Archive April 29, 2025

Grand Prix of Miami

Venue: Miami International Autodrome Dates: 2-4 May Race start: 21: 00 BST on Sunday

Formula 1 heads to the United States this weekend for the Grand Prix of Miami, the sixth round of the 2025 world championship.

Oscar Piastri, a McLaren driver, won his third race of the season to lead the drivers’ standings last time out in Saudi Arabia.

A year ago, Miami was the scene of Lando Norris ‘ first F1 victory.

Would it be fair to say Lando Norris is faster than Oscar Piastri, but Piastri is a better racing driver? – Rob

The comparison between McLaren team-mates Norris and Piastri – as drivers, and as personalities – is one of many interesting aspects of this season.

Because of how contrasting they are, Piastri is the epitome of solidity. He doesn’t seem to be fazed by anything. Even the weekends when he is a little off Norris ‘ pace he seems to take in his stride. He is very “solid,” as Max Verstappen pointed out in Jeddah, and he rarely makes mistakes.

Norris, on the other hand, wears his heart on his sleeve. He appears to be falling prey to life’s unpredictable circumstances. He beats himself up about his weaknesses. Additionally, he appears to be more prone to minor errors that can affect a title campaign.

That was happening last year, and it’s still happening this.

The above-mentioned question would have been accepted as a fair comment last year. Norris was definitively faster than Piastri in 2024. He qualified him 20 times to four, with an average of 0.147 seconds. And he won four races to Piastri’s two.

However, Piastri’s race-craft was obvious to everyone, showing off his excellent overtaking skills on Norris on the opening lap of Monza or his eventual victory over Charles Leclerc in Baku.

But this season? Norris won three pole positions, and Pirastri won one. Piastri is 4-2 ahead in qualifying at an average of 0.185secs a lap.

And despite having to fight against Norris for the lead from the beginning, he is now leading the championship despite his unfortunate incident on wet grass in Melbourne, which saw him fall to ninth overall.

Norris is incredibly fast. However, Piastri’s highs were never without a doubt at least as good as those of the Briton.

Australian Piastri came into this season setting himself a target of accessing them much more consistently.

Do you believe Max Verstappen can maintain his incredible run in a car that some have deemed to be “fourth fastest” or has the character of the tracks he has so far aided him? – Steve

Few in Formula One doubt that Verstappen is the all-round best driver, and that’s because of how consistently impressive his performances have been.

The Red Bull driver has been operating at a consistent level of excellence since, basically, the 2018 Canadian Grand Prix, the race he finally ironed out the series of errors that blighted his start to that season. There is therefore no reason to believe that will change.

He simply always seems to get the best out of his car, apart from on the odd occasions when he allows tangles with other drivers to get the better of him, such as in Mexico and Hungary last year.

The Mercedes and Ferrari are ahead of the Red Bull car, which is second fastest overall behind McLaren by 0.177secs overall in qualifying time.

Of course, Verstappen’s performances are a factor in that statistic – it’s his car that is the fastest Red Bull. But does he really outsmart Charles Leclerc and George Russell in one lap?

He may be, a bit. He might not be. But would he be, for example, consistently 0.135secs a lap faster than Leclerc in qualifying – the gap between Red Bull and Ferrari this year? No one is certain as to what. And the answer can only be subjective. Few people are unsure of Leclerc’s one-lap pace, though.

So far, the Red Bull has been a fast car, in Verstappen’s hands, on certain types of track. In high-speed corners, it is quick and slow. But it lags behind McLaren in long, medium-speed corners, which emphasise its often inconsistent balance.

Verstappen was quick in Australia, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, but not in Bahrain and China.

Red Bull believe they can fix their issues with some upgrades that are due soon, perhaps for the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix in two races ‘ time.

McLaren’s development is hardly ever going to slow down.

Verstappen will get the very best out of the Red Bull, and stay in the title fight as long as he can.

Can Ferrari turn this season around and be in contention for either championship? – Laura

After five races this season, Ferrari have a sprint victory in China, courtesy of Lewis Hamilton, a single grand prix podium finish, thanks to Charles Leclerc in Saudi Arabia, and lie fourth in the constructors ‘ championship, already 110 points behind leaders McLaren.

Their car is fourth fastest overall in terms of raw performance, behind McLaren by 0. 32 seconds in qualifying.

It’s fair to say this is significantly below their expectations.

The advantage would shift between the top four teams from race to race, according to team boss Frederic Vasseur’ prediction over the winter that this year would be as open as last year. And there is no secret that Ferrari were expecting to start the season in a competitive position and mount a title challenge from the off.

Vasseur thinks they can turn the season around. He has repeatedly pointed to last season, and the fact that they were in a less competitive position at the same point in 2024 but transformed their car and came close to winning the constructors ‘ title at the end of the year.

The 2023 car, which was vicious at the beginning of the season but much better by the end, was also developed well.

An upgrade is due soon, although Ferrari have not said at which race.

Ferrari’s two significant issues pose a problem.

The first is the performance of their car. The second is Hamilton’s performance, which could be a major hindrance if the seven-time champion struggles to recover from three disappointing races in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.

Why do the regulations change just when the field is beginning to close up in competitiveness? The new rules for 2026 appear to be a lottery for teams who succeed or fail them, creating both dominant teams and losers. Stable regs = competitive racing. – Matt

F1 has always changed its regulations from time to time. It’s a necessary and inevitable component of the game.

Often in the past, it has been because the governing body felt the need to intervene in some way.

Perhaps because the cars were becoming too fast or dangerous, like in 1982, the last ground-effect era, or because Ayrton Senna died in 1994. Or to change an aspect of racing that was no longer considered desirable, such as when refuelling was banned for 2010. Or to add something that was perceived as lacking, such as when wider, faster cars were introduced in 2017.

And the engine rules have also often changed, again for various reasons.

The engine rules were the first thing that came to mind this time. F1 and the FIA wanted to make the sport more attractive to new manufacturers. Therefore, they created some working groups with manufacturers’ representatives and developed the 2026 regulations.

These retain 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrids, but simplify them by removing the MGU-H, which recovers energy from the turbo and is highly complex and was considered a barrier to new suppliers.

Additionally, they increased the electrical capacity, ensuring that the engine’s electrical system will use 100% sustainable fuel, and generate about 50% of the overall power.

It has worked. Audi entered, which served as the inspiration for the rule change. Porsche in the end did not. However, Ford has returned in a partnership with Red Bull. Honda is staying when it was going to pull out. General Motors will also be launching next year, even though its engine won’t be finished until 2029.

There was already a desire to refine the chassis rules, to fix some of the issues that have arisen with the 2022 ground-effect regs. However, additional modifications were required by the new engine rules.

It became clear that recovering sufficient energy to supply the batteries was going to be a problem. The rule-makers then switched to moveable aerodynamics, which made the cars stay in the braking zones longer while reducing drag on the straights.

Wrangling is still going on about this topic, although the rules are not expected to change significantly – for example by limiting the electrical deployment in races, as some are pushing at the moment – as there is a blocking majority preventing it.

Seeing as Mercedes dominated the first eight years of the engine regulations when the V6 engines came in, do you see them building that sort of dominance again from the new regulations? Keegan

Just because Mercedes nailed the last new engine rules in 2014, does not necessarily mean they will do so again in 2026.

Mercedes essentially succeeded because they devoted more resources and resources to those regulations than their rivals. The other manufacturers have learned from that experience.

Having said that, Mercedes are currently in the best position to comply with the new regulations in Formula One.

Many believe that what’s motivating the current debate about the engine rules – whether it be changing them again earlier than originally planned, or tinkering with the 2026 rules – is founded in the concerns of Mercedes ‘ rivals – especially Red Bull – that they may face a competitive deficit next year.

Senior sources claim that the FIA’s single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis is telling teams and manufacturers that the governing body doesn’t want engines to be a performance differentiator in the future.

But that raises a major philosophical question. Not, why? Engines have always been a performance differentiator. After all, it’s called motorsport. Cars don’t move without engines.

Who made this decision, and why? Was this agreed with the other stakeholders first?

It appears not to.

The model of football that has become the norm in our time is not only the most well-known today but also one that is shaping the game’s past and future. Pep Guardiola is frequently associated with this model, who expanded on what he learned from Johan Cruyff and Louis van Gaal.

Guardiola laid the groundwork for a new cultural framework by developing the ‘juego de posicion’ (or positional football) beyond anyone before him, laying the foundation for a new one. And it has already taken control, whether or not we like it.

Indeed, three of Guardiola’s followers, Luis Enrique, Mikel Arteta, and Hansi Flick, are playing in the Champions League semi-finals this week. At the business end of Europe’s biggest club competition, the Guardiola way will once again be displayed.

This model is increasingly being opposed. According to critics, it causes defenders to act like midfielders, removes spontaneity, and makes players into robots.

Some fans and pundits believe it to be overcoached, overly structured, and lacking in the chaos and excitement of “real football.”

Perhaps that resistance is missing the larger picture or reacting to poor model implementations rather than the model itself.

Let’s examine the circumstances. Positional football was practiced by five of the eight Champions League quarter-finalists this year. Even renowned powerhouses like Liverpool and, eventually, Manchester United under Ruben Amorim, are attracting fans across Europe.

It produces outstanding games, especially in European competitions, where top players and coaches exploit its potential. It’s a successful model, more than just a style.

It is a cultural force, perhaps most importantly. Football education is being refocused around it, clubs are hiring managers who believe in it, and universities are training players to fit it.

Not everyone executes the plan correctly. However, football has always been like that. Many teams tried because those styles predominated in the 1970s, but many did because Nottingham Forest and Liverpool were not available to all. It’s natural for most teams to adopt a prevailing model in every era.

We’re eroding from a football culture that can be best described as “structured at the back and free up front.” In other words, we instruct the defense while allowing the forwards to create the attack.

The build-up, construction, and finishing can be divided into three stages during the attacking phase. The final pass preparation, which occurs between construction and finishing, is even mentioned in French. Let’s stick with three, though, for the purposes of this discussion.

Guardiola’s focus was on the build-up period when he began coaching in 2001. Football folklore now includes the famous conversation with Victor Valdes, during which Valdes believed his manager had gone crazy when he was asked to pass to center-backs who didn’t want the ball. a turning point in the game’s evolution.

Following the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, and particularly following the rule change that made it possible for players to kick the ball from inside the penalty area, training the build-up phase became a fundamental pillar of contemporary football.

Although Guardiola had already begun developing it at Barcelona and further refined it at Bayern Munich and Manchester City, the middle-third management phase has taken longer to spread.

However, the final act of an attacking move, or “the finishing act,” is still largely unorganized. Football is still unsure of how to fully systemize it. Players and coaches alike aren’t quite prepared for the game’s culture. However, a new revolutionary will emerge one day to advance that final phase. That is football’s history.

Unai Emery and Enzo Maresca, two other semi-finalists, and brilliant practitioners who are currently perfecting the model, are all present. Roberto de Zerbi had begun to advance, but his progress has been slow.

You always learn from watching his teams play because Pep has been a reference for all of us who want to play football in a certain way. Always,” said Paris St-Germain manager Luis Enrique.

“It completely changed the way I view football,” he said. He gave me the tools to become a coach, Arteta of Arsenal said.

The frustration that drives so much of the criticism of positional football is that, “Let’s not do it at all, if we can’t do it well.”

However, progress cannot be made in that way. The model is imperfect because only the best teams can currently execute it flawlessly, not because of that. This indicates that we are transitioning from football. Instead of “this doesn’t work,” the conversation should be “how can we implement it better”?

It’s simple to romanticize the past, arguing that football was more spontaneous and human. Football is better today, in reality. more sophisticated, more sophisticated, and more intelligently designed. It requires more skill, more skill, and more artistically executed work.

Managers like Emery are such fascinating because of this. He read the game’s evolution, questioned his own opinions, and adjusted. Positional principles were accepted by him even without elite-level players because they provided greater control, clarity, and consistency, not just ideological beliefs.

That tactfulness is brave. Not all managers are capable of doing it. Not all players are able to. However, I admire clubs that make the decision to stay in the present rather than stick to what used to be.

Why shouldn’t midfielders, like Virgil van Dijk, Pau Torres, or Pau Cubarsi, touch the ball more frequently than defenders? Why aren’t they the play’s architects? Why aren’t they the ones who inspire a new generation of defenders?

Even PSG, a team that has historically relied on individual talent, has used positional thinking in its attack to ensure they are ready to press as soon as they lose the ball.

Looking forward and imagining what lies ahead is the hardest thing in football, as it is in life. It’s much simpler to say, “That was better,” now.

In ten years, I don’t make up my mind what football will look like. However, I pay attention to those who do. And I think the future lies in positional play.

We are experiencing a cultural shift right now. Some business owners are attempting to copy the model. Some have a chance. The majority of them are still learning. Some people are, indeed, completely resisting.

However, almost everyone will be playing some form of positional football in the next five years. Football doesn’t wait for those who refuse to evolve, but because they’ll be made to do so.

The next coach generation already speaks their language well. And soon it will be widely used.

We don’t demand that every restaurant earn a Michelin star. However, we’re requesting that they stop serving frozen food.

Let’s avoid a model fight. Let’s have fun while it’s happening. Instead of dismissing teams because they are not Guardiola’s City, let’s celebrate the teams who are attempting to get it right by combining structure and their own cultural identity.

The model of football that has become the norm in our time is not only the most well-known today but also one that is shaping the game’s past and future. Pep Guardiola is frequently associated with this model, who expanded on what he learned from Johan Cruyff and Louis van Gaal.

Guardiola laid the groundwork for a new cultural framework by developing the ‘juego de posicion’ (or positional football) beyond anyone before him, laying the foundation for a new one. And it has already taken control, whether or not we like it.

Indeed, three of Guardiola’s followers, Luis Enrique, Mikel Arteta, and Hansi Flick, are playing in the Champions League semi-finals this week. At the business end of Europe’s biggest club competition, the Guardiola way will once again be displayed.

This model is increasingly being opposed. According to critics, it causes defenders to act like midfielders, removes spontaneity, and makes players into robots.

Some fans and pundits believe it to be overcoached, overly structured, and lacking in the chaos and excitement of “real football.”

Perhaps that resistance is missing the larger picture or reacting to poor model implementations rather than the model itself.

Let’s examine the circumstances. Positional football was practiced by five of the eight Champions League quarter-finalists this year. Even renowned powerhouses like Liverpool and, eventually, Manchester United under Ruben Amorim, are attracting fans across Europe.

It produces outstanding games, especially in European competitions, where top players and coaches exploit its potential. It’s a successful model, more than just a style.

It is a cultural force, perhaps most importantly. Football education is being refocused around it, clubs are hiring managers who believe in it, and universities are training players to fit it.

Not everyone executes the plan correctly. However, football has always been like that. Many teams tried because those styles predominated in the 1970s, but many did because Nottingham Forest and Liverpool were not available to all. It’s natural for most teams to adopt a prevailing model in every era.

We’re eroding from a football culture that can be best described as “structured at the back and free up front.” In other words, we instruct the defense while allowing the forwards to create the attack.

The build-up, construction, and finishing can be divided into three stages during the attacking phase. The final pass preparation, which occurs between construction and finishing, is even mentioned in French. Let’s stick with three, though, for the purposes of this discussion.

Guardiola’s focus was on the build-up period when he began coaching in 2001. Football folklore now includes the famous conversation with Victor Valdes, during which Valdes believed his manager had gone crazy when he was asked to pass to center-backs who didn’t want the ball. a turning point in the game’s evolution.

Following the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, and particularly following the rule change that made it possible for players to kick the ball from inside the penalty area, training the build-up phase became a fundamental pillar of contemporary football.

Although Guardiola had already begun developing it at Barcelona and further refined it at Bayern Munich and Manchester City, the middle-third management phase has taken longer to spread.

However, the final act of an attacking move, or “the finishing act,” is still largely unorganized. Football is still unsure of how to fully systemize it. Players and coaches alike aren’t quite prepared for the game’s culture. However, a new revolutionary will emerge one day to advance that final phase. That is football’s history.

Unai Emery and Enzo Maresca, two other semi-finalists, and brilliant practitioners who are currently perfecting the model, are all present. Roberto de Zerbi had begun to advance, but his progress has been slow.

You always learn from watching his teams play because Pep has been a reference for all of us who want to play football in a certain way. Always,” said Paris St-Germain manager Luis Enrique.

“It completely changed the way I view football,” he said. He gave me the tools to become a coach, Arteta of Arsenal said.

The frustration that drives so much of the criticism of positional football is that, “Let’s not do it at all, if we can’t do it well.”

However, progress cannot be made in that way. The model is imperfect because only the best teams can currently execute it flawlessly, not because of that. This indicates that we are transitioning from football. Instead of “this doesn’t work,” the conversation should be “how can we implement it better”?

It’s simple to romanticize the past, arguing that football was more spontaneous and human. Football is better today, in reality. more sophisticated, more sophisticated, and more intelligently designed. It requires more skill, more skill, and more artistically executed work.

Managers like Emery are such fascinating because of this. He read the game’s evolution, questioned his own opinions, and adjusted. Positional principles were accepted by him even without elite-level players because they provided greater control, clarity, and consistency, not just ideological beliefs.

That tactfulness is brave. Not all managers are capable of doing it. Not all players are able to. However, I admire clubs that make the decision to stay in the present rather than stick to what used to be.

Why shouldn’t midfielders, like Virgil van Dijk, Pau Torres, or Pau Cubarsi, touch the ball more frequently than defenders? Why aren’t they the play’s architects? Why aren’t they the ones who inspire a new generation of defenders?

Even PSG, a team that has historically relied on individual talent, has used positional thinking in its attack to ensure they are ready to press as soon as they lose the ball.

Looking forward and imagining what lies ahead is the hardest thing in football, as it is in life. It’s much simpler to say, “That was better,” now.

In ten years, I don’t make up my mind what football will look like. However, I pay attention to those who do. And I think the future lies in positional play.

We are experiencing a cultural shift right now. Some business owners are attempting to copy the model. Some have a chance. The majority of them are still learning. Some people are, indeed, completely resisting.

However, almost everyone will be playing some form of positional football in the next five years. Football doesn’t wait for those who refuse to evolve, but because they’ll be made to do so.

The next coach generation already speaks their language well. And soon it will be widely used.

We don’t demand that every restaurant earn a Michelin star. However, we’re requesting that they stop serving frozen food.

Let’s avoid a model fight. Let’s have fun while it’s happening. Instead of dismissing teams because they are not Guardiola’s City, let’s celebrate the teams who are attempting to get it right by combining structure and their own cultural identity.