Ferrari has dug itself into a hole on two fronts:Shal_Leg16 wrote: ↑05 Jul 2022, 18:54im not baiming Sainz for his desire to win either , but still that last 10 laps left a bad taste in my mouth.
for me fact is... Ferrari handed him a unfair advantage and sainz ran away with it leaving Charles hanging..it was like fu*k you guys im going for it.
i get your point about his 1st win , but i feel this is not just one singular incident there are many hints so far that ... every time Ferrari builts a strategy involving both....sainz always tries to maneuver it to his sole benifit even if that screws leclerc he doesnt care. fine lets just throw all fairness and teamplayer stuff in dustbin im all ok with that, im not that naive , i perfectly understand cruality of the sport ..for every Rubins there is a Schumacher ..but then ffs you have to be Schumacher, you can't be rubins and always expect favorable strategy . fact is you cant beat leclerc even with his car brocken but you expect or least try to maneuver every strategical step to benifit only your average a$$. Add to that the lack of balls shown by Ferrari and all this results in mess. imagine them recing for Redbull last sunday and we all know within a lap or 2 there would have been " you are on different strategy " message. There was no chance in hell that in similar SC situation RB would pit perez for fresh tyres and leave Max on old rubber..no chance in hell.
at Ferrari with all this mess its not gonna work for long, They can't let the rubins of the team dectate the strategy and screw everything else ...if so in the end neither Ferrari will win anything nor will Leclerc ...and sainz we all know his realistic target so he may come out as the only winner here.
First, they have vehemently defended their tactics, even though it should be obvious that they made a mistake. Admit it. Don't pretend that you didn't make a mistake. If they double-stacked they would have probably emerged from the pits 1-3 instead of 1-2 because Hamilton was close. Given that Mercedes struggles to get the Pirellis up to temperature and their lack of a top speed advantage, the risk of being overtaken by Lewis is low and the chance of overtaking him is fairly high. Admit it and move on. That is one area where Mercedes is usually admirable; when they screw up, they say so.
Second, and more importantly, is the fact that the consequences of their strategic blunder is that Sainz is now very close to Leclerc on points. This will reduce the chances of good decision making even further. You talk about Rubens and Schumacher. The difference is that Rubens and Schumacher had a contractually obligated arrangement. Sainz and Leclerc do not, and whether that is a mistake by Ferrari or not can be debated at another time.
It has been obvious since the Vettel era (and before, although I use Vettel because it is probably a majority of the same personnel) that the team does not have confidence in its strategy. The difference between Sainz and Leclerc is that Sainz often debates the strategy proactively, while Leclerc usually only questions it reactively. It is not too dissimilar to Monaco, where they would have finished 3-4 if Sainz listened to the strategy calls to pit for inters. With regards to team orders, Sainz did what Ferrari told him to (yield to LEC if you can't hit the target time) but drew the line at common sense (backing up on the SC restart).
The issue was/is not that Sainz somehow manipulates this to his benefit, it's that the team allows the strategy to be a two-way communication. If you give him the option to bargain, he would be an idiot not to try. They need a James Vowels-type (is it Laurent Mekies [who was out with COVID I think, which doesn't help], who is it, if anyone?), someone with higher authority on strategy than Xavier and Adami, but not Binotto, to come over the top and say "this is what we are doing, do it now and shut up" if the engineers aren't going to be firm.
