Yeah sure he'd never want an advantage, like having Ferrari and Massa gift him the title on the last day of the year (and even then only because McLaren's appeal failed).
Standard practice when the other one doesn't have a chance for championship and the other does, it has nothing to do with team preferences.
Probably 100 drivers could have said that if their car was more reliable they'd have won more titles. Luck plays a part in titles, as mentioned above, however I'm not really remembering when Raikkonen was superly unlucky in any championships. Raikkonen's win is up there alongside Vettel's this year as one of the luckiest in history. It was gifted to him from the start.
It was never "gifted to him".
Not "super unlucky" on championship ever? The 2 times he lost the championship:
2003 - lost championship by 2 points having retired 3 times compared to winning Schumachers 1 retirement. One of these retirements was from clear lead, too, which most likely would have ended in victory had the engine not exploded.
2005 - this wasn't that tight, the difference being 21 points, but again Räikkönen had to retire 3 times, this time in all cases from the lead and in one case on the last lap too. Alonso won all those 3 GPs after Kimi retired. Alonso meanwhile only retired once.
The 2005 isn't that tight, but 2003 is simply very unlucky and only lost due unreliable car.
He's been beaten over a season by Heidfeld (2001), Coulthard (2002), Massa (2008), and in 3 of his other 6 F1 seasons, 3 times he has had more than 1 team-mate. Massa especially had the beating of him and would have added 2009 to that had it not been for the accident.
Kimi has never had the "nr 1 driver" in contract, which reflects to results compared to team mates easily.
2001 he was a newbie, with no racing experience outside the junior series' while most others have experience on the "stepping stone series'" before joining F1, it would have been nothing short of miracle had he beaten his teammate
Massa can be quick when his head is right, he has been beating and matching Alonso too few races after getting his head straight again (late last season). Alonso, though, has the advantage of Ferrari being all for him, unlike Kimi, and doesn't have behind-the-scenes issues with company buying his spot for someone else.
If Raikkonen WAS an exceptional driver, how come Mercedes broke the bank going after Hamilton instead? Fact is had Hamilton refused, they'd have gone after somebody else not called Kimi Raikkonen. Somebody younger for a start.
Do you know Mercedes didn't try to get Räikkönen first? No, you don't. Fact is some teams did try to get him, but he had no interests on leaving Lotus (and a contract, too)
And how many drivers got fast tracked into F1 and top seats? Even Coulthard started at Williams then moved to McLaren and nobody would claim he was an exceptional driver in F1 terms.
Coulthard raced in Formula 3000 before, one of the usual stepping stones of the time. He also was only a test driver, and no-one knows when he would have gotten to actually race had Senna not died, when testdriver was the obvious choice to get someone driving quick.
He didn't move to McLaren right away either, but after the 2nd season at Williams.
Read about Button on wiki - Senna? Phenomenon? Sure he's a world champion but he's neither of those. This is Raikkonen's level - he's in the same class as Button, Massa, Webber. The only difference between him and the latter two is a couple of points when it mattered most and a team-mate who helped instead of hindered.
That's just bullcrap right there
