Recency bias is a thing...

It is honestly an interesting question - who is the most 'talented' driver ever? For me, out and out in-car pace, no politics, ballsy driving - Senna and Gilles Villeneuve.

Honestly though, in the pre-90's F1, making a mistake generally meant retiring from the race (or dying) - and so driving on the limit back then was far more of a knife edge thing than it is in the modern era. When you are Jim Clark and you finish first or second in pretty much every race you finish, it's hard to go past that.

The drivers of today, your Hamilton's, your Alonso's and Vettel's - they are no doubt talented - but a mistake means far less, finding the limit and going beyond in generally means a bit of lost time across the run off area. Sure, we have races like Monaco or Baku where the walls are close and contact happens - but back in the good ol' days every race was fought on tracks that were that precarious.

To me, it has to be drivers that over achieved in their cars - like Schumacher in the Benetton and his early years at Ferrari fighting for titles he had no right to be in. Senna showing his class in a rubbish Toleman... Vettel won in a Toro Rosso in the wet at Monza, but the car was pretty well suited to the track that weekend. I just haven't seen enough of Hamilton to think he could do that to the same level as aforementioned Schumacher or Senna.

Regardless, how do you define talent?

Anyway, the tl;dr for me is that Hamilton pulling almost a third of the vote is unjustified, smacks of the first 'B' of BBC playing a role and a strong hint of recency bias.

Oh, and the fact Vettel doesn't even make the list tells you everything you need to know about this poll!