Why Hamilton is not F1's greatest ever qualifier

The statistics are unequivocal: Lewis Hamilton 69, Michael Schumacher 68, Ayrton Senna 65. Nobody has more F1 pole positions than Hamilton, therefore he is, by statistical definition, F1's greatest qualifier.

But things are never that simple. Phenomenal as Hamilton's achievement is - and make no mistake, it is quite incredible - the numbers justify greater scrutiny. Weight of numbers is just one factor, albeit a significant one, so how can we dig a little deeper into the meaning behind them?

To start with, it's worth noting just how far ahead the leading trio are in terms of number of pole positions - 20 clear of Sebastian Vettel.

Given this gap, is it right only to look at those big names? To a point, but the ratio of poles to attempts, the strike rate, transforms the debate. By this measure, Juan Manuel Fangio is top by a country mile, and he must be considered a valid contender to be the greatest. After all, he had fewer attempts (51) than the top three have poles - so on that basis is well ahead.

Pole strike rate

Now for the first controversial statement: Fangio, Jim Clark and Alberto Ascari all have formidable strike rates, but this was in an era when pole position didn't carry quite the value it does now. All three were great drivers - and Ascari gets cruelly overlooked when the greats are discussed too often - but it was a very different era. Even once wings began to feature in F1 designs, a driver such as Stewart was not overly focused on taking pole but was surely quick enough to do so almost at will.

For that reason, the great qualifiers from the pre-wing era are discounted, which also eliminates Stirling Moss from consideration. No doubt all four of them are among the quickest grand prix drivers of all time and would have thrived had they been born a couple of decades later, but a quirk of history eliminates them.

The strike rate itself is limited, because you also need to consider the times when there was an actual opportunity to take pole. This also brings us to the thorny question of Schumacher and his 'second' F1 career. Given the nature of his return, and question marks about whether the after-effects of his Cartagena motorcycle crash changed him as a driver, it seems reasonable to exclude this part of his career. That increases his strike rate to 27.4%.

Adjusted strike rate is where the debate swings wildly in favour of Senna. And he has some significant disadvantages...

Pole opportunity is a difficult one to tie down. For this, we're simply looking at seasons when a driver has the chance to take pole position as defined by years in which their team did so.

For example, this means Hamilton has a full house of 201 attempts, spanning his entire career. This has limitations, though, because he can hardly be faulted for not taking a pole in the first half of 2009 even though he did have a better end of the year in an improved McLaren.

In Schumacher's case, 1991-93 and 2005 are disregarded - along with the tricky second career - to come up with a total of 202 attempts. This is very similar to Hamilton's rate and gives them a near identical strike rate!

At this point, it's also necessary to bring Sebastian Vettel into the debate. In his Red Bull pomp, Vettel did sensational things with exhaust-blown downforce, adapting to innovative gear selection to literally create more grip for his car. His overall strike rate of one in four is impressive enough, but when you bring him in with an adjusted rate it's clear just how good he has been.

Adjusted pole strike rate

This is where the debate swings wildly in favour of Senna. And he has some significant disadvantages, for both 1992 and '93 are counted as full seasons of opportunity thanks to Senna's single pole in each year against the might of Williams-Renault.

But even this methodology is limited. There are other factors that confuse the picture, not least the fact that Hamilton and Schumacher both competed during the years of qualifying with fuel loads. This affected four of Schumacher's seasons and the first three of Hamilton's. That has a particular impact in Schumacher's case whereas Senna is unaffected.

There are also some less obvious drivers who have strong impressive adjusted strike rates. Ronnie Peterson, for example, has an overall strike rate of 11.4%. But that increases to 27.5% when you eliminate the seasons when he wasn't in pole-worthy teams.

There's no doubt Peterson was a phenomenally fast driver, but these numbers put him in the group just behind the contenders to be considered the greatest qualifier. He's another driver who, with more time in strong cars, would very likely have joined the debate at the front.

The advantage over the opposition is also worth considering. Here, again Senna performs well, but there are some significant caveats there given the team-mates he had at times. After all, the advantages he had over Johnny Dumfries, Michael Andretti or Satoru Nakajima carry the same statistical weight in calculating the average as Hamilton's against Fernando Alonso or Jenson Button.

Pole advantage over team-mate

Also relevant is the advantage over the second-fastest qualifier. Here Senna again prevails but that must be heavily caveated firstly by the fact that, during his time in F1, the average gap was larger and the fact that, arguably, a narrower gap indicates a more competitive session and less margin for error.

One of the reasons for the closing of gaps is the rise of ever-more detailed telemetry and improved analysis of the data gathered. So not only can drivers pore over their team-mate's data, but engineers can do so - sometimes giving real-world advice while the car is on the track.

There are stunning individual qualifying achievements but weight is the key here. To be called F1's greatest qualifier, it's necessary to deliver sheer weight of numbers

All of this works to close gaps, as Hamilton himself summed up in Bahrain in 2014 when talking about Nico Rosberg's improved performance.

"Someone in the team did a huge study on my pace last week and, as I arrived here this weekend, there was this big document with all the reasons why I was quick," said Hamilton. "And he used that to his advantage."

It's also worth noting that, generally, team-mate cars are closer in performance than they used to be. There have been times in F1 when different specifications exaggerated gaps, and at times only one driver had access to the extra grip of qualifying tyres. Both Hamilton and Vettel have operated in the same era, and have an average advantage that is similar - although Hamilton is very slightly ahead.

What is unequivocal is that Senna could more often get away with throwing away three tenths than the others could.

Pole advantage over second place

Were there a way to, with complete objectivity, evaluate and rank every qualifying performance delivered in the world championship, there's every chance the result would be completely unexpected.

Perhaps the greatest single qualifying lap in history was Pierluigi Martini qualifying seventh for the 1993 Hungarian Grand Prix in a Minardi or Alonso's 17th on the grid at the 2001 United States GP for the same team?

Who is to say that Jarno Trulli, who turned in a stunning lap for Renault to take pole position in Monaco in 2004, wouldn't have repeated that feat many times had he found himself in a genuinely top car? What if one of the drivers whose careers were cut short by accidents, such as Stefan Bellof, had got into a top car - could they have racked up dozens of pole positions? There's not enough data to analyse in many of these cases, so they have to be overlooked.

One great qualifying lap that does stand out and wasn't for pole position is Gilles Villeneuve in Monaco in 1981. In a car ill-suited to the track, Villeneuve was just 0.078s slower than polesitter Nelson Piquet in the Brabham. Impressive enough, but when you consider that the other Ferrari, driven by Didier Pironi, was 17th and 2.478s slower than Villeneuve, it's even more so.

And before you condemn Pironi, remember he was on pole for Ligier in Monaco a year earlier!

That was a stunning achievement by Villeneuve, but weight of achievement is the key here. To be called F1's greatest qualifier, it's necessary to deliver sheer weight of numbers, and it's unfortunate that the astonishingly quick Canadian didn't have the chance to take more than two poles.

So how do you choose between Hamilton, Senna, Vettel and Schumacher? Well, in the final reckoning, Schumacher is going to have to miss out despite stacking up well thanks to the generosity required in ignoring his three years with Mercedes.

That brings us down to Hamilton versus Vettel versus Senna. There's precious little to choose between the trio. Senna and Hamilton/Vettel operated in very different eras. Senna was often ahead by a greater margin, Hamilton and Vettel thrived in a more competitive era overall - as is always the case, it's ferociously difficult to adjust for the context in which things were achieved.

Fundamentally, the inexorable progress of improvement in sports science, technology and understanding means that Hamilton and Vettel are better drivers overall on qualifying laps than Senna could be. But everyone deserves to be judged within the context that they operated, and Senna was the unquestionable standard-setter of his day - just as he could well have been had he been born 20 years later.

Senna, overall, has to shade it for now - and that's partly down to the fact that time has allowed his legend to solidify. There's every chance this will change once Hamilton and Vettel are retired and we have the same chance to look back on their great achievements as with Senna.

As for Hamilton, he has claimed a record that once seemed unbreakable and only the most churlish would now deny he is one of the all-time greats. And he will surely go on to take more pole positions, to the point where it's not completely out of the question that he could get up to 100 before retiring.

Supposing he continues to be in a car capable of taking pole positions, he is going to take a hell of a lot more. And after all, it's hardly a criticism to say he's second to Senna in terms of F1's greatest qualifiers, and both are quite brilliant whether on a single flying lap or in race conditions.

Although to the claim he is second to Senna, we must add the final caveat 'for now'. A few more qualifying laps like Hamilton produced at Spa and Monza and things might look a little different a few years down the line.