What bias?
Downplaying Rosberg and calling him a trash driver only downplays Hamilton's archivement in the last three years.
It's really that simple.
Are Schumacher's achievements downplayed because he had Irvine, Barrichello, and Massa for teammates?
Are Hakkinen's achievements downplayed because he had Coulthard for a teammate?
Are Alonso's achievements downplayed because he had Trulli, Piquet Jr, and Massa for teammates?
Are Senna's achievements downplayed because he had Berger for a teammate?
As if
you don't get excited during races. I shit post during a race as much as I want. That's the entire point of posting during a live event, but shit posting when people are actually trying to have a debate is just poor.
I like Rosberg for the most part, and I think he's a good driver. However, he's all speed and no fight. He's never shown an ability to be a consistently ruthless racer. He stands out for his failures at attempting to overtake ruthlessly, more so than any he's actually pulled off. Hamilton has had an answer for everything Rosberg has ever tried to throw at him, beating him every year that they've been in the same team. The only thing that's ever allowed Rosberg any kind of advantage has been Hamilton's poor reliability and that strange spell after he won the WDC last year.
Rosberg isn't shit. Hamilton isn't shit. But for Rosberg to win the title without fighting for it, because his only rival has suffered mechanical DNF's one after the other, would be a real shame. Ultimately, history doesn't care, but we're arguing on an internet forum which means it's important.
