Why convenient? - whoever wins a title has no affect on my life so what difference does it make? I watch racing to watch people race against each other, not play the percentage game. What I can't abide is manipulated results through politics or team orders to allow someone to win a race, or give them the maximum points available at the time. It means they've earned nothing on merit. Championship results can be manipulated, all it means is someone has more points than someone elese after the last race.
Casey Stoner was a massive odds-on pre-season favourite after winning 10 races 2011, by being in the right place at the right time.
So were Dovi and Pedrosa in 2011 - they had the same opportunity. Pedrosa missed races because he was injured, he may have won more had he not been, much like Stoner this year - we'll never know. Dovi was never in it
He won 10 races in 2007 by being in the right place too.
Right place in 2007? As was Capirossi then - how many wins, poles, fastest laps or podiums did he get with the same opportunity? Remind me again.
Take away the 20 wins he had in those two fortunate seasons..and his win tally is no better than serial under achiever Pedrosa.
Both seasons there were other top class riders given the same 'fortunate' opportunities on the same bike. In 2007 they were on a better bike. Both seasons only one made the most of it. I could just as easily say take away Rossi's 5 early titles against a bunch of riders in their twilight years and he is left with no more than 'under-achiever' Stoner.
Stoner failed this year and was beaten by his team mate..who has won fuck all in the big boys class. What does that tell you Bulto?
Nothing, his season finished at Indy, the halfway point, with an injury that kept out of races - it happens. Capirossi in 06, Rossi in 2010, Lorenzo in 2011 - all missed races. Who knows what would have happened in those seasons had they not. But they did. Up to Indy, less than a race win seperated Lorenzo, Pedrosa and Stoner in points tally, with half the season still to run.
It's the 'title means best rider' bollocks I've no interest in. I'm not interested in best rider discussions full stop as it's all subjective. Are we saying Doohan was a worse rider than Criville in 1999 because stats show Criville won the title and Doohan was nowhere?
You can wriggle around using stats all you like to show flaws with Stoner but history and race footage will forever show he was the only rider capable of setting up and riding a Ducati to race wins, podiums, fastest laps and poles.
It will also show that Rossi, lauded as the set up genius and a rider with enough talent to overcome a machine's shortcomings simply wasn't and couldn't. Neither could he offer Ducati any direction on how to make the bike as he wanted - his own admission in black and white print - on record.
2012 on the bike developed for him by Ducati was indeed a disaster - one of the biggest flops in racing history. No amount of wriggling, statistical manipulation will change that, will it.