Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 4; Juan Manuel Fangio

• Season Points Av. 30.6
• Best Championship Finishes. 1st (x5), 2nd (x2)
• Average Constructor Placing over Career. 1.4
• 24 wins from 29 poles

For the second half of the Twentieth Century Fangio was the unparalleled most successful driver in Formula One with his five driver's title win. In the first year of the championship he lost out to Farina, but with both on the Alfa Romeo next he won. The 1952 was sat out injured, and 1953 was an uncompetitive year with three 2nd place finishes, whilst Ascari wrapped up his 2nd title with 5 wins from 6 poles. In 1954 Fangio won 6 races and won the title clearly. In 1955 Fangio had maybe his greatest achievement as he was paired with the super-fast Stirling Moss. Fangio achieved 3 poles and 4 wins, two of them one-twos over his talented team-mate. 1956 saw him move to the quick Ferrari and finish ahead of Moss and the pacy Peter Collins, with 3 wins. 1957 saw his final full season, and another dominant one with Maserati. He won 4 races and finished 2nd in two winning by a clear margin. 1957 also saw one of f1's great victories. After a pit stop from a comfortable lead, Fangio came out 50 seconds behind Hawthorn and Collin's Ferrari's . He chased them down and passed them with a lap left. His fastest lap being over 10 seconds quicker than the nearest rival.

Fangio's tactic to jump from best car to best car does detract from his lustre, though shows great politicking for drives. Equally, he must be placed higher than most other drivers because when given the equipment he won with it, including when paired with Moss, who Henry placed as the best driver of all time, difficult when considering that he was outdriven by Fangio when in the same car. Also many of his achievements were conducted in his forties. Ultimately a legendary driver and deserving of his high placing, though I'd accept not as high as many would expect.

Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 5; Jackie Stewart

• Season Points Av. 40
• Best Championship Finishes. 1st (x3), 2nd (x2), 3rd
• Average Constructor Placing over Career. 2.4
• 27 wins from 17 poles

Starting in 1965 Stewart matched Graham Hill whose previous 3 championship finishes had been a first and two seconds, with a win and three 2nds.. After a tougher second year and an average 1967 Stewart moved to Tyrell. Behind the faster Lotus Stewart was best of the rest. In 1969 Stewart won 6/11 races and won the title by 26 points. 1971 again saw him take the title, this time by 29 points. In 1972 he couldn't match the faster Lotus, but still took 4 wins and finished 2nd. In 1973 he won by 16 points and then retired, after being affected by the deaths of F1 drivers, especially team-mate Francois Cevert. His post racing career was filled with a mission too improve safety. In the 1990s he ran his own F1 team Stewart GP, again winnning with Johnny Herbert at the Nurburgring in 1999.

His constructor average showed he had a reasonable car often. However, his win to pole ratio shows that when he didn't have the fastest driver and car package on the grid he could still win races. It must also be said that he was often paired with great qualifiers as well. HIs points avergae is very good also gievn that the racing season was shorter than now at 11/12 races. Winning form his debut season, matching the super quick Hill in his first season shows real skill, and challenging for the title in most seasons he had incredible ability, in a career lasting only 9 years.

Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 6; Nelson Piquet

• Season Points Av. 34


• Best Championship Finishes. 1st (x3), 2nd, 3rd (x2)


• Average Constructor Placing over Career. 3.6


• 23 wins from 24 poles

Often not in the number one package on the grid, Piquet stayed too long at Brabham when the car had lost pace and reliability, and moved to the declining Lotus after a world title win at Williams. However, Piquet was a triple world champion, twice in the Brabham. In 1980 he won 3 races and finished in the points 10 times. In 1981 the top five in the championship were separated by 7 points, and whilst Reutemann or a Renault should have drove home their advantage, Piquet showed himself the consummate racer to take his 1st title. After a poor 1982 only lifted by a good win in Canada, Piquet won again in 1983. Renault and Ferrari were fastest taking 11/15 poles, and not just by their first drivers. However, Piquet won 3 to Prost's 5, and Arnoux's 3 to take a canny 2nd title. 1984 marked a big disappointment with 9 poles, but only 2 wins, and despite a race win 1985 proved worse. In 1986 Piquet joined Mansell at Williams, losing out to Mansell by 1 point to finish 3rd. After losing to Mansell in Britain at the halfway point Piquet was never again beaten in the points by his rival that season. When they both finished in the points the score for who finished higher stood equal at 4-4. In 1987 he showed his racing ability again, rarely outscoring Mansell (the tally this year being 5-3 to Mansell) when both finished in the points, but taking the title comfortably, albeit helped by Mansell being injured in the penultimate race weekend. It could be argued Mansell slightly had the better of Piquet in their time together and should be here instead, however winning is important, and the ability to take 3 world titles cannot be sniffed at. And despite what some saw as Mansell's domination over Piquet, after their 2 years together it was the Brazilian who left as World Champion. An unsuccessful 2 years at Lotus did little for his career, though he fared better in the 1990 Benetton matching young gun Nannini before his career ending injury. The arrival of Schumacher at Benetton ended his career, but his years with Mansell and Nannini had showed he could compete with an equal driver, even if he didn't like to.

Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 7; Stirling Moss

• Season Points Av. 16.8
• Best Championship Finishes. 2nd (x4), 3rd (x2)
• Avergae Constructor Placing over Career. 2.7
• 16 wins from 16 poles

Moss is known as the unluckiest driver in f1, who despite a great record never won the championship. In 1955 in a Fangio's team he kept the Argentinian great honest and finished 2nd. In 1956 he won 2 races and finished 3 points behind Fangio. In 1957 he won 3 and was again 2nd in the championship. 1958 was his unluckiest year, as he won 4 races and finished one point off the champion, Mike Hawthorn who won only 1 race in his Ferrari. In 1959 he finished 3rd, with 4 poles showing the speed, and wins in Portugal and Italy where he lapped the whole field. 1961 saw him win 2 races in a Lotus vastly inferior to the Ferrari's. Unfortunately a serious crash ended his career in 1962 and prevented him again challenging for the title.

Alan Henry placed Moss 1st in his poll. However, few would contend that when in the same car Fangio outdrove Moss and therefore should be considered the better driver.Unfortunately, whether by bad luck, or loyalty to British machinery Moss never won a title and therefore loses out to others who were either luckier, or engineered better drives for themselves, a vital part of F1.

Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 8; Alberto Ascari

• Season Points Av. 21.4
• Best Championship Finishes. 1st (x2), 2nd (x1)
• Average Constructor Placing over Career. 2.2
• 16 wins from 16 poles

Alberto Ascari was there from the beginning of Formula One. In only the third F1 season an injury kept the great Juan Manuel Fangio out and Ascari pounced on the chance taking pole in five out of seven races, and winning 6 of them excluding Indy. In the next year Ascari took pole in 6/8 races, and won the title with 5 wins. Like alot of contemporaries, F1 started when Ascari was already in his thirties, and therefore he had few years late on in his career to take the title and in the two opportunities that came up he achieved this. He was extremely successful in the pre-F1 era and therefore would have won more than two titles had he had a decade in f1 like many modern drivers. Following years were plagued by retirements. An interesting piece of f1 trivia is that Ascari was extremely superstitious insisting on using his pale blue helmet, the day he died it was not available. He died crashing a Ferrari four days after driving into the water at Monaco, his father had died in a crash four days after an accident. Ascari was only four days older than his father when he died, both 36.

Ultimately, a driver who took his chances when they came and won two world titles in a short Formula One career

Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 9: Emerson Fittipaldi

• Season Points Av. 26
• Best Championship Finishes. 1st (x2), 2nd (x2)
• Average Constructor Placing over Career. 3.7
• 14 wins from 6 poles

In 1970 Fittipaldi won in his debut season, but struggled to make the most of this and move on in the second year. Getting a good car in the Lotus of 1972 he won 5 races and the title in his third season. In 1973, partnered by the super-fast Swede Ronnie Peterson who took nine poles, Fittipaldi won the inner team battle at Lotus to finish second to Jackie Stewart in the Tyrell. Fittipaldi joined Mclaren in 1974, a season in which the Ferrari was the quickest car on the grid with 10/15 poles, yet Fittipaldi won three races against the odds and took the title. In 1975 he stretched his run of top two championship finishes to four consecutive years with 2 wins and four 2nds.

Then at the height of his racing powers he left to start his own team with brother Wilson. These were a series of frustrating and stressful years in which Fittipaldi wound down the last 5 years of his career in a poor car, only alleviated by a podium in his final season in the United States West Grand Prix. This reduces his constructor average to a poor 3.7. It must be considered that given four years in a good car he always finished first or runner up and therefore deserves a place amongst the top ten. After this Emerson went to US racing and achieved considerable success showing that he still had the skill if given the car.

Top Ten Formula One Drivers, 10: Jack Brabham

• Season Points Av. 15.8
• Best Championship Finishes. 1st (x3), 2nd (x1)
• Average Constructor Placing over Career. 3
• 14 wins from 13 poles

After reading Alan Henry's Top F1 Drivers and seeing several internet lists, I have reviewed available footage and season reviews to compile a list, here follows the first in the Top Ten countdown. Just to outline the points, the averages per season will obviously be higher for drivers in seasons with more races, but can be used to compare generationally. In addition the constructor number takes the position in which the team the driver drove for finished each season and averages it over a career to give an indication of the strength of car the driver had on average. Prost and Lauda do not get inside the Top Ten for example, because they should have (in my opinion only) made much more of the cars they had, seen as their average suggests they were almost always in one of the top two cars on the grid. However, issues of who's in or out will be addressed throughout.

Jack Brabham was a highly successful driver who won drivers championships in 1959 and 1960 in Coopers. The 1959 season saw Brabham take two wins from one pole and only one fastest lap all season. Moss suffered a poor early season with DNF's and a DQ, and his 3 poles and wins to finish the season shows what could have been. Yet Brabham did what gets you in history books, finished in the points when not winning to take his first title. In fact this first title came courtesy of him pushing his car over the line to finish fourth in the final GP. 1960 saw a more natural championship victory. In races 4 thru' 8 Brabham notched up five wins from 3 poles. This along with his win to pole stats (14:13) shows him to be a calculated steady racer, rather than the pacier drivers, such as Moss. However, it is Brabham's progress after this second title that puts him above other more expected drivers to fill this tenth spot. In 1962 Brabham set up his own team and raced in his own cars. In his debut season he took home two 4th place finishes. In his second year as a team boss he finished 2nd in Mexico and 3rd in the Constructors championship. Following steady progress Brabham took the drivers and constructors titles in 1966 scoring all the points in both championships, no less remarkable seen as he was 4o years old at the time. In 1967 he beat the supreme Clark to pole twice and won 3 races taking the constructors title and finishing second behind his team-mate in the drivers title, scoring a Brabham one-two. In 69 he scored a pole and several podiums to take second place in the constructors. 1970 was Brabham's final season, in which aged 44 he took a final win at the season opener in South Africa and three other podiums.

Over his career Jack Brabham won three world titles against quicker drivers, such as Hill, Clark and Moss, and therefore deserves his place in the Top Ten. He edges out other similarly crowned champions through the spectacular feat of running his own team, more common then, but also winning his third title in it, something the Fittipaldis or Hill failed to do.

Russian Revisionism: Double Standards

In his review of Bertrand M Patenaude's new work on Trotsky's latter years in exile, Robert Service praises the work, but criticises an overly sympathetic portrait of Trotsky as a human being. Using the analogy of the fox, Service highlights Trotsky as canine killer, mouth coloured with the blood of hen's, chickens etc. This represents a broader trend within the work of modern British historians (Simon Sebag Montefiore similarly) that have written up Stalin, contending the view of the grey blur, and seeing him as a romantic anti-hero, gangster and revolutionary intellectual. These works obviously continue to highlight the crimes of this pathological monster, but embolden his story with a series of energetically written books. Equally, in a previous review of a work by Beria's son, Service similarly attacked Khrushchev, and discounted his attempts at reform, whilst highlighting Beria as the potential great reformer of the Soviet system. In this work Service complains that he cannot highlight this aspect of Beria, without people accusing him of ignoring Beria's sadistic crimes. Yet, in his attitude to Trotsky is he not doing the same? Surely it is possible to recognise the nature of the Soviet regime, and not massacre the reputations of all the figures of the time equally. The difference in the writing of different figures also suggests a tactic of these modern Western historians. The figures that some writers still hold a more balanced view for (i.e. the oppositionist Trotsky, limited reformer Khrushchev, or Soviet-Marketer Bukharin) are targeted to eradicate all sympathy for any communist figures whilst the ultimately evil monsters of the regime are re-evaluated to meet the markets demand for revisionist biography, safe in the knowledge no-one could feel anything but hatred for these men. Equally, this market demand is a big problem for history and biography. The need to keep producing books on topics already covered requires a new look at the subject. This means that even if the established position on a persons life; positive, negative or somewhere in between, is the correct one, it has to be questioned because all works must take the contrary view. Ultimately, Trotsky did incorrectly regret his early break with Lenin and side with excessive centralism, and has to be held to account for what went on in the early Soviet Union. However, authors annoyance that he remains highly regarded should not colour the tone of their work to such an extent that anyone reading or listening to them, would presume that Trotsky was equally as culpable and evil as Stalin.

Haruki Murakami Review Part Five- A Wild Sheep Chase

Looking over other reviews on the internet, this appears to be a highly respected Murakami work. In previous reviews, the works that I've found most frustrating have still been highly paised, unfortunatley this is not the case. Unlike a lot of Murakami fans I do not have unlimited patience with surreality. If this type of writing works in the plot, or makes some earth shattering point, then it is accessible, or even preferable. However, when it fails to do this it just becomes boring. Discussons over why the cat has not been named because it is just a lump, is plain boring and sometimes almost unbearable. Unlike other works in this case the surreality does not jar with the earlier realist work in the first 100 pages or so, because the opening failed to attract my interest equally. In fact, for the first time in a Murakami work I had to fight to persuade myself to continue early on. The dialogue in much of this work is frustrating and tiresome. Equally the section on Pan Asian history was so dull that I was not sure whether the author was now joking, though even if he was it was an annoying pratical joke only the author could enjoy. Overall, the only Murakami work that I'd consider a total failure and one to which I will not return.

Haruki Murakami Review Part Four- Sputnik Sweetheart

This story follows Sumire, a young woman with pretensions to be a novelist, her male friends; who fancies her, whilst she neglects his advances, and her fascination with a successful older woman. Sumire takes a job with Miu, and moulds to her boss and the corporate culture, but on a break with the boss she fancies, she disappears. Sputnik Sweetheart deals with defection or change and the extent to which the old person then exists when this new person or change happens. This is shown by Miu's experience of viewing herself having sex with a man she finds sexually repellent. The interaction between K and Sumire is engaging, with it revolving around late night phone calls, and that warm feeling independent charcters with local cafes and independent bookshops types engender. There are continuities with the Murakami body of work; the appearance of cats, the lead girl wearing glasses, angular facial features, the telephone giving communication from an inaccesible place. Equally, isolation is examined clearly. The dog floating alone in Sputnik first, then K is alone, then Miu, and finally Sumire lost on her trip. The story is hauntingly written and K provides an excellent narrative. The only downside is the conclusion which moves towards a very open surreal piece of philosophising, after starting more in the vain of After Dark and South of the Border/West of the Sun. However, the ending wasn't too annoying in its surreality because it has its basis in a philosophical discussion between the two main characters early on, and encourages me to re-read the work, as many of Murakami's works require. On the other hand there is a problem with this sort of ending where you are unsure whether all the charcters exist any longer, but they engage with real world characters. It is slightly frustratingly open, but still fits with the wider text in an acceptable way. Ultimately, Sputnik Sweetheart is an excellent work, with minor flaws, that will take its place among the higher ranking Murakami works.

Haruki Murakami Review Part Three: South of the Border/West of the Sun

This piece is the most realist, and shortest work of this authors that I have read so far, and if you've read the two previous posts then you will expect me to praise this book. This expectation will not be disappointed. The short story focuses on Hajime a successful bar owner. It shows him at school with his first love and in the present with a successful business, backed by his father in law, and with a dutiful wife and children at home. Into this world walks his school friend that he loved, and he is conflicted internally by his wife and family and the recapturing of an old love seen through rose tinted spectacles. As in the case of After Dark the realism of this short piece is welcome and excellently done. This realism must be considered in relation to his other works, with the style being more comparable to an Ingmar Bergman film, willing to push the boundaries to show the complex relations between men and women, rather than surrealism pulling the rug of credibilty from under you. Equally this story follows incredibly normal themes; a wife stuck at home feeling her husband no longer loves her, an ex love who wants to be able to pick up a relationship at her whim and leave again and a middle aged man struggling between family and a potential great new love. This normality is written in a haunting and beautiful way,largely untainted by the jarring of surrealim and thus allowing a real investment in his decisions. In the end we a treated to a finale in the style of an episode of The Twilight Zone, which always has to be considered a positive. Ultimately, this would be my favourite Murakami work so far.

Haruki Murakami Review Part Two: Kafka on the Shore

This piece is the opposite of After Dark, being a long and extremely surreal work. I enjoyed most of this novel, and yet if it has a weakness, as I believe it does, this lies in its excessive surrealism and length. At the start of the novel we follow another person who's run away from thier family, a boy called Kafka, and an elderly man on some sort of invalidity benefit for learning difficulties, but who can speak to cats and therefore retrieve them for their owners. Following Kafka through his relationship with a fellow traveller who may be his sister, and an older lady who runs a library he works at, starts the piece perfectly. One of the ideas expressed here and elsewhere is that sometimes a persons life just halts, and that no more forward progression is possible, and yet they continue living for many years, is interesting and a superior alternative to more simplistic fetishisations of suicide. However, for me, the surrealism becomes far too much and really jars a work I'd invested in. The realitionship between the old man and a truck driver who journeys with him is beautiful, and yet when we get to the section where the truck driver speaks to people from other realities, or helps the old man retrieve a magic rock to assist in supernatural powers, this readers patience was tried. Kafka's realtionship with a library assitant of confusing gender is the extent of surrealism that fits perfectly in a Murakami work. Equally, the relationship between Kafka and the old lady, who used to sing but cannot without her lover lost many years ago, starts off beautifully but is jarred by excessive fantasy. One idea that could be in this work, though its always impossible to be sure with Murakami, is the disruption of war. Obviously the bombing and Japan and the Second World War provide a backdrop to alot of modern Japanese literature, and in this text there is the feeling of the work showing the extent of mixed up feelings, alienation from family, inverted morals etc., existing in a state which has experienced war. Therefore, this book is interesting and the characters excellently drawn, as usual. However, these people are so well drawn that it is a travesty that by the end the length of the book, and the excessive nature of its surrealism mean that potentially heart rending scenes lack that effect. If taken out of the real world, it is then hard to give two hoots about anything that happens in it because its importance and reality has been mocked. In the end, an interesting, but sometimes frustrating read.

Haruki Murakami Review Part One- After Dark

This short story follows a group of isolated or alienated individuals whose lives cross over in the darkness of a Japanese night. Firstly, as someone who feels that all books could do with losing at least 50-100 pages, and all movies half an hour, the brevity of this piece is welcomed. So is the simplicity. As will be seen above I do have some reservations with the longer or most surreal works. Looking up some other reviews on the internet, this work seems to be one of the least respected by serious Murakami fans, maybe the restrained surrealism the reason for this. However, I like this realist nature, as it allows an investment and engagement with well drawn characters, which can be annoyingly jarred by the talk of alternative realities. The heavy set whore house owner, the girl from the cafe the black sheep of the family, the excitable and sociable band member and the office worker are all excellently written. The extent of the story across this short work involves the voyeuristic watching of the girl in the cafe's comatose sister and a murder in the brothel. The first aspect is typical Murakami surrealism, though pleasingly restrained. The second though showing us the culprit for the murder, and the potential future retribution, seems more like The Twilight Zone, for me something to be grateful for. Ultimately, I would describe this as a perfect entry point to new readers, though not wholely representative of his work as a whole.

DVD Review- The Wrestler

Out now on DVD, The Wrestler follows many contemporary indie films in going for naturalism. This is seen in many of the backstage locker room conversations, with minimal dialogue, contrasting with the bloody intense action that Randy’s just endured in the ring. A washed up wrestler from the eighties, ‘The Ram’ has to trawl around local shows, often increasingly bloody, but for diminishing financial returns. In addition to this Mickey Rourke’s character has to work for a smart ass boss in order to pay the rent on his trailer park home. Ultimately, Robinson’s health fails him and he faces a life without wrestling, his only relationship with a stripper played by Marisa Tomei, and his estranged daughter.

The film contains amazing performances from these two leads. Rourke plays the Giant with a gentle heart, who increasingly does himself physical damage, yet refuses to use his physical strength against his landlord or boss, who take advantage of him. Equally, Rourke’s character is unable to deal with the progression of time, and lives in the 1980’s, whether it be a love of 80’s cheesy rock music, or a retro video game based upon his high profile fight against The Ayatollah. These touches really lift the film, especially for those who were fans of wrestling in its heyday, with its history of foreign political enemies, The Ayatollah recalling The Iron Sheik, or Nikolai Volkoff. Equally, we see later that the Ayatollah is actually an American used car salesman.

The relationship with the stripper really works, as she does not need saving and has a clear code and rules that allow her to separate her professional and private life as a mum. This contrasts with ‘The Ram’ living in the past. Despite criticism from many reviewers that the relationship with the daughter is an after thought or too clichéd, again this works given the deeper truth that Rourke’s real relationship exists with the fans and his fame, something he cannot overcome. Also, given the troubadour nature of the profession of wrestling his dysfunctional familial relationship rings true to fans.

This focuses heavily on the male experience, without being ‘a man’s film.’ Presumably because men have greater representation in the production of films, reviewers still often focus heavily on whether a film contains well written female characters. However, this ignores how often male characters are clichéd or stereotypes (lads, gangsters, cockney wide boys). Yet this film contains a brilliantly written male character. It is excellent because it focuses on the male ability for self pity, which maybe the lead character doesn’t express too greatly, but nonetheless everyone who is familiar with the phenomenon of the mid life crisis and middle aged men looking back on their life with regret will recognise. In fact despite not being a fan of 80’s rock music, no one can be unmoved when Rourke bursts out to his fans to the strains of Guns N Roses.

Ultimately, this film works so well because it unashamedly shows a man unable to cope with the modern world, and faltering trying to repair relationships, yet ultimately decries what the wider world has done to him, or his inability to live the life of a normal member of society. This love of the male camaraderie over wider society has been attempted and failed by a series of hooligan movies because they resort to defending their repellent behaviour. Instead, when Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson realizes his home exists in the world of wrestling we cheer him on.

A great film.