Senna Versus Prost et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus
EUR 9,48
  • Tous les prix incluent la TVA.
Il ne reste plus que 13 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon.
Emballage cadeau disponible.
Quantité :1
Senna Versus Prost a été ajouté à votre Panier
Amazon rachète votre
article EUR 0,67 en chèque-cadeau.
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir cette image

Senna Versus Prost (Anglais) Broché – 6 mai 2010

Voir les 3 formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 9,48
EUR 3,66 EUR 0,65

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Descriptions du produit

Revue de presse

"Great rivalries are among the glories of sport, and Malcolm Folley's book Senna Versus Prost ... examines one of the most fascinating" (Guardian)

"The writing is excellent, which is no surprise coming from this seasoned journalist. The narrative is intelligent ... A familiar story is still worth telling if done well. In this case, it's mission accomplished" (Motor Sport)

"Thanks to Folley, we have Alain Prost's account of a time when F1 ran red from the pit stop to the podium to enlighten us on one of racing's greatest rivalries" (GQ)

"... for a superb insight into antagonism between F1 team-mates, read Malcolm Folley's brilliant new book Senna Versus Prost, which charts the rivalry between two of the sport's greatest-ever drivers" (Daily Mirror)

"With the inside track of having covered the sport for a number of years, Folley writes with authority as he weaves a picture of the sporting greats lives and rivalry" (Press Association)

Quatrième de couverture

In the late eighties and early nineties, Formula One was at its most explosive, with thrilling races, charismatic drivers, nail-biting climaxes - and the most deadly rivalry ever witnessed in sport. Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna - two of Formula One's most honoured champions and iconic figures - drove together for McLaren for two seasons, and their acrimonious and hostile relationship extended even after one of them had left the team. It was a story that would have a tragic ending.

As the great rivals raced to victory, their relationship deteriorated badly, culminating in Prost accusing Senna of deliberately trying to ride him off the circuit. And the final, sad act of this drama occurred at the San Marino Grand prix at Imola in May 1994, when Senna was killed.

Featuring a rare interview with Prost, and insight from Martin Brundle, Damon Hill, Sir Frank Williams, Bernie Ecclestone, Derek Warrick, Johnny Herbert, Gerhard Berger, plus McLaren insiders and other F1 figures, Malcolm Folley provides us with a breath-taking account of one of the all-time classic sporting rivalries.

'excellent ... A familiar story is still worth telling if done well. In this case, it's mission accomplished' Motor Sport

'a superb insight into antagonism between F1 team-mates ... brilliant' Daily Mirror

Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 0,67
Vendez Senna Versus Prost contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 0,67, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Détails sur le produit

  • Broché: 416 pages
  • Editeur : Arrow (6 mai 2010)
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ISBN-10: 0099528096
  • ISBN-13: 978-0099528098
  • Dimensions du produit: 12,7 x 2,5 x 20,3 cm
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : 4.0 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (1 commentaire client)
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: 171.131 en Livres anglais et étrangers (Voir les 100 premiers en Livres anglais et étrangers)
  •  Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Parcourir et rechercher une autre édition de ce livre.
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Extrait | Index | Quatrième de couverture
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Commentaires en ligne

4.0 étoiles sur 5
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
Voir le commentaire client
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients

Commentaires client les plus utiles

Par BASTUCK DAMIEN sur 7 février 2014
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
je voulais lire un bouquin sympa sur Senna

je l'ai pris pour son prix sympa les contenu ma fois ... pas si croustillant

mais agréable a lire

4/5 un joli petit achat
Remarque sur ce commentaire Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ? Oui Non Commentaire en cours d'envoi...
Merci pour votre commentaire. Si ce commentaire est inapproprié, dites-le nous.
Désolé, nous n'avons pas réussi à enregistrer votre vote. Veuillez réessayer

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) 46 commentaires
75 internautes sur 94 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Generally well written, but nowhere close to impartial 5 août 2010
Par P. Hannam - Publié sur
Format: Broché
The impression it leaves me is that Folley was so delighted and gratified to be given a nice lunch and a fairly in depth interview by Prost in his Paris apartment in 2008 that his efforts to remain impartial thereafter collapsed into a morass of subtle and not so subtle slips that reaffirmed the narrative of Prost as the ultimate gentleman and Senna as the fragile and ruthless newbie who came and stole it all away. As such, the Folley narrative ranges from fair and balanced, to being rantingly anti-Senna. To the extent that Senna's story is told, or his point of view heard in retrospect, it is through the words of the others of the time: Warwick, Brundle, Berger, Walker, Jardine, Leberer et al, who Folley has at least taken the trouble to interview and quote. (Brundle is impressively self-effacing and candid about his standing against agenda there. Warwick is also remarkably gracious, as he has been over the years about Senna, who he retains an immense respect for). Meanwhile, Folley's faithful repetition, without the slightest irony, of Prost's claim about Suzuka in '89: "I had no interest to make a crash", is a case in point. This is as disingenuous a statement as we have heard from Alain, up there with his equally laughable claim that he never blocked Senna from the Williams team for 1993 (we all know he did, and Senna called his bluff with his 'I'll drive for free' offer to Williams, to make the point). But the narrative treats it without the slightest scepticism, having described the Suzuka collision simply as "a brash manoeuvre" on Senna's part, which "hopelessly misjudged Prost's mood". Never mind that Prost's block is regarded quite widely in the F1 pitlane as the template professional foul, as premeditated as they come, and that attempting to pass someone going more slowly than you is usually regarded as one of the primary imperatives of motor racing. Instead, Alain's 'mood' is what counts. Needless to say, there are valid criticisms to be made of Senna's career and conduct. What is lost in this book is the notion that Prost had a ruthless and underhand streak, too, and was something other than a serial victim.

A good example of what I mean when I say Folley's narrative varies from level headed to openly ranting against Senna, comes at the conclusion of a passage quoting Senna about the notorious incident at Imola in `89, where Prost accused Senna of reneging on an agreement to not attack each other at the first turn after the race start. Here, Folley quotes Senna:

"On the second start, after Berger's accident, he got off to a better start than me. But I got in his slipstream and accelerated quickly. I was going faster than him. I then started the manoeuvre to overtake him. Not at the first corner, before that. It was when we were braking that we were not to attack each other. We had a momentary confrontation, and then I drove clear. He made a mistake and skidded off the track. He had made a driving mistake, but he was trying to make me take the blame. The original idea was simple: no overtaking as we braked on the first bend. After the race, I had a clear conscience. I didn't think that the whole thing would take on such proportions".

So far, so good. Folley is quoting Senna's point of view, and we have already heard Prost's point of view, at great length over several pages. But here's how Folley goes on, and, to be clear, this is our author talking, not Alain Prost:

Folley: Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that he had not been in the race when Pironi, blatantly, and inexcusably, betrayed the promise he had shared with Villeneuve. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that Prost had lived with that haunting memory for seven years and knew it would never leave him. What was it Prost said? "Gilles was angry with Pironi and Ferrari, absolutely furious. Later I would fully understand these feelings because I had this with Ayrton. At the next race, Gilles went too far in the car in practice. He killed himself because of that dispute with Didier." Do you really believe that drivers would enter a pact that involved no overtaking before a braking area rather than a more specific location, such as the first corner?

So here we have Folley pouring scorn on Senna's account and using the passive aggressive, if not openly sarcastic "perhaps that had something to do with..." language to frame the narrative in terms of Prost's feelings about it. All that's missing is the jabbing of the author's finger at Senna's chest (Folley even addresses the reader in the first person, as if we're incredibly dumb to have even entertained Senna's side of the story all these years). Not for the first time, we hear that Senna should somehow have been cognisant that his rival's buried feelings over an accident 7 years earlier, before Senna even entered F1, would be triggered, along with the displaced fury that went with them. It's an interesting idea, that F1 drivers should be aware of all the experiences and traumas their rivals have been through, take account of them and act accordingly. This is not to say that there is no argument that Senna did wrong, though I find it tenuous at best to invoke the events of 1982 as the primary determinant of the rights and wrongs of a passing move in 1989, but the whole passage from Folley reads to me like an outburst, more like something you'd read from a partisan poster on an internet forum than something you'd read in book, written by a professional author, billing itself as an impartial account of a rivalry. Senna could be fully in the wrong on this and the point would still stand. This is not balanced writing, it is a framed narrative from someone who either began the exercise as a firm fan of Alain Prost, or became one through his interviews with the man.

The Villeneuve/ Pironi narrative (not only their clash at Imola and Villeneuve's death at Zolder, but also Prost's involvement in Pironi's crash at Hockenheim), which legitimately altered Prost's outlook on risk, runs like a thread through the book. This is interesting, but it's woven through the story in such a way that it's clear Folley thinks it is directly relevant to Senna's own penchant for risk. It would have been better to note the point and move on, rather than keep bringing it up every time Senna is seen to challenge Prost on the circuit. And Pironi's crash always was a feeble excuse for Prost's dire performance at Silverstone in '88, but trotted out here nonetheless.

More pro-Prost sympathies are in evidence when we hear, to take one example, that he had niggling clutch problems at the WDC decider in the wet in Suzuka in '88. A detail worth noting? Well, sure, even if it's the first I've heard of it in the intervening 22 years. But driving around minor mechanical issues was par for the course at the time and where is the mention of, say, Senna's pop-off valve malfunctioning in Mexico earlier the same year, and limiting his boost (a race which the book just blandly notes was won easily by Alain, with, quote: "a flawless drive")? If one is worth a mention, then so is the other, but the race accounts are generally bereft of such detail and it creates a false impression.

The cover was designed by an idiot: a picture of Prost & Mansell? on the front, and Derek Warrick (sic) is mis-spelled on the rear cover. There are factual gaffes: for example stating that Watson never raced an F1 car again after 1983. Actually he raced the McLaren in '85 after Lauda hurt his wrist, and made comments about how he knew his career was over when he witnessed Senna at Dingle Dell on a qualifying lap (Watson was on an in lap at the time) - an episode that might actually have served the narrative had Folley been aware of it.

It is also somewhat repetitive. How many times do I need to be told the list of greats who have won Monaco?

Early in the interview, Prost had noted that he knows he can't compete with the ghost of Senna, the legacy of a dead hero. As such, this is a book that might actually plug a legitimate market gap because I doubt that Prost's point of view, laughably self-serving though it is, has been aired as fully as the Senna plaudits have aired the legend of the brilliant Brazilian. Had the book been called "Prost's point of view: a rivalry with Senna", or some such, I would welcome it, as written. Unfortunately it is billed as a fair account, and the flipside of Prost's dilemma is that Senna is no longer around to defend himself at all. As such, and fascinating as it will always be to hear his reminiscences, it almost seems like a cheap shot from Prost to have been behind this book in such a way. The final responsibility, though, lies with the author.
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Despite covering one side - this was a great book 14 janvier 2014
Par LSmith - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
5 of 5 stars (Outstanding)

Auto racing in all forms has had many fierce rivalries between drivers over the years, and one of the most bitter rivalries came in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s between Aryton Senna of Brazil and Alain Prost of France in Formula 1 racing. This rivalry is documented in a book by Malcolm Foley in which he captures the rivalry through research and personal stories and recollections by many of the personnel involved with the two drivers as well at Prost himself, the surviving driver of the two rivals as Senna was killed while on the course in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

The writing in this book is very good as the reader will learn much about the workings within the various driving teams in Formula 1. The casual fan may know that a driver is part of the McLaren or Lotus team, for example, but the negotiations, contracts, and interaction between the parties is illustrated in the segments about the two drivers either changing teams or stating that they wish to do so. There are also other great passages about what took place during races between the two rivals, what teammates remembered about the drivers and even some personal moments shared.

Some other reviewers of this book have been vocal in their opinions that this book was heavily biased toward Prost, mainly because the author was allegedly grateful to just be able to speak with the French driver. This review is not going to state any opinions on this matter as being a casual fan of the sport at best, I do not have the extensive knowledge of the history of the sport or the two drivers, so this review is simply one of the book itself. Because I was enjoying these stories and did know of the fierce rivalry, I wanted to simply read the book for pleasure and see if I could learn anything new about the drivers – without looking to see how balanced the stories would be.

The closest I would come to making any statement toward this would be that I believe the book would have been better if any of Senna’s surviving family members would have been willing to share their stories. Most of the stories that were shared to the author were not complimentary to Senna. Getting more stories that portrayed Senna in a positive light might have helped avoid some of this criticism, but the book overall is still one that I enjoyed reading and would recommend for anyone who wants to learn a little more about the sport or the drivers. Personally, I felt it was an outstanding book

Did I skim?

Pace of the book:
Excellent. The story of both drivers moves along well, doesn’t drag when personal stories or recollections are written, and the reader will feel he or she is living the rivalry.

Do I recommend?
Yes, especially for new or casual F1 fans. I say this because while the book does give good insight into both drivers and the history of the sport at that time, long-time or hard-core fans of the sport may feel the book is tilted too much to show sympathy for Prost. While part of this would simply be because Senna is no longer with us in order to share his recollections, reviews and editorials at various book sites and blogs do have some negative reviews stating the author’s bias toward Prost.
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Good Book 26 novembre 2012
Par E. Pruitt - Publié sur
Format: Broché
If you're a Formula One fan, you will enjoy this book. It shows's a pretty detailed look at the rivalry between Senna and Prost when they were teammates at McLaren together, and a little after that.
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
It should be entitled "Senna versus Prost and Folley" 25 janvier 2014
Par Eduardo Carrano - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle
The author is very biased. He really took Prost side almost all the time. Although the book relates some interesting historical facts, it always emphasizes what is good to Prost. The description of 1991 world championship is minimal. This book is a piece of crap.
22 internautes sur 33 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Very, very partial, hence disrespectful with Formula 1 fans 18 janvier 2011
Par Alexandre Antonello - Publié sur
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
The bottom line is that the greatest rivalry of Formula-1 history deserved a more impartial view and a fairer balance of interviewees. The author misses to interview crucial people and gives a strong weight to Prost and other British opinion, even if some of them had little relevance in the sport. He uses a subtle technique to state his point of view: he selects quotes and then endorses them at his convenience. Then he dramatizes them. Even if it is OK for an author to state a PoV, he should do it transparently and not in between the lines, billing the analysis to be impartial. On this book it is very far from it.

Prost is depicted as the rational, calm, precise, reasonable, more dedicated to the team testing, who was betrayed by Senna and therefore was right on all conflicts that happened between them. On the other hand, the Brazilian is the brilliant (the author could never get away with any different suggestion than this...), BUT spoiled, unreasonable, irresponsible, dishonest, liar, not committed to team testing, who was at every single time claimed guilty of all polemic that followed. The fact that Prost has always been blaming others for his struggles (Senna, McLaren, Honda then Ferrari) is minimized by the book as the "Professeur" always had a good point to justify his lack of accountability.

I believe such biased author's point of view shows a great lack of respect with the fans of this sport, especially because Senna is dead and cannot state his point of view. The author could have compensated his absence by hearing other people who were close to him: Galvao Bueno and Reginaldo Leme from TV Globo (most renowned F-1 narrator and commentator of Formula-1 in Brazil), Senna's family, Senna's Public Relations Betise Assumpção, etc. But instead he chooses to quote extensively a lot of inexpressive British drivers like Derek Warwick (who carried a lot of regret since he was vetoed by Senna at Lotus) and Martin Brundle (who also regret never beating Senna on F-3 and, by the way, never won one single Formula-1 Grand Prix, despite competing for many years).

Those 2 drivers have an incredibly high share of voice in the book. It is very inconsistent with the fact that Nelson Piquet, for instance, was never heard. So, a 3x world champion's voice who, together with Senna and Prost accounted for 10 out of 13 championships between 1981 and 1993 is absent from the book and does not get a chance to defend himself against the authors' view that he is a selfish and dirty man. I don't have the background to judge Piquet's accusations but, the fact that he was not heard even once to say something in his favour leads me to the question to how much the book is "too British" in essence, glorifying the old continent while devaluating the "under-developed" and "irrationally emotional" South Americans.

If the potential reader is interested on an impartial point of view on Formula 1, I recommend looking for another fairer literature in the sport. If the reader will read or has read this book, and want to get deeper into the whole thing, I recommend watching some key youtube videos to come to your own conclusions. On the most polemic examples that the author uses to substantiate Senna's "irresponsible" behaviour, my conclusions below:

1987 - The famous crash between Senna & Mansell when the Englishman came to punch the brazilian on the paddock. Senna is blamed guilty by the author. Senna is on the lead, he's on the curve's inside almost on the grass, Mansell is trying to push through the outside with all left hand side of Senna's free for him and then crashes the Brazilian. If you see the crash you will notice the only way Senna could have avoided was if he went to the grass to let Mansell pass.

1989 & 1990 - Prost crashes Senna on purpose first to win the title and that is minimized because the author suggests he had all reasons to do it. In 1990, FIA agrees to let pole position start at the cleaner part of the track. But Jean-Marrie Balestre over-rules the decision and keeps Senna on the worst side to favour his compatriot Prost, who ended up taking the lead, as expected by the unfair position he was placed at the start. Senna gets his revenge by crashing back and is crucified by the author and the "low importance british drivers". They allege that the accident could have killed Prost and dramatize it to an extreme risk maneuver, never mentioning that on that curve that was a sea of sand along to slow them down. I wonder, giving the conditions Senna was facing (1989 dirty move from Prost and 1990 dirty move from Balestre), if he should really be blamed the way he was by the author. What he did was not right, but I believe anyone with a minimum of warmth in the blood would have done the same.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?