Why Schumacher's return is no failure

Lap 58 of the Monaco Grand Prix. Michael Schumacher is leading, as he has done since converting his 69th Formula 1 pole position into the lead at the start. He's just 20 laps away from matching Ayrton Senna's record of six wins on the streets of the principality. At the age of 43, Schumacher will finally have that elusive 92nd win and a trophy confirming that, yes, he can still deliver at the top level in what he calls his second career.

On lap 58, Schumacher warns the Mercedes pitwall of a problem via the radio. His fuel pressure is dropping and that lap is a second slower than the previous. A few laps later, having been powerless to retain the lead, Schumacher pulls into the pits and post-race Ross Brawn and Norbert Haug are bombarded with questions about just how Mercedes manage to let down their man again.

It was Schumacher's own fault that he wasn't in a position to lead in Monaco as the five-place grid penalty for rear-ending Bruno Senna in the Spanish Grand Prix was well-deserved, but the fact that his retirement was from seventh place, rather than first, means those writing him off have no reason to re-appraise the conclusion that they leaped to long ago. I'm not saying Schumacher would definitely have won in Monaco, but he could have done. That is enough to force home the point.

There's no doubt that Schumacher isn't as good as he once was. It isn't possible to construct an argument he is anything other than the second driver at Mercedes given that Nico Rosberg has decisively had the upper hand. When Schumacher returned in 2010, he talked of winning an eighth world championship, which created unrealistic expectations.

Schumacher was quickest in qualifying at Monaco © LAT

He has failed in that aim, but what he has done is to return in his 40s and perform at a decent level. And the word 'decent' is exactly the right way to describe him as a grand prix driver today. He's not a superstar anymore in terms of performance and there are certainly others capable of doing a better job in that seat. But there are many who would do worse as well.

At times last year, Schumacher's race performances hinted he could be a winner in the right car. What happened at Monaco confirmed it.

As it is, he is left with just two points compared to his team-mate's haul of 59. That in itself is enough for the harsher critics to condemn Schumacher 2.0 as a failure. But take into account the gearbox failure while third in Australia, the pitstop blunder while a strong podium contender in Shanghai and the DRS failure that led to him falling in Q1 in Bahrain. Add to that the fact that, without the Spain penalty and a reliable run in Monaco, he could have bagged 25 points and it's clear Schumacher isn't entirely to blame for the disparity.

There are too many variables to take into account to come up with an accurate figure of just how many points Schumacher could have, but it's not unreasonable to put him at around the 50-point mark. Still behind Rosberg and by definition he will have not maximised the performance of the car, but that haul would be far from a disaster. For a catastrophic comeback, just look at tennis legend Bjorn Borg who, from 1991-1993, didn't win a match even against lowly opposition. That's probably equivalent to Schumacher not scoring a single point on his return.

But there is a certain irony in the fact that Schumacher didn't have a shot at Monaco glory because of one of those in-battle blunders that have characterised his return. Schumacher himself insists he doesn't get involved in any more scrapes than anyone else, but it's hard to think of any driver who has had quite so many midfield clashes of late (save perhaps 2011-spec Lewis Hamilton). One argument is that Schumacher spent so little time in wheel-to-wheel combat during his F1 career it was a skill he never needed to excel at. Perhaps there's a kernel of truth in that, but what is undeniable is how much the sport has changed.

When Schumacher left, he competed in a sport that had a tyre war, bigger disparities between teams and refuelling. When he returned in 2010, the sprints- between-stops format had gone thanks to the ban on refuelling and, a year later, in came the higher-degradation Pirelli tyres.

Australia 2010, only the second race after Schumacher's F1 comeback © LAT

It was a big enough challenge for those who hadn't stopped for three years to adapt to, let alone for someone in Schumacher's position. Add to that the inevitable ravages of time, the fact that for three years his F1 skills were largely unutilised, and the rise of a new generation of superstars such as Hamilton, Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel and it's clear just how big the challenge was.

Here, the comparison with Borg holds some water. The Swede infamously came back with his wooden racket against the new graphite designs. Schumacher came back into a sport transformed in a very different way, but perhaps no less different than the tennis scene was for Borg.

Unfortunately, in sport, judgements are often clear cut and there is little room for shades of grey. People have regularly questioned the wisdom of Schumacher's comeback and will continue to do so. But judge him by what he has done, not what you would expect the 'old' Schumacher to have delivered.

At the age of 43, he's still a competitive grand prix driver capable of setting a pole position time at Monaco and perhaps even winning the race. That's a lot better than the majority will ever achieve at their peak.

His comeback has added a lot to F1 and even if he never gets another chance to win, which is very possible, he will always have that memory of what happened on that Saturday afternoon in Monte Carlo as a monument to the fact he can still, on his day, roll back the years. One performance doesn't make a second career, but he is far from the only middling driver on the grid who is capable of that kind of showing if everything comes right.

And if, in his fifth decade, he's "only" a decent grand prix driver, there's no shame in that. His comeback hasn't been a triumph, but nor has it been an abject failure. It falls somewhere in between those two extremes. Those who look at F1 with a nuanced perspective rather than in simple black and white can see that.