I suspect that this subject will rage on and on, but nonetheless feel obliged to add my two pence worth.

Damon Hill's victory in the World Championship was undeniably a case of a skilled driver winning the World Championship. To suggest that he is a driver lacking in skill is absurd. No one in their right mind would suggest that he is as talented as Michael Schumacher in all-round ability. However, there is an undeniable bias toward Schumacher in many of the reports from GP's. For example, when Schumacher won the 1996 Spanish GP in adverse weather conditions, it was without question a magnificent display of driver skill. However, when Damon won in Brazil the same season, and again devastated the opposition by an even larger degree (lapping Schumacher into the bargain), this was seen as simply a result of superior machinery. Similarly, if Schumacher is so superior, why was it in Suzaka 1994 that Hill beat Schumacher in conditions where performance advantages are distinctly narrowed due to torrential rain?.

Hill's speed is without question. In his first season with Williams, when he had less 'racing' experience than Villeneuve had before this season, he was, by Prost's own admission, extremely quick. Had he not suffered a comparatively high number of mechanical failures -- most notably at Silverstone -- then he would have posed an extremely serious challenge to Prost's Championship.

Furthermore, Hill was not as fortunate as Prost in having the power to extract a 'number 1 driver' status from Williams in the 1996 season. (And, for the interests of motor racing, rightly so.)

Had Prost not had this artificial protection, then we would have probably been looking at a 'rookie' contender for the Championship of a higher calibre than Villeneuve. (A notable factor in the 1993 season was, ironically, the Alesi-esque quality of Hill's starting.)

I do not wish to rubbish Villeneuve as he is obviously a great asset to the Williams team. His testing times testify and his driving style excites all who watch him. But, so much has been made of the quality and depth of his rookie season that we should not lose sight of an important factor. If Damon is skill-less and Villeneuve is the future of the Schumacher-challenge, then why, in the exact same machinery, did Villeneuve not beat Hill fair and square? Points make prizes and it was Hill who took the prize as he was the better driver in the same car.

On the subject of this non-sensical 'put-your-granny-in-it-and-win' car that Hill had the undoubted pleasure of driving this season, as far as I can remember, no-one made such a big deal of the likes of Aryton Senna and Alain Prost having the best equipment on the grid when they won their respective world titles. There is no question that the car is now the most important factor in the set-up, but it needs a whole lot more than Michael Schumacher's "grandmother" to put this car on the front row of the grid in every race of the season. After all, even Alain Prost in the 1993 all-conquering Williams could not manage this feat. Neither would a grandmother be likely to win 8 Grand Prix in a season.

I have obviously been pro-Hill in this discourse, and am so because I believe that he is a worthy champion; he undoubtedly deserved the championship, but he also earned it through his hard work. Humility and honesty are virtue's not often found among the top F1 drivers, but throughout the season Hill was open about his successes and failures - certainly unlike 2 of the last 3 World Champions - and for me, his drive in Suzuka alone warranted the World Championship.

The best performances of the season? Certainly Michael Schumacher defying logic in the Ferrari, perhaps, with one eye on the future... the performance of Fisichella in the dire Minardi... but most certainly Damon Hill's utterly deserved World Championship.