What Ferrari must learn from ruthless Mercedes F1 execution after strategic own goal

The strategy confusion that enraged Lewis Hamilton at the Dutch Grand Prix was the latest example of where Ferrari still has shortcomings compared to its Formula 1 rivals. 

Ferrari drew the ire of Hamilton with its strategy as he looked to fight the Mercedes pair for a potential podium finish, leading to the seven-time world champion publicly rebuking his team. 

To give himself the best chance of making full use of his fresher tyres and challenge George Russell ahead, Hamilton felt he and team-mate Charles Leclerc should have swapped positions. 

Overtaking is notoriously hard at Zandvoort and so Hamilton wanted to avoid losing crucial time being needlessly stuck behind Leclerc, who was on older tyres at the time.

Ferrari took no action, prompting an unimpressed Hamilton to bark over team radio: “We are just losing time!” 

Ferrari never ordered a swap but instead, as an alternative solution, called Leclerc into the pits. Leclerc was blindsided by this and, amid his annoyance, the resulting confusion cost Hamilton. 

"A great way of wasting time guys, good job,” Hamilton sarcastically told his team in a series of increasingly irritated radio messages between driver and pit wall. 

Explaining his criticism of Ferrari over team radio after the race, Hamilton told F1TV: “I want to win. I want to win. I'm here to win. 

"It is difficult when you are looking ahead and you see the two Mercedes drivers, they get the call and it's done, and they execute straight away.

"They let Kimi by and let him get on with the race. I was on a different strategy and it's not the same here. That's a little bit difficult but we'll take it offline and when I go back now, I'll speak to them about it.”

In his answer, Hamilton made a point of citing the sharp decision-making from his former team Mercedes, which only added to his frustrations. 

Mercedes moved Russell aside for team-mate Andrea Kimi Antonelli after the Italian had given up track position to switch onto fresh tyres under a virtual safety car in a last-ditch attempt to challenge Lando Norris for the win. 

Russell did initially question the instruction over team radio, but he ultimately conceded the place at the end of the main straight without putting up a fight. 

It was a hard pill for Russell to swallow at the time, given he was set to lose further championship ground to his team-mate and direct title rival. However, once the race finished, Russell admitted it was the right decision. 

Whether you agree with what Mercedes did or not, it was clear evidence of the German manufacturer not being afraid to make ruthless calls when it feels they are necessary. 

Mercedes has an unprecedented amount of world championship success from the past 12 years to back up such decisions. In contrast, Ferrari has largely been floundering for the best part of two decades.

How Mercedes and Ferrari handled similar situations at Zandvoort could not have been more opposite. 

Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur downplayed the drama and defended his side’s strategy, insisting it did not want to give the game away to its rivals. He also pointed to the benefit of looking at things in hindsight. 

The problem with the latter argument is that Ferrari should have had the foresight during the race to see how the situation would develop. 

This is perhaps what is most perplexing. After all, Ferrari decided to extend Hamilton’s stint and therefore hand him a tyre offset against those ahead - including Leclerc. 

It was inevitable that Hamilton would eventually catch Leclerc. Staggeringly, Ferrari didn’t see it coming. And if Ferrari did, it failed to act quickly or decisively enough. 

Ferrari’s indecision negatively impacted its prospects and a potential third place - or even better - went begging. 

Too many of the same failures can be the difference between winning world championships or not. Rather concerningly, in Ferrari’s case, it is not the first time it has hesitated when it needed to be decisive. 

At the previous round in Hungary, Ferrari decided against using team orders to keep Hamilton, who was carrying a five-second penalty, ahead of Leclerc in order to minimise the points loss to Antonelli. Vasseur’s reasoning was that it would have been unfair on Leclerc. 

Ferrari’s insistence on refraining from favouring one driver over the other is admirable from a sporting fairness point of view, but it is allowing Antonelli to run further clear in the championship in the process. 

The Italian team has history when it comes to using ruthless team orders in the past, showing it is capable of employing such tactics. It did so during the Michael Schumacher glory days when the German was the clear number one driver at the team. It was controversial but effective. 

Given the Maranello squad adopts a ‘Ferrari-first’ mantra, it feels odd that it is not doing the utmost to enhance its championship prospects in a season that might turn out to be its best chance of ending its title drought for some time. 

And it is not like the apparent push for fairness is keeping the harmony intact within the team. 

Both Hamilton and Leclerc leave Zandvoort alienated and unhappy, with some important clear-the-air talks now needed ahead of Ferrari’s home Italian Grand Prix at Monza next week. 

Hamilton has seen his points deficit to Antonelli increase to 59 points and while that gap is certainly not impossible to overhaul, it is looking increasingly more difficult to do so, particularly with McLaren hauling itself into the mix at the front. 

As Hamilton pointed out, Ferrari has thrown away too many points through poor execution at times this season. Hamilton cannot be totally absolved from blame here - as he too has been guilty of some sloppiness. But Ferrari is once again risking becoming its own worst enemy. 

If it is serious about winning F1 titles again, some bad habits need to change. Hamilton is certainly trying his best to encourage that.