<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (projekZERO @ Jun 18 2008, 03:34 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Roger did do a short test on the bike before Laguna and also he didn't beat a single regular Bridgstone rider. And as far as comparing Davies to Roger...I never said Davies was impressive, quite the contrary actually. Roger knew the track well, better then most regulars.
So sorry, 9th, 10th, really wasn't that impressive in that race. Had that race included Melandri, Hayden, and Hopkins. He would have likely finished 13th. had the track Not been so hard on the Michelins he would have Likely finished 16th and had it been a track he did not know he would have likely been pulling up the rear, some ways back at that.
To me it was all circumstances that got him that great result and I don't expect Spies to match that on a track he doesn't know with about the same amount of time on the bike as Roger.
Enough said.
There is an extraordinary amount of extrapolation & speculation in your explanation. I suppose "if" Rossi didn't exist we would be talking about the multiple MotoGP championships of Biaggi and Sete. Your posts are general pretty fair, so this isn't picking an argument, but this one is quite ridiculous. BTW, that short test you are talking about was on the 990, not the 800 (check your facts). Don't confuse those few laps he had in Japan on a ONE day outing as an authentic test.
We could break down every, and I mean EVERY race as you have done. Hopkins’s best finish this year was in a race where Hayden and Dovi both crashed out, yet he is still credited with that 5th spot. What about when guys crash behind a finisher, we could say had DePuniet not crashed, he may have caught up and passed the front-runners. Oh, BTW, that "short" test you talked about was a test of the 990 in Valencia the season before, not the 800 (check your facts). He did ride the 800 very briefly in Japan, but we can hardly call that a "test" by any stretch of the imagination.
You credit the Bridgestones with so much, as many have done, as the only factor for great results, yet last year two of the top three in points were Michelins. Yet you laughably announce that Roger Lee didn't beat any Bridgestone regulars. Guess what, he beat Hopkins, who yes was on Bridgestones. You may say, well he was involved in that first turn incident. Why yes, and that was caused by Stoner missing the apex running wide (on Bridgestones) and Hopkins (also on Bridestones), I could make the case that this mismanagement of tire grip in the first critical moments of the race causing Hopkins and Hayden's contact. In other words, who is to say, that the Bridgeston's themselves at the beginning of the race where actually a liability that was better managed by Roger Lee, by actually making the apex of the turn, something Stoner and Hopkins, failed to do. You see, we could stretch the explanation to the Nth degree if you like. But at the end of the day, he did finish 10th.
So if you want to debate how it wasn't really that impressive by wild extrapolation, then lets do it. I'm sure I can find plenty of reasonable and unreasonable proposals to explain why any of the finishers placed in their respective positions. Hell, Hayden decidedly won the last two years, maybe Stoner really would have finished second to Hayden had it not been for him running wide in the hairpin causing a change of reactions effectively taking out the two riders who were very poised to do well at the track.
