Alain Prost. Ayrton Senna. Michael Schumacher. Sebastian Vettel. And now Lewis Hamilton.
Those names are some of the most successful of the last 30 years of Formula One and all have one thing in common. Not only were they the dominant drivers of their respective eras, they also won numerous world championships in dominant cars. That is, they each won more than one championship with the undisputed best car on the grid.
One lingering criticism of Hamilton in some quarters since the start of 2014 has been that the supreme performance advantage of the Mercedes is the main reason for his success. That somehow he is a fortunate pilot behind the wheel of a car destined to give him title after title on a silver platter. There is no denying the Mercedes W05 and W06 cars have been a class above their contemporary rivals, with 29 combined wins since the start of 2014. But the strength of those cars and the Mercedes power units they've been equipped with should not take the gloss off Hamilton's back-to-back triumphs.
It is clear that dominant F1 champions are not fully appreciated in their time. Sebastian Vettel's biggest critics seemed to gleefully enjoy his struggles at Red Bull last season, suggesting that his winless campaign was proof that his four successive world titles to that point had been gifted to him by the technical geniuses at the team's Milton Keynes factory. His wins at Ferrari this year have rubbished that opinion and reminded people of the German's supreme skill behind the wheel, a talent which was clear long before his maiden victory around a wet Monza circuit for Toro Rosso in 2008.
Michael Schumacher is revered for his seven world championships now, but in the early 2000s was accused of single-handedly killing the sport through his dominance. That he had previously displayed a ruthless streak (Adelaide 1994, Jerez 1997) surely helped fuel those criticisms against him. It was only once those days of winning ended that people stepped back and appreciated what he, Jean Todt, Ross Brawn and Ferrari had achieved in Formula One, which is a team sport as much as an individual pursuit of greatness.
Senna, considered by some to be the greatest driver of them all, won his first title with arguably McLaren's greatest car, the iconic MP4/4. Much like Hamilton's current situation, McLaren was so good at that point his only genuine rival for the title in 1988 and 1989 was his team-mate, Prost. Senna recognised the need to have the best car in Formula One and his departure from McLaren to Williams in 1994 was because of this. The Brazilian had seen Nigel Mansell and Prost waltz to titles in 1992 and 1993 while McLaren had struggled with Honda and then switched to Ford.
Prost returned from a sabbatical to join Williams in 1993, recognising he had the car capable of giving him a fourth world championship. The contract he signed had a clause which prevented his arch rival Senna becoming his team-mate after their bitter days together at McLaren in 1988 and 1989. What would compel one driver to allow his most gifted rival access to the best car on the grid? The simple fact is that over an F1 calendar that continues to grow every year, the champion driver is ultimately going to be the one with the best car underneath him.
Hamilton has not had these last two championships handed to him. Alongside him has been the incredibly capable Nico Rosberg, a man who took the title fight to the final round of 2014, or Red Bull and then Ferrari ready to capitalise on the slightest slip up in front. He has seen off Rosberg with utter ruthlessness this season, in a similar fashion to Schumacher with Rubens Barichello or Vettel with Mark Webber.
Hamilton is the only man on the current grid to have won a race in every season of his career, doing so in great, good, and not so good cars. It is easy to forget now that Hamilton came into the sport and ruffled the feathers of Fernando Alonso -- then a reigning double world champion -- to the point that the Spaniard left McLaren after a season and spent two years in the wilderness at Renault. Alonso is revered for what he can do in a below-par car (nearly winning the championship in 2012) but would he be criticised for winning if he were in Hamilton's position? It seems a strange paradox to praise what someone can do with less yet criticise what they can also do with more.
If it is fair to criticise Hamilton for having the best car, then surely he deserves praise in equal measure for recognising the potential of the Mercedes V6 project when he stunned F1 by leaving McLaren for Brackley in 2013. At the time it seemed like a big step backwards -- McLaren was challenging for wins and titles and Mercedes was not. Since then, McLaren has not won a race and Mercedes has won two world championships. The reason Hamilton topped Mercedes' wish list was because they recognised in him a talent that could spearhead the dominance they were working and investing for.
The argument of who is the best driver of all time is never a fair one -- different eras, different regulations, different circuits, different cars and different levels of safety all mean a judgement is purely subjective. But we can recognise that cream rises to the top in Formula One, that the truly great drivers will naturally end up driving the truly great cars.
Frankly, we are lucky to have talents such as Vettel and Hamilton in the sport at the same time, just like tennis is fortunate to have been blessed with its current Golden Era, or athletics has been blessed (some would say saved) by the exploits of Usain Bolt. Bashing either man because they have won the majority of their races and championships in superior cars misses the point of Formula One -- the pursuit of technical excellence by a team, of which the driver is a small but incredibly vital part of.