the claim that Senna did better in 93 than Schumacher, what about 92 ?? When Schumacher did better than Senna in only his first full season, in a much lesser known Car & Team than Senna's ???
2. Lots of people say that Statistics are not important & then pull out one themselves (like Senna's 65 poles & that Schumacher lost to Hakkinen by 16 points while his Team mate lost only by 2 in 98). Isn't that ridiculous - contradicting themselves ?? I don't know about any Sport where Statistics are not important. It is like telling the Brazilians that their five World Cups in Soccer is just another Statistic & it is not important, when we all know that they are the Best Soccer playing Nation.
3. Some say that Championships are not important. Can someone tell me what these guys risk their lives for- Senna being the perfect example ?
4. Isn't it ironical that one person claims that Schumacher didn't have good competition & say that Hakkinen, Hill & Villeneuve were jokes while another say that Hakkinen was good Competition even as a Rookie; both to justify that Senna is better?
5. For the assumption that Senna would have beaten Schumacher had he lived. What's there to back this ? Between 1991 & 1994 (when both were in F1), Schumacher has done at least as well as Senna if not better. So, the same argument can be turned around to say that Schumacher would have beaten Senna.
6. Finally, for those who want others to check their heads, Please check if you've got one in the first place!!!