After a week of thinking i came to the conclusion that vettel really was the deserving winner of the monaco gp. I wasn't so sure right after the race, because he has been so much more lucky then the other drivers. After some statements from the rivals i began to realize that maybe it was just fair. The red flag deprived us from some action, but without it would most likely end up in an unfair result. Alonso said that he would try to get past him whatever the cost. "If we crash, we crash, i had nothing to lose" I am sure he was serious, because it would be better for him not to get any points than to lose more compared to vettel. So "clean" racing wasn't going to happen, because even brundle said that if you try to pass in monaco and the guy in front doesn't want to let you pass there is 75% chance of a crash. And Button was exactly hoping for that to happen, thats why he didn't even try to make a move, despite beeing on the freshest rubber. That again is tactical thinking and not real racing spirit. So despite a brilliant drive vettel was a sitting duck, because even the best defensive driving couldn't prevent him from beeing taken out by alonso and button would be the profiteer by doing nothing! Track position is everything in monaco and vettel made sure that he had that after the final pits and than didn't crash when beeing hunted by 2 rivals for 20 laps, so he deserved to win.
I think he would have deserved to win if he'd kept those tyres for the next 12 laps or so, they were about 'to fall of the cliff' and would have been even easier to overtake. Vettel is mature enough to take 2nd or even 3rd to get more points for his championship. Lucky, not deserving
It's just Alonso saying that he would be willing to take the risk of overtaking Vettel - unlike Button just before his 3rd pit stop. Alonso wasn't trying to take Vettel out - that would depend on how aggressively Vettel defended. When his tyres "fall off the cliff", he'd be driving 2-3 seconds per lap slower and with hardly any grip. Vettel is smart enough to know that 18 points are a lot better than risking it all for an extra seven points - especially with his lead in the Championship.
I think the first SC really gave Vettel the race because before it came out Button was in a very strong position for the win and then the SC turned his advantage into a disadvantage.
Yes, this is precisely what Button was hoping for and why he was biding his time by holding back a little on Alonso. He wanted Alonso to be fully focussed on Vettel without having to be too concerned about being passed himself. As I said at the time, with 7 laps to go and with Vettel's tyres about to go off the cliff, I reckoned on a 50% chance of an accident between the two, leaving Button to pick up the pieces.
If there wasnt a red flag and Vettel won, then fair play. But as he got away with it, imo he wasnt deserving especially as he made a mistake with the tyres.
Vettels tyres would have gone off, meaning that webber and kobayashi could have caught the lead 3 by the end. Nowthat would have been a finish, 5 cars fighting for the win.
Didn't Fred/Ted/Ned Kravitz say at the time that RB had put the correct tyres on Vettel? MB said they just had trouble getting the warmers off them (that velcro is tough stuff). I'm not convinced about the tyre excuses and think Seb was lucky indeed. Is there any where around the Monaco scalextric track where FA or JB could pass if SV 'didn't' want them to?
Cosicave, you appear to have been bang on the money with regards Button's tactics: In this Q&A after the Monaco GP, Button said: "I could get close to them, but the only way I was really going to be able to force my way past was if one of them made a mistake or ran offline somewhere. But, I wasn’t necessarily looking to push past – I could see that Seb's tyres were going off and that Fernando could sense there was a possibility to overtake. I was pretty much biding my time, waiting for Fernando to launch a move – because it would have either ended with both of them crashing or with Fernando through into the lead and left me with a good chance to have a go at Seb."
Vettel got lucky. Button was the quickest on the day, and got screwed by the safety car twice. Before the first safety car came out Button had it in the bag, but oh right, Vettel deserved it? Trouble is F1 is not about who deserves what. If it was then Maldonado would have finished sixth.
Would this have made JB a deserving winner of the Monaco GP if he was content to follow SB & FA around waiting for them to slip up so he could take the lead? It doesn't show much ambition IMHO, surely an F1 driver wants to win every race and therefore wants to race everyone, not just wait for others to fall off the track and inherit the win. His team mate was lambasted for his Monaco GP (I'm still undecided whether he was right or wrong, discretion being the better part of valour I suppose), but at least he was giving it a go!
FYI Hamilton was WRONG. Interesting the think that some people would respect drivers more if they crashed into others.
FYI says who? I want to see drivers race, not follow others around with a sweeping brush! Also, I can't see where I said that I wanted JB to crash to gain my respect, just race would be enough, and that goes for them all!
Yes. I teach motor racing and this is exactly what I would have advocated. Motor racing is all about winning, and by whatever means (caveat: whatever 'fair' means - and no, I didn't tutor Schumacher!). Motor racing is not all about overtaking. Nor is it all about preserving one's tyres or eking out what's left in the fuel tank. It is a combination of a whole host of things which can vary from moment to moment and from race to race. The 'deserving' winner is the driver who works out all these parameters most effectively and if that means biding one's time, so be it. This mental strategy can be likened to almost all other sport where one person sets out to beat his competitors. Think of a runner; if he/she immediately sprints as fast as possible when competing in the 800 meters, he/she is doomed to failure. Think of a boxer who can easily 'punch himself out' if he gives his all at the wrong time. Think of a cyclist in the Tour de France who half kills himself on one mountain stage, with no hope of running at the front afterwards. Think of a weight-lifter who does not get his breathing right before going for a powerlift. Think of a chess player who attacks too soon and leaves himself exposed to stealth - actually, in a sense that's what Vettel did and he can count himself very fortunate that Lady Luck intervened on his behalf. Think of a skier who goes too fast to make the next turn. Think of almost any sport you like and you will find analogous situations. Button did everything right himself. Unfortunately for him, his supporting act wasn't quite so clever. Yet he raced so well that he retained a very good chance to overcome the shortfalls of his team's poor strategic decisions. And then Lady Luck decided not to play ball either - twice! Criticising Button for that Monaco performance is only acceptable from someone who does not really understand the bigger picture in motor racing. I repeat: it is not all about trying to overtake as as soon as possible - in spite of F1's recent pandering to the public - even though this is obviously exciting. No; one must be more circumspect. Racing drivers absolutely need to be intelligent and must resist being the proverbial 'bull at a gate' by sensing the best moment instead. One might not like the analogy of the tortoise and the hare but it is a truism across the whole spectrum of sport. And when this is properly understood by the spectator, the whole spectacle holds a far deeper intrigueâ¦
Thanks DHC. However, I don't think it takes a genius to know what he was up to. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't expect everyone to have understood it; indeed, I admit to being rather surprised at some of the rhetoric which flowed in fora all over the world, not just here in the UK. My view is too narrow but everyone helps me get a wider perspective. Thanks to all.
Great post, cosicave. I wish I could do that balanced and reasonable thing. I just still can't believe that some people are wavering on the culpability of Hamilton. I get the idea that some people really like him, and want to defend him against those who criticise him, but these accidents he caused are just too much. Not only do these people defend Hamilton for his antics, they criticise Button for what they describe as holding back, or not wanting to overtake Alonso and Vettel. They say things like "I'd rather see someone at least trying to race". Obviously racing is just spiffing, but crashing into people trying overtakes that are never going to come off is wrong, and should be judged as such.
Basil, I never criticised Button, I asked whether he would have been a deserving winner if he had inherited the victory in Monanco, simple as that, no blame, no knocking of his ability or slight on his character. As for my comments on Hamilton, I said I was undecided on whether Hamilton should have err'd on the side of caution at Monaco, I still do but that does not automatically default to me defending his antics. I used the term 'discretion being the better part of valour' (which Cosi has alluded to regarding JB's tactics) but I also think that fortune favours the brave. Which brings me to some of the points Cosi has made; yes JB was playing the tactical game, yes he was thinking of the marathon and not the sprint, but there will come a time when JB will have to sprint for himself and not wait for the others to 'punch themselves out'. If he or any driver for that matter adopts the 'slow and steady wins the day' mentality, they may find the WDC has passed them by. I was using JB as the example based on the comments he made, not on my observations of that race, no criticism of JB, just a question, simple as that. Cosi, Basil, please don't be sanctimonious when other people ask a question on these forums. I understand there is a 'bigger picture of racing', I watch it for the technology, the skill of (all) the drivers, the tactics of (all) the teams (good and bad), but above all the excitement of it all. Please remember, these forums are for everyone, from the people who have a hand in shaping the future racing drivers all the way down to the couch potato and that is exactly the audience F1 caters for too. The thinly veiled contempt you have both shown in your post towards 'some people' and 'someone who does not understand the bigger picture' does little to make me respect your opinion any more than you clearly disregard mine. If either of you think that I don't understand F1 or the bigger picture of racing or I watch it just to see crashes, at least grow a pair and say it directly, I'd respect you both a lot more. One more thing Cosi, what is the purpose of a race then?
Hi Smoggy, You say that you didn't criticise Button, but saying that a Formula One driver "doesn't show much ambition" sounds very much like a criticism to me. Once you have established that Button didn't show much ambition you then use this as the basis for your next criticism. You infer that Button is not a proper F1 driver because he is just waiting for people to fall off the track. Apparently you feel that Button was not "having a go" by being behind Vettel and Alonso around Monaco (the track that is notorious for being the most difficult to overtake on). I think you should be honest. You are clearly criticising Button, even though you have denied it twice.
Nobody wins because they deserve it. You either win or you don't. There are no members on this forum that post objective views. They just complain about anyone that disagrees with them. If both Vettel and Alonso collided and Button had won then Button would be called a tactical genius. If Button would have tried to put an overtake move then he would be described as heroic racing genius. If Button would have clipped Vettel in order to get first place then he would have been described as a British tactical heroic genius. If Hamilton tried anything like that then he is described as just a cheat. Anyway, welcome to Basil and Smoggy to this forum. You will of course have to obey the strict caste system that they operate here. You two are labelled as "newbies" so you have to watch your step and doff your cap to the more senior more knowledgeable and more powerful members that have decided that they are "Senior" to everyone else. They're ambitions are to achieve fuhrer status. Then you're opinions on the Monaco race outcome will not even be allowed.
Hello Basil, Read it again, did I say Button doesn't show much ambition, no. If I wanted to say Button lacks ambtion and infer that he is not a proper F1 driver, it would have read like this; "IMHO, Button is not an F1 driver and lacks ambition". I did write "It doesn't show much ambition IMHO, surely an F1 driver wants to win every race and therefore wants to race everyone, not just wait for others to fall off the track and inherit the win", no mention of JB as the F1 driver, no mention of SB and FA as the 'others' and no mention of Monaco as the 'track'. You are filling in blanks that simply aren't there. My inference was that 'an F1 driver' covers anyone and everyone on the grid, so I guess you could say I criticised them all or criticised no one, my mistake, I will be much clearer with my posts in future to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. I do feel that I must nail my colours to the mast however as my feelings about LH's behaviour has been mentioned twice by yourself and twisted into 'LH is a hero and everyone else is wrong', so here goes. I'm a fan of F1, I watch it for the technology, the skill of (all) the drivers, the tactics of (all) the teams (good and bad), but above all the excitement of it all. oooh deja vu.....
