Anyone else fed up with SkySports one-sided viewpoint?

[Foreverchamps 1]

I personally feel that one of the amazing things about motorsport is that drivers are racing for themselves, and not their country, so regardless of your nationality, people support drivers from all over the world, and we make judgements based on their skill etc. The reason why I feel this is brilliant, is that when attending a motor race, there is no segregation based on who you support, and everyone is free to enjoy watching the skill of the drivers together.

I appreciate that in the UK a larger proportion of people will support Hamilton, in Germany a lot of people will support Vettel, in Australia many will support Ricciardo, but my experience of SkySports is that they are very supportive of Hamilton, and even more so, they are extremely critical of Vettel. Personally, I feel this is a bit over the top, especially given they broadcast to many countries around the world, not just the UK.

This article sums it up - Martin Brundle is extremely citical of Vettel, even though, regardless of who you support, I think it is hard to deny that his drive back through the field at Malaysia was very impressive, especially given he finished ahead of a Mercedes without any Safety Car intervention.

[Hughesy 254]

Dude it’s always been that way no matter what channel it’s broadcast. Look at how Murray Walker reacted when Hill won the championship, yet nobody seems to moan about him. I’m not sure what in Brundles article is incorrect. Yea it was a great drive in the fastest car, nobody denies that. Go to Italian TV and see how they get behind Ferrari, or Germany with Schumacher.

[Foreverchamps 1]

Hughesy said:

Dude it’s always been that way no matter what channel it’s broadcast. Look at how Murray Walker reacted when Hill won the championship, yet nobody seems to moan about him. I’m not sure what in Brundles article is incorrect. Yea it was a great drive in the fastest car, nobody denies that. Go to Italian TV and see how they get behind Ferrari, or Germany with Schumacher.

I totally agree, I know it isn't a new thing, and I am not against them getting behind Hamilton and Palmer to some extent, but what annoys me a little is the seemingly lack of respect for Vettel.

I am sure no-one denies that Vettel is a very talented driver, and it is great to have a title battle between 2 of the best drivers on the grid, but I cannot understand why in this article, Brundle picks fault in all of Vettel's actions - Vettel's comment about Alonso, 'thought Alonso was better than that'  was certainly a valid response to effectively being blocked, and yet Brundle decides to compare this to the completely unrelated incident in Baku, which happened months ago and which Vettel has already served a penalty for.

Additionally, if they choose to pick fault in every action, then surely in relation to the Baku incident, the SkySports team shouldn't brush over the fact that Hamilton is a bit eratic behind the safety car, such as at Baku, Spa, Singapore, not to mention the fact that he slowed suddenly at the '07 Japanese GP and that played a major part in the Webber/Vettel crash.

Also, as I said before, the SkySports commentary is not just for the UK, it is broadcast around the world and I don't think this is a very professional approach, especially given that it is giving those new to F1 a completely skewed perspective of the sport.

[Jiggy 5]

Small tip: just avoid all things Ted Kravitz to enhance your enjoyment of the Sky Sports-broadcast. It helps.

Think that the remark about Vettel being a hypocrite over thinking Alonso being better than that, when he drove into Hamilton after the safety car, is a bit cheeky and borderline disrespectful, but overall it's a fair article and a fair point to make. Although the Stroll-crash as an example of Vettel being his worst enemy is nonsense, that's completely on Stroll.

In terms of timing, it was better placed right after the Singapore GP.

[Foreverchamps 1]

Jiggy said:

Small tip: just avoid all things Ted Kravitz to enhance your enjoyment of the Sky Sports-broadcast. It helps.

Think that the remark about Vettel being a hypocrite over thinking Alonso being better than that, when he drove into Hamilton after the safety car, is a bit cheeky and borderline disrespectful, but overall it's a fair article and a fair point to make. Although the Stroll-crash as an example of Vettel being his worst enemy is nonsense, that's completely on Stroll.

In terms of timing, it was better placed right after the Singapore GP.

They are my thoughts exactly with that article, and I could completely understand it after Singapore, which although was not 100% Vettel's fault, it was too risky for a championship contender to do such a thing. However, the way it appears to me, is that SkySports are taking every incident that happens to Vettel and twisting it to make it appear as though it is always Vettel's fault.

Like I say, Hamilton certainly is no angel, but whenever he does something wrong, SkySports move swiftly on, which in my opinion is the correct thing, given the vast number of minor incidents in an F1 season, yet they are still going on about the Baku incident that happened months ago. 

Also, this may be me reading into it a bit too far, but I wonder whether their disapproval of Vettel is connected to the fact that, until recently, Vettel had been leading the championship, despite driving a car that is clearly inferior to the Mercedes for the majority of the races. Perhaps this makes it hard for them to defend Hamilton, so they instead have chosen to attack the actions of his championship rival.

[Jiggy 5]

I don't think that's the case with Brundle, the author of the article. He's a fair guy. Not to mention that Hamilton has had a stable year in 2017 and there's actually more controversy surrounding Vettel.

I think that you also need to look at the context of the article and if you're going to say that Vettel can be a hothead on the track, then naturally you'd bring up past moments like the Baku-incident. It'd damage the claim if you can't bring up examples of it.

Also, the Hamilton of 2011 had a season with many incidents and was criticized for it heavily throughout the season. And as many people analyzed the situation, they particularly highlighted his many incidents with Massa. But the more cynical person would argue that it was easier to villify Hamilton when they also had Button representing national pride, whilst in great form at the same time.

While I will say that it's likely that Vettel is getting a bit more stick than warranted and Hamilton a bit less than warranted, I don't think it's anywhere nearly as biased as around 2007 with Alonso involved and that in general, it's not so bad.

Not to mention that Hamilton has gotten some silly pieces of criticisms thrown at him for dumb reasons like Snapchatting during driver meetings, being an expat for tax reasons, dyeing his hair and not being there during that F1 London-scheisse.

So some are more biased than others, yes, but purely going by that article, I don't think the bias is beyond the reasonable.

[Foreverchamps 1]

Jiggy said:

I don't think that's the case with Brundle, the author of the article. He's a fair guy. Not to mention that Hamilton has had a stable year in 2017 and there's actually more controversy surrounding Vettel.

I think that you also need to look at the context of the article and if you're going to say that Vettel can be a hothead on the track, then naturally you'd bring up past moments like the Baku-incident. It'd damage the claim if you can't bring up examples of it.

Also, the Hamilton of 2011 had a season with many incidents and was criticized for it heavily throughout the season. And as many people analyzed the situation, they particularly highlighted his many incidents with Massa. But the more cynical person would argue that it was easier to villify Hamilton when they also had Button representing national pride, whilst in great form at the same time.

While I will say that it's likely that Vettel is getting a bit more stick than warranted and Hamilton a bit less than warranted, I don't think it's anywhere nearly as biased as around 2007 with Alonso involved and that in general, it's not so bad.

Not to mention that Hamilton has gotten some silly pieces of criticisms thrown at him for dumb reasons like Snapchatting during driver meetings, being an expat for tax reasons, dyeing his hair and not being there during that F1 London-scheisse.

So some are more biased than others, yes, but purely going by that article, I don't think the bias is beyond the reasonable.

I see your point, but the only valid incident that Brundle brought up in this entire article was the Baku incident, and that incident in itself wasn't as clear cut as the SkySports team tried to make out.

I provided the article to demonstrate my point, but in my opinion, it is just the tip of the iceberg of the SkySports bias. For example, going back to the Baku incident, I remember watching FP at Austria, and don't quote me exactly, but I remember Anthony Davidson saying something along the lines of, 'Speeding up and slowing down behind the safety cars isn't within the rules, but in that situation, the rules do not matter'. Personally, I don't see how they can attack Vettel so much while defending Hamilton when he does something wrong.

Finally, Brundle feels it right to attack Vettel for hitching a ride, while openly admitting he had done the same in the past. Whether or not it is safe, the only person who could realistically have been injured was Vettel, so realistically, it is his choice, no matter how foolish. Had this been Palmer giving Hamilton a lift, I would not have been surprised to see the picture with the caption 'Great camaraderie between the two British drivers'.

[MBKF1 91]

I think Brundle was mainly questioning why Vettel took the lift with his steering wheel in hand. It's a common rule in F1 that you must put the steering wheel back in whenever possible, and he didn't do that. It'd be ridiculous if they'd punish him for it (and of course, he didn't receive a penalty), but still... why risk it?

The way I see it is that everyone has a bit of bias, it's only natural in sport, you tend to support your own. I think Sky do a decent job on the whole in staying partial. Yes, now and again you can tell when they support Lewis more, but it's minimal. I've watched German, Italian and Spanish coverage of F1 in the past, and I can tell you they are in another league of bias compared to Sky. However, they make this absolutely clear anyway, so everyone just accepts it.

I remember watching the 2014 Belgian Grand Prix on Spanish TV, and they cut away from the podium just to hear from Alonso in the pen, who finished 5th or something. And Dutch TV I know are totally biased towards Max, you just need to see the reaction videos of their pundits when he wins to see that!

[MBKF1 91]

To finish on Vettel actually, I guess Sky are being more critical of him, simply because he has had quite a few erratic moments this year. Baku was abominable, Singapore was a risk too far, and Malaysia was just odd. We've also heard him flustered on the radio quite a few times within the last year and a bit.

Compare that to Hamilton, and to be honest, you have to say he's driven impeccably since Monaco 2016, with the only exception probably being qualifying in Monaco 2017. He's not had any crashes or silly moments at all. In such a close battle between Vettel and Hamilton this year, and with Hamilton having had such a squeaky clean season, you are naturally going to look at Vettel and criticise him for some silly moments.

[VetteIfan 0]

Yeah I'm normally a fan of Brundle but that article is trash. His point on Vettel having no right to complain about Alonso is dumb. That could be used against every driver on the grid based on something bad they've done in the past. All this said, there's a wider point...

Foreverchamps said:

Also, this may be me reading into it a bit too far, but I wonder whether their disapproval of Vettel is connected to the fact that, until recently, Vettel had been leading the championship, despite driving a car that is clearly inferior to the Mercedes for the majority of the races. Perhaps this makes it hard for them to defend Hamilton, so they instead have chosen to attack the actions of his championship rival.

This is spot on. Singapore was a normal racing move off the line, which has been done many times before and will be done many times again. This time around it was just unlucky enough to coincide with an excellent Raikkonen start. Malaysia was a case of unreliability and Stroll falling asleep. And the British media have translated this in to trying to create a narrative of Vettel's "attitude" and "mistakes under pressure" costing him the title. 

And if Vettel does somehow come back and win this title the first thing they'll probably jump to is Hamilton's bad luck in Baku and ignore the shortcomings in Monaco, his anonymous weekends in Russia and Austria, and his pit entrance mess up that potentially cost him the win in Bahrain. The same as last year. It's just the way it works over here. 

[Foreverchamps 1]

@Vettelfan - judging by your username, I can guess you are a fan of Vettel?, and this is my point - in F1, different people are supporting different drivers, and this experience can be ruined when one driver is criticised beyond belief by the media, while another is rarely, if ever, criticised for their actions.

MBKF1 said:

To finish on Vettel actually, I guess Sky are being more critical of him, simply because he has had quite a few erratic moments this year. Baku was abominable, Singapore was a risk too far, and Malaysia was just odd. We've also heard him flustered on the radio quite a few times within the last year and a bit.

Without wishing to defend Vettel at Baku (I personally feel his actions were totally irresponsible and gave a terrible representation of motorsport at the highest level). However, that being said, it is clear that Hamilton's 'brake test' provoked the incident - we have never seen Vettel lose his temper to such an extent that he deliberately hit another driver, so clearly this really angered him suggesting Hamilton did indeed slow down after the corner, as if this wasn't clear enough from the TV anyway.

The trouble is, the British media choose not to question the actions of Hamilton behind the Safety Car, despite him repeatedly 'brake testing' the driver behind, both before and after Baku.

Also, with regards to Baku, I remember Brundle mentioning something similar to, 'With it being this close, the bumper cars at Baku could cost Hamilton the title', despite him not losing out at Baku, as the only driver to lose out from the 'bumper cars' was Vettel with the penalty, and you cannot blame Hamilton's headrest on this.

[AMSKRR 3]

Hughesy said:

Dude it’s always been that way no matter what channel it’s broadcast. Look at how Murray Walker reacted when Hill won the championship, yet nobody seems to moan about him. I’m not sure what in Brundles article is incorrect. Yea it was a great drive in the fastest car, nobody denies that. Go to Italian TV and see how they get behind Ferrari, or Germany with Schumacher.

Martin just comes across very poorly in the article when talking about Vettel.

Firstly, Baku has nothing to do with what happened in Malaysia with Alonso. (Alonso does not like Vettel, that move in Malaysia was well thought out by Alonso, he's done silly things like that before to him) We all know it was a silly move but it has little relevance to Alonso blocking Vettel, why criticise Vettel for what he said about the incident in the first little paragraphs of the column, rather than condemning Alonso for blocking an opponent? Reeks of bias to be honest, no need for it. 
What he should have said is that Alonso is being a clown again towards Vettel because he is jealous of Vettel's success. And you know what, I understand why Alonso is upset about his career since 2006, he deserves to have a couple more titles. However, his vendetta towards Vettel is incredibly childish.

Martin literally criticises Vettel for a "sense of entitlement" and yet does not bother to comment on Alonso and his.

Then he goes right out and says the post-race incident should never have happened, and yeah, he is right, but again, why the criticism after the performance he just gave? It almost comes across as if he thinks Vettel should have done something differently, despite the fact that it was Stroll who was drifting into the path of Vettel, not the other way around. Although that's just me reading between the lines/speculating -whatever you want to call it, given the tone of the article.

Edit: Oh and the steering wheel one is a joke, Vettel wasn't sure if the fans would come on track and didn't want it stolen. 

As for the Halo/safety part, another pointless part with no relevance to anything.

It actually takes him 10 Paragraphs/Lines to praise him, and even in that sentence he is slating him! 

If he was criticising him post-Singapore, that is totally fair. But after that performance, he should be praising him at least a bit more than the almost zero praise he gave him.

I like Martin Brundle a lot, but this is definitely one of his poorest columns.

Edit: 

A better opening would have been something like "Sebastian Vettel drove a scintillating Malaysian GP on Sunday, securing an excellent 4th place finish from the back of the grid to keep his title hopes alive". And then maybe gone into something about how Vettel should not have been in that situation and then maybe reflected on incidents in Baku and Singapore, question whether he really needed to be so aggressive off the start and if his attitude could have already cost him the title, despite a great drive last time out and for the majority of the season. 

It sounds like fairer criticisms when you put it like that, rather than slating him for as much as you can on every topic possible and completely losing sight of the fact he just put in a brilliant drive. 

[Foreverchamps 1]

AMS97KRR said:

Hughesy said:

Dude it’s always been that way no matter what channel it’s broadcast. Look at how Murray Walker reacted when Hill won the championship, yet nobody seems to moan about him. I’m not sure what in Brundles article is incorrect. Yea it was a great drive in the fastest car, nobody denies that. Go to Italian TV and see how they get behind Ferrari, or Germany with Schumacher.

Martin just comes across very poorly in the article when talking about Vettel.

Firstly, Baku has nothing to do with what happened in Malaysia with Alonso. (Alonso does not like Vettel, that move in Malaysia was well thought out by Alonso, he's done silly things like that before to him) We all know it was a silly move but it has little relevance to Alonso blocking Vettel, why criticise Vettel for what he said about the incident in the first little paragraphs of the column, rather than condemning Alonso for blocking an opponent? Reeks of bias to be honest, no need for it. 
What he should have said is that Alonso is being a clown again towards Vettel because he is jealous of Vettel's success. And you know what, I understand why Alonso is upset about his career since 2006, he deserves to have a couple more titles. However, his vendetta towards Vettel is incredibly childish.

Martin literally criticises Vettel for a "sense of entitlement" and yet does not bother to comment on Alonso and his.

Then he goes right out and says the post-race incident should never have happened, and yeah, he is right, but again, why the criticism after the performance he just gave? It almost comes across as if he thinks Vettel should have done something differently, despite the fact that it was Stroll who was drifting into the path of Vettel, not the other way around. Although that's just me reading between the lines/speculating -whatever you want to call it, given the tone of the article.

Edit: Oh and the steering wheel one is a joke, Vettel wasn't sure if the fans would come on track and didn't want it stolen. 

As for the Halo/safety part, another pointless part with no relevance to anything.

It actually takes him 10 Paragraphs/Lines to praise him, and even in that sentence he is slating him! 

If he was criticising him post-Singapore, that is totally fair. But after that performance, he should be praising him at least a bit more than the almost zero praise he gave him.

I like Martin Brundle a lot, but this is definitely one of his poorest columns.

Edit: 

A better opening would have been something like "Sebastian Vettel drove a scintillating Malaysian GP on Sunday, securing an excellent 4th place finish from the back of the grid to keep his title hopes alive". And then maybe gone into something about how Vettel should not have been in that situation and then maybe reflected on incidents in Baku and Singapore, question whether he really needed to be so aggressive off the start and if his attitude could have already cost him the title, despite a great drive last time out and for the majority of the season. 

It sounds like fairer criticisms when you put it like that, rather than slating him for as much as you can on every topic possible and completely losing sight of the fact he just put in a brilliant drive. 

Completely agree. Also, I reckon a better article would be something along the lines of 'Vettel's agression, friend or foe?' - He could have mentioned that off the line in Singapore, Vettel was very agressive (not doing anything particularly wrong according to the stewards), but none the less, he was too aggressive, focusing just on that race and not on the championship as a whole. This aggression cost him a potential podium, but on the other hand, his attacking nature or aggression got him from 20th to 13th in one lap, bringing him back into the race at Malaysia.

It strikes me as though when you hear drivers saying, 'I'm just taking the championship race by race, trying to do the best at each race...', I reckon after Singapore and Malaysia, this applies quite a lot to Vettel, and it is quite interesting to see how this approach works well for him sometimes, but of course costs him at times as well (Singapore)

EDIT - Also, I don't think Brundle helped his cause mentioning the Stroll incident and Baku in the same article - when Vettel knocks wheels at low speed, it is 'dangerous, wreckless, stupid, idiotic...', whereas when Stroll hits Vettel at comparatively high speed (compared to Baku) on the cool down lap, it is 'Vettel's fault'.

Also, I just came across this article from SkySports, regarding the Stroll incident. They attempt to blame Vettel, simply because Stroll turns the wheel very slightly to the left, whereas if you look down the road, you realise that Stroll is in fact heading off the track at his current trajectory - Davidson and Herbert are both racing drivers, and they are surely intelligent enough to realise that not turning sharply enough to the left on a left corner is effectively the same as turning right - if someone were to do that on amotorway, they will drift into the next lane and probably have a crash.