haha it's ironic to heart martin brundle critizing others. When his F1 career was like changing teams after every season, always outclassed by the teammate and never winning a race altough he drove for many race winning teams
well he drove for many race winning teams, but not in their prime... the only driver to win a race while being Brundle's teammate was Schumacher in spa 92
Oh dear... The british bias was so obvious by Martin here when he gave Coulthard B+ and Hakkinen C-, even go as far to suggest Hakkinen looking for another drive for being lackluster, what a shame.. But I guess he can't help himself, as he is a british and manager of Coulthard
You don't see whats wrong and bias? 1. You based that on final standing championship, and while on stats looks much better (3rd place vs 6th place), in reality it is much closer with only 9 points separated them (36 vs 27 point). 2.This is half season rating by Brundle, which is means somewhere after French GP or British GP (8th and 9th race), and Coulthard only ahead of Hakkinen by a mere 1 point after the French GP (half season) at that time (11 point vs 10 point), and even then after Coulthard got a lucky win at first GP of that season (Australian GP). While I agree that Coulthard performance was better that season, and Hakkinen is not up to his usual standard, Coulthard performance is only very marginally better than Hakkinen. Couthard also not putting an extraordinary performance to warrant high praise, nor did Hakkinen doing a really terrible performance such as Hill on 95 to warrant high criticize by Brundle to suggest ' *lackluster and could lost his drive* ', that is cheap shot by Brundle to highlight his driver (Coulthard) in a much much better light than Hakkinen. At best I would give Couthard B+ and Hakkinen B at this point.
@@Aunini indeed had McLaren-Mercedes been more reliable that year, Mika likely had taken 3 wins, maybe 4 during 3nd half of the season (Silverstone, Austria, Nurburing and Jerez). Ok in Austria he had DNF at very start of the race but Silverstone and Nurburing looked liked they were in the bag for Mika had the car/engine just lasted to the finish
If kimi was in this he wouldnt get an A+, he wouldve been ranked biblical
The win in Monaco will not be his last. Martin you have no idea how wrong you are
Panis was never the same after that crash. He seemed to lack that aggressiveness he showed before the crash.
If it had been the same Panis, he would have won more; feel like the same thing happened to Massa 😥
Hakkinen looking for other drives😂😂😂😂😂😂 so wrong
2:41 why he didn't got a rating
haha it's ironic to heart martin brundle critizing others. When his F1 career was like changing teams after every season, always outclassed by the teammate and never winning a race altough he drove for many race winning teams
well he drove for many race winning teams, but not in their prime... the only driver to win a race while being Brundle's teammate was Schumacher in spa 92
Schumacher with a great car will be unsttopable.... That's prophetic
Oh dear... The british bias was so obvious by Martin here when he gave Coulthard B+ and Hakkinen C-, even go as far to suggest Hakkinen looking for another drive for being lackluster, what a shame..
But I guess he can't help himself, as he is a british and manager of Coulthard
Häkkinen came sixth and Coulthard came third in the 1997 championship. I don't see any bias here.
You don't see whats wrong and bias?
1. You based that on final standing championship, and while on stats looks much better (3rd place vs 6th place), in reality it is much closer with only 9 points separated them (36 vs 27 point).
2.This is half season rating by Brundle, which is means somewhere after French GP or British GP (8th and 9th race), and Coulthard only ahead of Hakkinen by a mere 1 point after the French GP (half season) at that time (11 point vs 10 point), and even then after Coulthard got a lucky win at first GP of that season (Australian GP).
While I agree that Coulthard performance was better that season, and Hakkinen is not up to his usual standard, Coulthard performance is only very marginally better than Hakkinen.
Couthard also not putting an extraordinary performance to warrant high praise, nor did Hakkinen doing a really terrible performance such as Hill on 95 to warrant high criticize by Brundle to suggest ' *lackluster and could lost his drive* ', that is cheap shot by Brundle to highlight his driver (Coulthard) in a much much better light than Hakkinen. At best I would give Couthard B+ and Hakkinen B at this point.
It is likely personal, they were teammates in McLaren in 1994 and Hakkinen beat him.
To be fair, Hakkinen was underperforming up to this point in the season
Early '97 Hakkinen (up to France) and late '97 Hakkinen were very different
@@Aunini indeed had McLaren-Mercedes been more reliable that year, Mika likely had taken 3 wins, maybe 4 during 3nd half of the season (Silverstone, Austria, Nurburing and Jerez). Ok in Austria he had DNF at very start of the race but Silverstone and Nurburing looked liked they were in the bag for Mika had the car/engine just lasted to the finish
Can i get an s please???