Evaluating Lewis's win at Monte Carlo
I have been reading with great interest all the different views on Monaco and especially on Lewis's performance and the debate about luck. A couple of thoughts on this. I originally wrote about the luck factor because, watching the race in the press room, that was undeniably the impression one got at the time.
Lewis had made a biggish error, had slipped down the field, and had got away with it. However it is just as important to emphasise that these were among the most difficult conditions imaginable(not quite as bad as Fuji, though on a totally different track) and Lewis was certainly not alone in making a mistake or mistakes(just think of Felipe, Kimi, Fernando, DC, Timo, Kimi again, Fernando again, Timo again and again, and so on).
The question we are left with then is to try to evaluate Lewis's performance. Was it an average win, something unremarkable, or was it great or even historic? First any win at Monaco is going to be special – it still remains the great drivers' track, even if overtaking is well nigh impossible. Second, you could argue that any win in the rain at Monaco is even more precious. It certainly makes a hard challenge a lot, lot harder.
And then the style in which it was accomplished should be taken into account. Apart from that one blemish, Lewis drove exceptionally well and, as several of you have pointed out, he flew round Monte Carlo during his long middle stint. In my notebook I kept a log of the gap over Felipe/Robert as Lewis gradually imposed himself on proceedings. He needed something like 27 seconds to get in and out in his last stop to win.
On lap 41 Lewis was 21.6 seconds ahead of Felipe; by lap 45 he was 26.2 ahead; by lap 52 he was 36.7 in front. This was all faultless, fast driving and delivered under pressure. Of course the strategic lottery was working fortuitously in Lewis's favour but he still produced it when it mattered. It is easy to forget, when looking back at the race, that rain – the threat of more of it in the closing stages which never materialised - was a big factor in the minds of the teams and drivers and, in the end, by luck as much as judgement, McLaren and Lewis got it just right.
So Lewis drove well; he and the team recovered brilliantly from an early setback – something which underlines Lewis's growing maturity – and the prize was theirs. But any dispassionate reading of the race would have to recognise that, as they say in sport, the race "came" to Lewis and McLaren as much as they won it. Obviously in Lewis's life this was an historic win – his greatest he said – but for the rest of us I would argue we should see it in slightly less grandiose terms. Lewis did not destroy the field in qualifying and then drive out of sight; there was a lot more(or less) to it than that. It is interesting for me to find myself accused of down-playing a Lewis win, but I am just trying to get it in perspective.
The debate underlines the most frustrating feature of Formula One and probably most forms of motor racing, namely that it is always so hard to decide just how great a performance a driver has delivered because there are so many other influences to take into account. In this case, there are the relative merits of the Ferraris against the McLarens and the BMWs and all the millions of inputs in the factories, the weather and track conditions, the various strategic and tyre choices made by McLaren and other teams and drivers, the mistakes made by Lewis and other drivers, the weight(fuel-wise) of Lewis's car and everyone else's at each particular stage, the performance of the pit team, events out of a driver's control(accidents) and so on and so on.
Given all of the above, one can only imagine how straightforward would it be to report and write about say tennis where it is essentially one man/woman with a racket in their hand, an opponent on the other side of the net(with a very similar racket) and a ball to hit? That is not to say Formula One isn't fascinating but it is hard to distil it down. I have noticed among the nostalgia merchants that they tend to look back on races of past years and forget most of the variables, focussing intently on just the driver as if in a vacuum. "Of course Lewis was imperious that day...no one who saw him could have been in any doubt they were seeing history being made..." etc etc. I still like Robert's drive. No errors, fast, ebullient, second place in the rain at Monaco in a fifth-placed car.
Looking ahead, the Ferrari still looks the better all-rounder. It is going to be tough for Lewis in Canada(it might rain of course). However as one correspondent here pointed out very astutely, Lewis has now got, effectively, a No. 2 driver supporting him in Heikki whereas Felipe and Kimi are - sportingwise - at each other's throats.
By the way, thank you to everyone for advice on computers. I am writing this on an old IBM supplied by The Times which, after the HP, feels like being back home. A Mac, maybe one day...
A note on the pics(crap photographer-new camera!): Images of Lewis and Robert, the two best drivers of the weekend, taken on the inside of Tabac on Saturday morning(Lewis) and at the exit of the chicane after the tunnel(Robert). Also a view of the first section of Swimming Pool to give you an idea of Monaco in threatening weather(again Saturday morning just after it had rained heavily before quali). Click on images to enlarge.
Recent Comments