Tag Archives: Sebastian Vettel

Less is more you say? Well here are a few Haikus. Mark Twain had it right.

Four titles for Seb.

Not a rival in sight. Guys!

Drive faster next year.


No seat for the Hulk.

Financial backing required.

So, Max? He’s too slow.


Sledged by an Aussie.

It’s not unusual but,

keep it on the field.


Thumped at the Gabba

Mate, two hopes at the WACA.

Adelaide: must win.

The 68 syllables above were inspired by the The Daily Post Weekly Writing Challenge – http://dailypost.wordpress.com/ – which this week has bloggers distilling their writing into the Haiku form.

Not wanting to stray too far from what I know, I’ve tried to condense into three lines  a couple of themes from the recently completed 2013 Formula 1 season in which Sebastian Vettel wrapped up a record breaking campaign with victory in Sãu Paulo. Next season will see the costly introduction of new turbo-charged engines forcing even some well-established teams to employ drivers who bring more in terms of sponsorship than they do in driving ability.

And then on to the Ashes, which kicked off in more ways than one last week in Brisbane. England were despatched in explosive fashion by the mercurial Mitchell Johnson. His nine wickets in the match were a painful riposte to his serial tormentors: the taunting Barmy Army. There has definitely been more than an air of niggle surrounding this latest Anglo-Australian contest. This is to be expected and relished but things boiled over in the aftermath of the 1st Test Match with comments being aired in the press that would be best left on the field or in the sanctuary of the changing rooms. England’s selectors now have a conundrum in how to accommodate the departure of Jonathan Trott, who has returned home with a stress-related condition. Many observers give England little chance of victory on the traditionally fast and bouncy Perth pitch and so the next Test Match at Adelaide could be the key to retaining the Ashes.


The Umpire Strikes Back


The British August Bank Holiday weekend is nearly upon us and as many of us eye the weather forecasts anticipating a late summer sojourn to the beach or the park, F1 teams and drivers are returning from their own four weeks vacation ahead of the Belgian Grand Prix. As the second half of the season begins, we will see if anyone can chase down Sebastian Vettel to deny him a fourth World Championship in a row. England’s cricketers will also have enjoyed a week off savouring their Ashes series victory before the 5th Test Match begins at The Oval tomorrow. In any other series this final game might be dubbed something of a dead rubber after Australia succumbed in Durham and went three down with one to play. However, with another five-test series beginning in Australia in as few as 90 days, there are scores to settle and points to prove for members of both sides.

So other than the fact that many people will be tuning into their car radios whilst sat in stationary traffic to listen to these two sporting events over the next few hopefully sun-drenched days, what else connects them? Well, there’s plenty really, but as Arsene Wenger might say, “I want to talk about the refereeing”. In cricket they have umpires and in motor racing the stewards officiate, but in both cases the purpose of those in charge is to ensure the rules are respected and applied consistently. Questionable umpiring has been an unfortunate theme of this year’s Ashes series and has detracted from some closely contested cricket. In the same way, the harsh treatment by the stewards of Romain Grosjean at last month’s Hungarian Grand Prix may have left a bad taste in the mouths of some F1 followers.

To refresh your memories, Grosjean – who has taken plenty of flak recently for his Mario Kart-like approach to wheel-to-wheel racing – cleanly overtook Felipe Massa around the outside of the Hungaroring’s Turn 4 (a blind left-handed corner at the crest of a hill taken at 130 mph). The last few seasons have seen the introduction of a number of regulations designed to define what is and what isn’t acceptable with respect to overtaking. The simple rule which always existed was that a driver must respect the track limits i.e. keep at least part of the car inside the white lines that define the track. It used to be that there was a gravel trap, a barrier or even a lamppost at the edge of the track to make the drivers respect the track limits. In the interests of safety these are more and more frequently being replaced by tarmac run-off areas, affording drivers the opportunity to overtake whilst technically off the track. This creates the problem of drivers deliberately forcing an opponent off the track to avoid being overtaken so a regulation was written in decreeing that an opponent should always be given a car’s width of space. The problem comes when you try to send two cars through a 130 mph blind corner. Sometimes there’s only space for one car and it then becomes a matter of opinion as to who left whom space and who deliberately left the track. Fans and seasoned pros alike all agreed that Grosjean’s move was a thrilling example of exactly the type of thing we want to see every other Sunday. The stewards disagreed and found that the Frenchman was a couple of centimetres beyond the track limits during the manoeuvre. The subsequent penalty denied Grosjean the opportunity to challenge for a victory that was very much a possibility.

You could argue for and against the application of this penalty just as you could argue for and against many of the contentious umpiring decisions at the Trent Bridge and Lords Test Matches. In many cases it’s a matter of opinion. It’s interesting though to look at the two contrasting approaches the two sports have taken to improving their standards of officiating.

In the cricket, a lot of the controversy has surrounded the implementation of the Decision Review System – DRS for short. DRS was adopted in 2009 in an effort to increase the number of correct umpiring decisions. The standard of on-field umpiring had improved markedly over previous years with the advent of the International Cricket Council’s elite umpiring panel but with players’ careers potentially resting on the umpires’ decision making ability, it was felt more use could be made of the television replays and technology already being used by the broadcasters to enhance their coverage and inform their viewership. And so, in came DRS, granting teams the opportunity to refer any decision that they felt was erroneous to a jury of super-slow-motion replays, infrared thermal imaging cameras and military grade ballistic ball tracking software. Cricket’s approach to improve decision-making was to take away as much of the subjective as possible and use technology to deal with matters of fact.

In some ways this is in contrast to the approach taken by Formula 1’s governing body the FIA. The FIA’s solution to provide consistency was to bring along driver stewards to each race to give their objective opinion on contentious matters. Of course this comparison is not entirely fair; cricket umpires are trying to adjudge matters of fact, whereas motor racing stewards are often dealing with matters of opinion.

Before the advent of Hotspot and Snicko, we had to make do with only grainy slow-motion replays to decide whether a batsman had got a slight feather on the ball. If it was not clear-cut, we were happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and move on. Now with the microscope of DRS we demand a definitive answer and while the technology allows us to get more decisions correct there is still going to be the odd one where we just don’t know for sure. It’s the same in motor racing; it used to be that the fairness of an overtake was judged on whether each driver still had four wheels attached to his car following the move. If the answer was yes then it was probably fair game. If not, it was probably Eddie Irvine’s fault. These days we go through the video replays to try to show definitively who’s to blame and again it’s not always possible.

What’s clear in both cricket and F1 is that the more you scrutinise the rules and the decision-making process the more contentious issues you will create. The traditionally sedate game of cricket has taken the hi-tech approach to decision-making and Formula 1 has attempted to use good old-fashioned common sense. In both cases the end result has been to create more grey areas. Let’s just hope the grey areas stay away this Bank Holiday Weekend.

It’s all in the bloody head mate – performing when it matters most.

The inspiration for this blog came from a discussion I had in the comments section of another F1 blog. Here, we were debating the reasons for Mark Webber’s apparent inability to make good getaways at the beginning of Grands Prix. There’re probably other drivers on the grid who make equally poor starts but Webber’s predicament is highlighted by starting towards the front of the grid thanks to his generally strong qualifying performances. Red Bull’s lead driver, Sebastian Vettel, has made a career and three world championships out of his ability to convert pole positions into race wins by virtue of maintaining his starting position into the first corner and subsequently dictating the race from the front.  Conversely, when Webber has started from the top spot, all too often it seems as though he’s left the car in reverse gear and has been swamped by the midfield bandits starting behind him, losing places left, right and centre in a Greg Norman-like display of relinquishing an unassailable advantage.

So what are the factors at play here? In the hi-tech world of F1 there are many technical explanations proffered; clutch slip, engine revs, bite points etc. It seems unlikely that one set of engineers would consistently be at fault here and so, conspiracy theories aside, the one remaining factor is Webber himself. Now given that he is no less fit or physically capable than any other driver, my theory is that like so many other things in the world of sport, it’s all in the head.

If you follow F1 closely enough though, you’ll know that the start line procedure is very well prescribed and on the parade lap each driver is being fed information and told which knobs and buttons to press on the steering wheel to optimise the launch from the grid. Once all of the necessary settings are programmed into the car’s dashboard, the final act is to wait for the 5 red lights to extinguish and then feed in the 740 horse power on tap using a hand operated clutch and a delicate right foot on the loud pedal. As the two dozen or so cars form up the grid, there is a brief moment of relative calm before twenty-odd un-muzzled V8s begin to growl in anticipation of lights out. These are critical moments in an F1 race, and as the symphony of engine noise reaches its crescendo, the engineers and computers have played their parts. It is now 22 human beings conducting the music; muscle, sinew and synapse. Thankfully, in a sport where so much is pre-determined by the laws of physics, there is still a human element involved and it’s just conceivable that with the adrenalin in full flow, Webber is prone to an attack of nerves. In the staring match with the 5 glaring red lights on the start gantry, Webber blinks first. Perhaps a fleeting moment of tightness, to use one sporting parlance; or maybe he just plain chokes, to use an altogether more damning one. Whatever the term used, could it be the pressure getting to Mark Webber? A flinch on the clutch paddle is all it takes to drop the revs, bogging the engine down, a twitch too much of the right foot and the rear wheels spin, losing valuable metres to his opponents.

One response to this thesis was that having started over 200 Grands Prix, Webber would be all but immune to the effects of pressure. Not a bit of it! To completely dismiss the psychological aspect of sport is to miss the point almost entirely. The more there is riding on a single moment in time, the more it matters and the more difficult it becomes to control the emotions and execute the skills performed flawlessly during training or in times of less imposing mental duress.

As I write, the second week of the Wimbledon Tennis Championships has just begun and there is no better time to see sportsmen and women struggle to keep their emotions in check. The scoring system of tennis is such that pressure points can arise relatively often. With a game score tied at deuce, each player can feel safe that there will be at least one more chance whatever happens. One point later though and the game teeters on a knife-edge with one player having the advantage. Still though there is a chance, and the ability to hold one’s nerve and deliver the break-point saving ace when it matters most is something that separates the great players from the merely good.

This is one reason why the appeal of tennis as a spectator sport is almost universal – especially for two weeks in summer in Britain – but it is not to say that other sports do not create such moments. In cricket, a batsman can struggle to rein in his attacking instincts when a more measured approach is called for. Conversely, a fear of failure may prevent the very same batsman from expressing himself as exemplified by the current plight of Nick Compton, who is struggling to suppress his inner demons and express his obvious talent. Then there are the “nervous nineties”, a term which nicely describes how tricks of the mind can cause a cricketer to abandon the mindset that garnered his or her first 90 runs in the pursuit of an almost arbitrary score of three figures. Finally, who could forget the Ryder Cup of last year, where every European putt on that final evening in Medinah had the hopes and expectations of an entire continent riding on it? Time and time again, Ian Poulter found the hole to keep the European victory bid alive knowing the consequences of a mistake would almost certainly entail defeat. The Americans faced a different type of pressure going into the last day, only needing to avoid a complete rout to claim the trophy. The expectation attached to being an odds-on favourite is a pressure all of its own and in the end, the pressure told as Yank after Yank fell short of the mark.

Sport is littered with similar such occasions and they are all the more memorable and enjoyable for the role that psychology played in them. Can you perform when it matters most? It’s no coincidence that those who can are consistently found at the top of the leader board, lifting the trophy, or taking the centre step on the podium.

In closing, we return briefly to Webber. Sunday’s British Grand Prix was a microcosm of Webber’s Red Bull tenure. Plainly frustrated with his team after yet another poor start and another opening lap tangle with Romain Grosjean, the Aussie battler put in a determined drive to come through the field to finish second to a young German driver (Nico Rosberg this time after Sebastian Vettel had retired from the lead). Webber’s performances as a favourite are what we began questioning here, but his efficacy in the face of adversity is undisputed. Never better than with the bit between his teeth and a bone of contention to pick, this was a classic Webber drive and exhibitedthe mental toughness, grit and willpower that he possesses in bundles. If only he could match this underdog determination with the ability to lead from the front – to perform when it matters most – he would be leaving the sport at the end of this season with at least one world championship to his name.

Team mates, tyres and torque maps

If you’re even a casual follower of the globetrotting circus that is Formula 1 these days, then you will no doubt be aware of the ongoing debate surrounding team orders. There’s usually plenty to talk about in the build up to an F1 race but the subject of intra-team battles is a favourite among the ever-expanding troupe of pit lane pundits. Whenever and wherever the F1 road show rolls into town the media hawkers are much more comfortable drumming up interest by talking about pyrotechnics going off between stable mates than they are trying to pique viewers’ curiosity with the complexities of tyre compounds or the latest political manoeuvrings in the paddock. Whilst the engineering feats asked of some of the world’s leading brains and the Game of Thrones like struggle for ultimate control of the sport are both part of the intrigue for some, for the TV companies trying to win ratings, the chance to dig out the archive footage of Williams pair Mansell and Piquet going toe-to-toe at Brands Hatch and actually talk about on track action must provide welcome relief.

The most recent incarnation of this age-old discussion has risen from the smouldering aftermath of the Malaysian Grand Prix. Here, the opposing arguments for and against the use of team orders were neatly distilled for us in two separate sets of circumstances that arose during the race. On one hand we had Ross Brawn’s authoritatively delivered decree that Nico Rosberg hold station behind his team mate Lewis Hamilton and the pair bring home their Mercedes Silver Arrows line astern. On the other, we witnessed some feisty racing between the Red Bulls of Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel with the latter emerging victorious, before later finding out that Vettel had disobeyed similar orders from his team and had seemingly mugged Webber for the race victory.

Never mind for the moment whether the concept of team orders is right or wrong;  team orders have always existed and will always exist. We only need choose whether we want the FIA sanctioned antics exemplified by Ferrari in Austria 2002, where the Scuderia unashamedly ordered Rubens Barrichello to hand the win to team leader Michael Schumacher, or the more clandestine version (necessitated by the FIA’s banning of team orders) best exemplified by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010, where the team covertly (but equally unashamedly) asked Felipe Massa to let Fernando Alonso through to take the chequered flag.

This time round the post race analysis has centred not on the issuing of driver instructions in the first place, but whether or not the driver in question chooses to obey them or not. Essentially there are two schools of thought on this. The first concludes that race drivers are ruthless beasts and those who have been most successful in the past have often displayed an uncompromising attitude to ethical treatment of their competitors. The oft-quoted sound byte of Ayrton Senna (arguably the sport’s greatest champion) is offered in support of this paradigm: “…if you no longer go for a gap, you are no longer racing”. The more principled school of thought is that racing is nothing without honour and there is no merit in beating someone whose hands are tied behind their back in the way that we were led to believe Mark Webber’s were.

Shades of grey exist between the two extremes and even Vettel himself had not quite worked out whether to be remorseful, as he was immediately after the race in Malaysia in offering his apologies to his team, or bullish, as he was in the build up to the following race weekend in China,  proclaiming that he was racing, saw an opportunity and took it. At the more philosophical end of the spectrum we had Lewis Hamilton feeling uncomfortable that his team denied the quicker driver the higher finishing position, vocalising his desires to always be allowed to race and for the best man to win. For the time being we must accept this as genuine contrition though you must question whether Hamilton will maintain this stance if he ever has a team mate quick enough to consistently beat him.

Whichever viewpoint you subscribe to, the debate has provided no shortage of publicity for the pinnacle of motor racing and reminded us that it’s not all about tyres and torque maps. For now though, the bandwagon has moved on to Barcelona and the talking can stop and the racing resume.