By: If Monza was the crossroads for Ferrari’s ambitions, it is clear that this too will be a season of regrets for the men from Maranello. It is a huge shame, because the SF-26 has shown itself to be an aeromechanically competitive car at several circuits. At the temple of speed, once so friendly to the Scuderia’s engines, the chickens came home to roost. It must not be forgotten that Lewis Hamilton risked being eliminated in Q2 in qualifying, while Gasly’s cruel yet deserved pole position suggests just how superior the Mercedes-AMG F1 M17 E Performance power unit is. The race confirmed that competitive advantage, allowing McLaren to finish ahead of the sole Ferrari at the flag. Aside from its negligible management authority, the Scuderia had no chance whatsoever of fighting for the leading positions even if its execution of the weekend had been flawless.
The managerial vacuum paves the way for an internal feud
This is not intended as a lesson in management style, yet it is clear that those in charge of the historic Modena-based team, led by Frederic Vasseur, are at the mercy of the internal feud between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. What happened between the two Ferrari standard-bearers at the first chicane was not a racing incident. It would be foolish to classify it as one. The seven-time world champion’s renewed competitiveness has reignited the belief that he could be the man of destiny capable of returning Ferrari to the top of the world. In that respect, the Anglo-Caribbean star has often stressed how hard he is pushing to improve many aspects that go far beyond his role as a driver. Through inability or impossibility, Ferrari has opted to play as a team by not issuing team orders when the situation was still open. It is an approach that is proving costly both on sporting and human levels, because the relationship between the two drivers is now at rock bottom. Formula 1 is cruel, but success requires ruthlessness. If you do not have the best car in the field, the only option is to maximise the team’s overall result, and that objective often comes at the expense of one driver’s ambitions. Rather than a “free to race” policy, the impression is one of excessive deference when it comes to giving drivers clear instructions. In a context without rules of engagement, anything goes for these driving aces. Hamilton intends to make his better championship position count, while Leclerc has no intention of giving an inch in the hope of closing the gap to his team-mate. The result is there for all to see, and it is embarrassing. We have often seen team-mates banging wheels, especially when fighting for the title, but at Monza the stakes, with hindsight, were truly meagre.
Vasseur and improvised reprimands
Vasseur referred to McLaren’s management last season after the race: “As for any potential team orders, I think last year is a good comparison. At this point in the season Oscar Piastri was ahead within McLaren and, if McLaren had put everything behind Piastri, Max Verstappen would probably have become champion. It is clear that at some point you have to make a decision, but I think before Monza it was still too early to do so. Now we have time to discuss it with the guys.” Is it not already too late to speak to the drivers? Is it possible that there are no codified rules of engagement that drivers must follow strictly, and that the team instead has to resort to improvised reprimands? At this point, it is fair to ask whether Ferrari are capable of managing two drivers who both aspire to be the leading man, especially when one man’s ambitions need to be curbed for the supreme good of the team.
