Of course JLO was more consistent in the last 5 years, he has been on a half decent bike the whole time, unlike Rossi. He's also younger (yes it does make a bit of difference) as well. Like we said, there are a lot of factors that go into how well a rider does. It's not black and white, he's great or he's horrible. Sensible discussions about a rider don't include knee-jerk reactions to the masses, who in this case obviously love Rossi, for good reason looking at his record and how popular he has made the sport.
Is Rossi as good as he was when he won the title 5 times in a row? Maybe not. Is he the worst in the field? Definitely not. I think he said it best himself, how people go back and forth on him saying "oh Valentino, he's very young he's still good, and then on Valentino he's old and he's done, and then back to oh Valentino, he's still good". Personally, I take him at his word when he says he's been at a consistent level the whole time. People try to say "oh well if he's so good why couldn't he do well on the Ducati? Stoner was able to do it so Stoner must be better! Rossi is only as good as the bike under him!" which is probably one of the most retarded statements ever invented, clearly by someone who doesn't understand motorsport racing. A better, probably more accurate statement would be why was Stoner the ONLY one successful on the Ducati? Every rider is different and there's a good chance the bike just fit Casey's riding style (at least for that one year, then after that he started to suffer of course). The fact that highly talented guys like Nicky Hayden, Andrea and Spies are suffering on the Ducati is proof enough for me that it probably wasn't Rossi, it was the bike.
Then on top of that, coming back to Yamaha and getting back on the M1 (which has clearly changed, as all these bikes do every year) and somehow immediately taking 2nd in the first race of the year against the best riders in the world, most of whom have been on their current bikes for a year or two? I don't care who you are, if that's not impressive, you're blind deaf an dumb. The guy is clearly still talented, even against a talented field. He may not win the title, but he's definitely not going to be relegated to the place of a has-been like Edwards anytime soon.
So there ya go, an example of a fact-based sensible discussion on where Rossi has been and where he is today.
BTW there is a HUGE, HUGE, HUUUUUUGE difference when comparing a championship football team that probably doesn't even contain the same staff members let alone players from 40 years ago, to a single athlete who has been competing for a decade. That example holds no weight whatsoever in these discussions.
