During the last Brazilian Grand Prix, Max Verstappen gave the final blow to Lando Norris. However, their duel has an air of déjà vu in Formula 1.
The duel between Lando Norris and Max Verstappen in Formula 1 is in certain aspects reminiscent of the face-to-face between Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher in the 1990s. Although the technical context has evolved, their rivalries do in fact have some similarities…
McLaren technical advantage
At the height of his career in the 1990s, Michael Schumacher dominated the Grands Prix with a high-performance Benetton and then a Ferrari. Damon Hill, for his part, remained the eternal challenger, lacking a little build, at Williams, a formidable team in the past but which did not always manage to thwart the Kaiser.
In the same way today, Max Verstappen is the driver to beat while Lando Norris embodies the outsider capable of putting an end to the undivided domination of the Dutchman since 2021. Like the 1996 World Champion, the Briton has, with his McLaren, a machine superior to the RB20 since the Miami Grand Prix Versatile, the MCL38 is the current reference, even if it has not won the last three races, all eventful, its technical advantage. is, however, less than that of the Williams against the Benetton and the first Ferraris driven by Schumi.
The good guy and the bad guy?
Remember. Michael Schumacher was ready to do anything to achieve victory, even at the cost of risky, even frankly questionable, maneuvers (Adelaïde in 1994, Jérez 1997). Damon Hill, on the other hand, drove like a gentleman, without always much brilliance, but without ever committing an ugly gesture… It is therefore no coincidence that the 1996 World Champion recently claimed that the Dutchman used “fear and intimidation”
against his rivals in Formula 1… A bit like Schumi's gesture towards him?
If comparison is not right, the Verstappen-Norris duo offers a similar dynamic. Where the Dutchman, reviled by the English press, is distinguished by an aggressiveness without qualms, the young Briton remains “clean” in his driving, and seems almost fragile, he who does not hesitate to self-flagellate and share your doubts and flaws. Which made Martin Brundle say that he lacked the predatory instinct essential to champions.
“I worry, I think a lot about all kinds of scenarios, good or bad, and I'm hyper critical of myself, confirms Norris. I talk a lot with my brain! It’s not that I can’t concentrate, but I spend a lot of time ruminating and I’m not satisfied until I find answers to my questions.”
His spontaneity in sharing his emotions makes him a somewhat different pilot, far from the virilistic clichés of the reckless runner. A strange mixture of confidence and fear of doing wrong, he unfortunately too often broke down during decisive moments, particularly at the start.
Benetton-Red Bull et Williams-McLaren
Okay, the RB20 is no longer the absolute weapon it was at the start of the season, but it remains devilishly competitive and benefits from flawless operation. In terms of strategy, the Winged Bull does better than everyone, while Andrea Stella's men have made multiple tactical errors: in Canada, Great Britain, Italy, etc. However, in such a competitive season, every detail counts, and the team's strategic hesitations or the driver's missed starts will undoubtedly have cost McLaren the drivers' title…
Thirty years ago, Williams also had the best car, but regularly shot itself in the foot in terms of strategy. Sir Frank's team made numerous blunders, committing serious errors in the pit stop strategy, an area that Benetton managed with insolent success.
Ruthless and more dominant than ever, Verstappen and Schumacher had Norris and Hill in their stomachs. The British had the better car, but neither the team nor the morale of their continental opponents. Is history just an eternal restart? Or does it repeat itself because we always see it through the same prisms (the good/bad oppositions, sensitive soul/heartless champion, etc.)?
