Raymond Anderson4 said:Why did it fail so spectacularly?
It was a decent weekend. Things didn't exactly go according to plan, but if it hadn't been for that SC, he would've taken the win. And honestly, he would have dominated, because his pace was just on another level compared to everyone else...
If this was actually a good weekend behind the wheel, then the standard is honestly rock bottom...
If there hadn't been an SC, he would have "easily won," but not because his pace was actually superior to the field. It’s more that his main rival dropped out due to track debris, the second contender—Perez—got taken out because Leclerc went on a suicide mission trying to pass him (of course, Leclerc escaped unscathed while Perez ended up at the back), and the third guy, Sainz, was forced off by Ferrari team orders. Basically, you knock two RB cars out of the race, clear your own path, and then act like it was all thanks to "unbeatable pace"... 🙏
It looks like you've got some temporary amnesia if you're forgetting that the only reason he was even in first place was because Sainz let him through on Ferrari's orders...
Basically, you screw up qualifying, you screw up the standing start, and the only reason you aren't buried in the pack is because a red flag saved your skin and reset the order. Then you collide with Perez and somehow luck out again by getting a free pass. To top it all off, the team lets you ahead of your teammate even though you can't actually overtake him on track. So, you drive like an absolute maniac at the end, convinced you earned the win, when really, the only thing that truly screwed you over was your own team...🙏
The End As I was saying:
He was 0.315 behind the leader, and that’s with the rain coming down...
So he didn't take pole, but what's the big deal? Even Max wasn't leading every single qualifying session, and he still managed to walk away with the wins anyway...
You’re supposed to squeeze everything out of the car. It’s obvious Ferrari has had the fastest car on the grid during qualifying all season long, but the second it starts raining, Max suddenly becomes the undisputed favorite. We all know why that is; it’s like the Ferrari drivers are cursed or something. He was only 0.315 behind the leader, even after messing up his final lap—and that’s considered "good enough"? When you're driving the fastest car on the track? To me, that's just a decent showing for some mid-field driver...
He’s crying about it later just because he’s faster. He had his shot in qualifying. Now he either needs to pass him on track properly or just shut up...
Raymond Anderson4 said:Personally, I wasn't bothered that he didn't move out of the way. The thing is, when Ferrari goes wheel-to-wheel, their top speeds are basically identical. Leclerc could have been sitting right on his gearbox for another 20 laps and still wouldn't have had the pace to get past him. He was faster, sure—he’s always faster—but just not enough to actually make the move...
You could tell Leclerc was faster the second they swapped positions; he pulled a 4.2-second gap in just eight laps.
Why didn't Sainz pull a 4.2-second gap when Leclerc was sitting right behind him?
That tactic was pure nonsense. They completely screwed over Leclerc.
Binotto claims they weren't sure a double stack was doable, fine, but then what?
If they had gone for the double stack, Sainz would have lost maybe a second or two at most, putting him behind Hamilton.
Basically, they would've had a 1-3 for Ferrari on the SC restart, both on softs. How is that worse than having one Ferrari on fresh softs and another stuck on hards, destined to drop back? Leclerc was already looking vulnerable to losing spots to Alonso...
So their choice was basically:
1. Let Sainz lose a position max, but keep him on new tires.
2. Leave Leclerc on old tires and risk him sliding down to 5th or 6th.
They picked option 2.
How is that anything other than favoring Sainz's strategy?
Look, I never denied Leclerc looked slightly quicker there. He did have fresher rubber, granted.
But that’s hardly a valid reason for Sainz to just let him through. If there were a 2-second gap making a fight pointless, or if they were on totally different strategies, or if we were at the final three races and Leclerc was the only one with a shot at the title—then yeah, it would make sense.
But we aren't even halfway through the season. They're on practically identical strategies, the points gap between them is minimal, and they're fighting for position on equal footing—so where does Ferrari get the idea to prioritize Leclerc? Especially since this isn't even their first year together; we already have enough data to know what both drivers can actually deliver.
Also, nobody’s disputing that Ferrari botched the finish and Leclerc should have pitted. But that wasn't an error caused by "favoring Sainz"—it was just pure incompetence. In those few seconds they had to bring Leclerc in, they simply couldn't make up their minds.
However, their other calls during this race—from telling Sainz to yield to Leclerc, to that insane idea at the end where Sainz was supposed to protect Leclerc (if he'd actually listened, they probably would've finished 3rd and 4th, if not worse)—those are the real signs of favoritism toward Leclerc.
Raymond Anderson4 said:Can you even list his mistakes this season?
Imola?
That contact with Perez the other day?
What else?
Yeah, yesterday in the race and in qualifying.
Imola too, just a rookie mistake.
I also remember Miami, where he gifted Max the win by messing up his exit from a corner.
And Saudi Arabia, where he struggled in battles with Verstappen and had some weak qualifying sessions.
That’s just off the top of my head; I haven't been counting, so I might have missed something.
Regardless, it's plenty. Compare that to Verstappen, who's actually fighting for the championship.
And then there's Monaco. I've said this before, but people always blame the team, as if Leclerc was driving blindfolded. Sainz made it crystal clear what he wanted, and he didn't blame the team for once. It's on the driver to read the track conditions and speak up. Racing intelligence is just as vital as raw speed in Formula 1, and Sainz is miles ahead of Leclerc in that regard. Even at Indianapolis, nobody complained when he asked for softs, though like I said, they had very little time to decide, so I won't pin too much on him or the crew there. But Monaco? He could have handled that much better, and we all know it.
In a crisis, a driver has to show clear intent and decisiveness. Take Max, for example—the second he felt something was off with the car, he immediately barked over the radio, "possible tire failure, pitting now." Honestly, I don't even know if the tire was actually blown; he might have pitted for nothing because the issue was actually the chassis, not the rubber. But that’s what a champion does. No hesitation, no second-guessing... If I imagine that happening to Leclerc, he’d probably just stay out in that same position, crying to the team over the radio for the next lap about how slow they are or demanding a tire check, only for the crew to respond, "we don't see any issues with the tire." He’d end up losing an entire lap while everyone else flies past him, and then the fans would spend the whole post-race cycle screaming at the team for being clueless.
