Brundle likens Tsunoda to 'drunken sailor' over Abu Dhabi defense

Sky Sports F1 analyst Martin Brundle has delivered a scathing assessment of Yuki Tsunoda's defensive tactics against Lando Norris in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, likening the Japanese driver's weaving to a "drunken sailor" and criticizing the team radio calls as "bordering on menacing." The comments come after Tsunoda received a five-second penalty for moving multiple times under braking while trying to hold up the eventual world champion.

Why it matters:

Brundle's critique highlights the fine line between strategic team play and dangerous driving in the high-stakes final race of a championship. His perspective as a former driver carries significant weight in debates about racing ethics and the enforcement of rules designed to prevent erratic defensive maneuvers that could lead to collisions.

The details:

• Brundle, in his Sky Sports column, stated he doesn't mind strategic team orders but took issue with the execution. He described the radio messages to Tsunoda—informing him of the 1.4-second gap between Norris and Charles Leclerc—as part of a menacing approach.
• The core of his criticism focused on Tsunoda's chosen method. Brundle argued that Tsunoda could have effectively backed Norris up through the tight sequence from Turns 12 to 5 on the following lap.
• Instead, Brundle wrote, "he chose to weave down the back straight like a drunken sailor while breaching the regulations, eventually forcing Norris to pass on a filthy part of the track, which effectively became off-track."
• The FIA stewards agreed with the assessment of illegality, handing Tsunoda a five-second time penalty for moving multiple times under braking during the defense.

Between the lines:

Brundle's comments underscore a recurring tension in F1: the conflict between a driver's duty to their team's strategic goals and their responsibility to race fairly and safely. The incident put Tsunoda in a difficult position, tasked with aiding his team's constructors' championship fight by impeding a rival, but his execution crossed a line in the eyes of both the stewards and veteran observers. It serves as a case study in how not to execute team orders within the confines of the sporting regulations.