#81 ·
There is just one thing weighing on my mind. I actually went as far as sending an email to ESPN about it.
How much longer must we endure Martin Brundle? Or, as I prefer to call him, Martin Blunder.
Honestly, listening to his biased, fanboy commentary makes my blood boil. It is painfully obvious he’s enamored with Hamilton; in Blunder's eyes, Hamilton can do no wrong.
Take the Los Angeles race, for instance. Blunder placed the entirety of the blame on Rosberg for the collision. His reasoning? Apparently, Hamilton's front wing and tire were aligned with the rear of Rosberg's car, meaning Rosberg was obligated to leave him space. According to Blunder, Rosberg closed the gap too late, making him the sole culprit.
Then look at the Monaco race. Ricciardo's front wing was level with Hamilton's rear tire. By that exact same logic and set of rules, Hamilton should have yielded sufficient space to Ricciardo. Yet, we saw the same lack of space Rosberg showed previously. The only reason they didn't both crash out is because Ricciardo refused to follow the "Hamilton Method"—which is essentially: either I get my way, or we don't finish the race.
Now, suddenly, Mr. Blunder claims Hamilton had every right to squeeze Ricciardo out and that he handled it perfectly. It is fascinating how quickly the narrative shifts, but for Mr. Blunder, Hamilton is always right, regardless of the outcome.
It would be refreshing if ESPN brought in someone who actually won races in NASCAR, rather than this clown who hasn't stood on a winner's podium once in 158 career starts. At least NBC had Coulthard, a man who actually knew how to win and maintained a far more objective perspective than Mr. Blunder.
As for Hamilton's questionable driving, that has been a known issue for quite some time. To borrow an old saying: You can give a peasant a BMW, but you can't teach him how to drive it.
How much longer must we endure Martin Brundle? Or, as I prefer to call him, Martin Blunder.
Honestly, listening to his biased, fanboy commentary makes my blood boil. It is painfully obvious he’s enamored with Hamilton; in Blunder's eyes, Hamilton can do no wrong.
Take the Los Angeles race, for instance. Blunder placed the entirety of the blame on Rosberg for the collision. His reasoning? Apparently, Hamilton's front wing and tire were aligned with the rear of Rosberg's car, meaning Rosberg was obligated to leave him space. According to Blunder, Rosberg closed the gap too late, making him the sole culprit.
Then look at the Monaco race. Ricciardo's front wing was level with Hamilton's rear tire. By that exact same logic and set of rules, Hamilton should have yielded sufficient space to Ricciardo. Yet, we saw the same lack of space Rosberg showed previously. The only reason they didn't both crash out is because Ricciardo refused to follow the "Hamilton Method"—which is essentially: either I get my way, or we don't finish the race.
Now, suddenly, Mr. Blunder claims Hamilton had every right to squeeze Ricciardo out and that he handled it perfectly. It is fascinating how quickly the narrative shifts, but for Mr. Blunder, Hamilton is always right, regardless of the outcome.
It would be refreshing if ESPN brought in someone who actually won races in NASCAR, rather than this clown who hasn't stood on a winner's podium once in 158 career starts. At least NBC had Coulthard, a man who actually knew how to win and maintained a far more objective perspective than Mr. Blunder.
As for Hamilton's questionable driving, that has been a known issue for quite some time. To borrow an old saying: You can give a peasant a BMW, but you can't teach him how to drive it.
