Norris as Senna versus Piastri likened to Alain Prost? Not exactly, however McLaren needs to pray championship gets decided on track

McLaren and F1 would benefit from any conclusive outcome during this title fight involving Lando Norris & Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action and without resorting to the pit wall as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at COTA starting Friday.

Marina Bay race aftermath leads to team tensions

After the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and tense debriefs concluded, McLaren will be hoping for a fresh start. Norris was likely fully conscious about the historical parallels regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight with the Australian, that Norris invoked a famous Senna most famous sentiments was lost on no one but the incident that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature from incidents characterizing Senna's iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for just going an inside move through an opening then you don't belong in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to overtake that led to the cars colliding.

The remark appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap that exists then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he provided to the racing knight following his collision with the French champion at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he had no intent to allow Prost beat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate which received no penalty despite the minor contact he had with his McLaren teammate as he went through. That itself stemmed from him clipping the car driven by Verstappen ahead of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, instantly stated that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was forbidden by team protocols of engagement and Norris ought to be told to return the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that in any cases between them, both will promptly appeal to the team to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and impartiality being examined

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to allow their racers compete against each other and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.

Most crucially to the title race, with six meetings remaining, Piastri leads Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and when their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. That is when their friendly rapport between the two may – finally – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It will reach to a situation where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I guess aggression will increase further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will likely be appreciated in the form of an on-track confrontation instead of a data-driven decision of circumstances. Especially since for F1 the other impression from these events 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 at Marina Bay (though a great achievement overshadowed by the controversy from their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and upright commander who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Racing purity versus team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title appealing to the team for resolutions appears unsightly. Their competition ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and see how fortune falls, than the impression that each contentious incident will be pored over by the squad to determine if they need to intervene and then cleared up later in private.

The examination will intensify and each time it happens it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Previously, following the team's decision their drivers swap places at Monza due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

No one wants to witness a championship endlessly debated because it may be considered that fairness attempts had not been balanced. When asked if he felt the team had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri responded he believed they had, but noted it's a developing process.

“We've had several difficult situations and we discussed a number of things,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, thus perhaps wiser now to simply close the books and withdraw from the conflict.