He just never gives up. Always fighting to the end for the team and himself.
@whysoserious97462 жыл бұрын
F1's been on life support since his exit from the sport, #keepfightingmichael❤️
@iluvmyjill4 жыл бұрын
Keep fighting Michael
@arlindosilva2557 Жыл бұрын
Jim Rosenthal never made secret he didn't liked Schumacher. He was the most vocal person in ITV crew against the german, taking a jab on him whenever he could. This interview is a pretty good example. He asks Michael a couple of questions about Indianapolis as if Ferrari and Bridgestone were at fault when actually it was Michelin's fault, then he asks about Silverstone 1999 accident, talks about Michael finishing previous race a full minute behind and asks him about "exciting races in Silverstone". Michael had none of it, always answering back with polite hits on Jim.
@Kdc861 Жыл бұрын
But I think we need more of this, that journalists challenge drivers with these types of questions and see how they react to it.
@LaveaFirmis8 ай бұрын
I disagree with this, he was asking Michael about Indianapolis and the embarrassment for entirely of F1, which it was. He wasn't blaming Michael or Ferrari (though it was partly Ferrari that stood in the way of the compromise they had to let some sort of race happen to fix Michelins issue for the fans). Everyone in F1 should be have been embarrassed by what happened whether at fault or not. At the end of the day it is a sport, entertainment and it wasnt either of those things, it was a painful joke and the only race I havent seen since 98. The questions he asks Michael are very neutral and no real different to what most interviewers ask drivers in my opinion. Hes right though a lot had happened to Michael at Silverstone like 98, a race he shouldnt have won but for a stupid rule but then also the success thats a fact. Michael to me looks fine with the questions, but it was a hard season for him with the stupid rules the FIA brought in to ruin Ferrari. In no way does it come across to me that he dislikes Michael, considering I didnt in anyway get that impression watching the video then reading this comment. Just professional, nothing more.
@flipflop43965 ай бұрын
Reporter is idiot...
@kevinworrall33316 жыл бұрын
Legend
@nathanrath28446 жыл бұрын
Pretty poor interview imo. I wish F1 presenters were a bit more knowledgeable so they could ask more insightful questions
@rza3403 жыл бұрын
sick how he shut down the reporter with his answers or did i see that wrong ?
@TomH26813 жыл бұрын
The questions were so dumb that I'm still shaking my head 16 years later.
@ciaronsmith49957 жыл бұрын
The difference? Fernando and Kimi. Ok but seriously Bridgestone were falling a bit behind I guess this season. The chassis was not a disaster at all.
@sota_597 жыл бұрын
Mitchelin was amazing that season, and Renault had perfect car for that tyre. Bridgestone did catch up 2006, but then Renault actualy had overall better car.
@ThePanthersdkfz7 жыл бұрын
Definitely Michelin prepared better for that one tyre set per race season. To my understanding these tyre regulations amplified the difference even more. It seems logical considering Ferrari was competitive in 04 and 06.
@dominartyrant90147 жыл бұрын
The Ferrari 2005 was very well designed, again, but Bridgestone were too conservative abt making "endurance" tyres and at this game Michelin has a lot of experience (look at Spain 2005: two punctures for Schumacher). Also, the Renault was a great car too, but i still think with equals tyres Ferrari could have competed Vs Renault & McLaren.
@flipflop43966 жыл бұрын
Ciaron Smith Ferrari had a good car...but it was bit out of their control since Michelin teams dominated that season
@fenhen6 жыл бұрын
Dominar TyranT Too conservative? Perhaps not the right description, considering that Michelin had to pull out of a race because their tyres couldn’t handle it.