Lando Norris compared to Ayrton Senna versus Piastri likened to Prost? No, however McLaren must hope championship is settled on track

The British racing team along with Formula One could do with anything decisive in the title fight involving Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved on the track and without reference to the pit wall as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at COTA on Friday.

Marina Bay race aftermath leads to internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense post-race analyses concluded, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a reset. Norris was likely fully conscious of the historical context of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate at the last race weekend. During an intense title fight against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s well-known quotes was lost on no one but the incident which triggered his statement was of an entirely different nature to those that defined Senna's great rivalries.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in Formula One,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to overtake that led to the cars colliding.

The remark appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “If you no longer go an available gap that exists then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with the French champion at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit but different circumstances

Although the attitude is similar, the phrasing is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he never intended of letting Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris did try to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he made against his team colleague during the pass. That itself stemmed from him clipping the car of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten by team protocols for racing and Norris should be instructed to return the position he gained. McLaren did not do so, but it was indicative that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Squad management and impartiality under scrutiny

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and strive to be as scrupulously fair. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, strategy and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Of most import to the title race, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, there is what each driver perceives on fairness and when their perspectives might split from the team's stance. That is when the amicable relationship among them could eventually – become a little bit more Senna-Prost.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I guess aggression will increase a bit more. That's when it begins to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For the audience, during this dual battle, increased excitement will likely be appreciated as an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Especially since for F1 the alternative perception from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking the correct decisions for themselves and it has paid off. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (though a great achievement diminished by the fuss prompted by their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and principled leader who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Sporting integrity versus team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their contest should be decided on track. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely and see how fortune falls, than the impression that each contentious incident will be pored over by the team to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved later in private.

The scrutiny will increase with every occurrence it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes that could be critical. Already, following the team's decision their drivers swap places at Monza due to Norris experiencing a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he was treated unfairly with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

No one wants to witness a championship endlessly debated because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. Questioned whether he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but mentioned it's a developing process.

“We've had several challenging moments and we’ve spoken about a number of things,” he said post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better now to simply stop analyzing and withdraw from the conflict.