To say that MS Dhoni’s team were pretending to be the number one Test side is a bit harsh, although the statement is both true and false. The scoreline tells the obvious truth. However, climbing atop the rankings with such a pale bowling attack is what makes the whole thing a fallacy. When the going was good, the Indian batting might exerted itself against Australia, South Africa, England and Sri Lanka, both home and away. And the same wiry bowlers made taking 20 wickets seem a routine job for them.

It is a wonder how things unravelled with such consistency in just this one series. When was the last time Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman missed out for so long, so much so the others couldn’t fathom putting up any resistance themselves? Praveen Kumar and Ishant Sharma bowled their hearts out, but India missing a wicket-taking spinner is an odd aberration to say the least. It made the attack toothless at best and that is a recipe for disaster. Injuries completed the misery, with their first choice settled pair half-fit when playing. There are times when a captain can make his team look good, surely Dhoni has done so on many occasions. But even his Midas touch deserted him, bringing forth the adage – a captain is only as good as his team.

And taking everything in summation, India were poor and definitely so. The last time they were so comprehensively beaten was in 1999, when Australia romped home 3-0. The similarities from back then are revealing. Only one batsman made any sort of impact on the Aussies, Tendulkar doing what Rahul Dravid did in England. The fast bowlers were medium pace at best, Venkatesh Prasad and Ajit Agarkar come to mind therein. Anil Kumble bowled bravely, but away from home he wasn’t as distinguished then as he was at the time of his retirement, and the attack as a whole was spineless. The only contrast being the end of that decade marked a turn-around for India, giving hope for much the same this time around.

Yes it is time to work on a whole lot of issues. Preparation was by no means enough for a contest this important, and it doesn’t just include match fitness. Physical fitness, mental freshness and ample bench strength are all part of this one term. It is very easy to lay all blame at the doors of the BCCI and make no mistake they should get the majority of it. But the players themselves need to step up and be able to make tough choices, like not playing the IPL when you know an aggravated shoulder injury will put you out of action for nearly eight weeks. Naming them or listing down a ten-point program isn’t going to help anyone, for those to blame know who they are.

Yet, if a timely leaf is taken out of this miserable lesson India have been taught, there is no harm in it. Compared to 1999, they have a blueprint readily available at disposal. It is just the willpower that needs to be exercised now, like it was done back then. The other memory from that eventful turn of the century was of course Australia’s ascendancy to supremacy. And perhaps England will want us to believe that in this huge, crushing victory is their first step to world domination of their own. The signs are ominous yes. They have a well-placed leader in Andrew Strauss. That he will step out for five months and then return to lead the side against Pakistan in the winter shows belief is strong in the leadership.

The batting is clicking and being given new direction with every innings, be it Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Jonathan Trott or even Kevin Pietersen, who seems to have found new inspiration. Matt Prior’s rise with both the bat and gloves has been prominent, indicating confidence is high in this bunch of players. Perhaps their only open spot in the eleven is that of number six. Eoin Morgan hasn’t done enough to cement it just yet, but another way of looking at it is from Tim Bresnan’s point of view. Surely, as their third line of attack after James Anderson/Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad, he has maimed the Indians to such an extent that he can easily fit in as the all-rounder all champion sides boast of.  Whenever the need to play five bowlers arises, and it surely will in the sub-continent, England won’t have to think long and hard. Yes, sterner challenges will come ahead as India found out to their miserable fortune, but Strauss and company can look up with greater confidence than their predecessors.

That word fortune doesn’t favour the brave anymore. Instead it helps those who plan well ahead, hedge all risks and set greed aside, for modern-day cricket demands all this and more. It sets one thinking, what if India had done all of that? Maybe Zaheer wouldn’t have been injured in the first Test, maybe Bhajji would have bowled with venom and maybe the batting – free from injuries and rookies – would have clicked. Maybe then, this series would have been as iconic as it was presumed to be. That question will equally haunt cricket lovers, joyous, depressed and neutrals, all around.

The point is simple, really. Indian cricket has always been carried high and low by its batsmen. Period! Much of the reason for this spiteful loss to England can be attributed to our batsmen failing to get past 300 even once in six innings. Yet to win you need to take wickets, ten in ODIs and T20s, and twenty in Tests. One is pretty sure anyone who is remotely connected to this sport knows this truth. Even so the lack of runs evokes a stronger surprise, nay shock and awe, than our bowlers’ collective inability to bowl out the opposition.

Irony though is that India attained the Test number one ranking thanks to some overtly good bowling performances. If there is one series to be pointed out, it has to be their 2007 tour of England. Zaheer Khan, RP Singh and Anil Kumble had bowled fewer overs in three Tests to win back then, in complete contrast to the hammering this time around. MS Dhoni’s team then took advantage of a flawed rankings system and stayed atop while remaining unbeaten at home, as Test series wins away from home didn’t come easily enough. A few occasions come to mind when exceptions were made; Perth in 2008, Hamilton in 2009 and then Durban in late 2010.

These three victories are important for two reasons. One, they allowed India to improve a previously poor record away from home, in turn improving their Test ratings. And two, more importantly, they help us set a parameter against which the Indian attack’s current struggles can be judged. Because truth be told, each of them are quite recent in memory. Dhoni deployed the same bowling composition in both New Zealand and South Africa. Harbhajan Singh routed the Kiwis and Proteas, aided comprehensively by Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth, whilst RP Singh and Irfan Pathan made their last Test appearances in 2007-08 after beating the Aussies on their juiciest turf. Somewhere in there Ishant Sharma made his presence felt regularly.

Since then all of them have been in regress mode. Pathan and RP vanished from the scene, the beating handed out by South Africa at home too much to handle. Sreesanth has never been able to control his wild side and much continues to depend on which side of the bed he gets up. The most peculiar case was that of Ishant. Hailed as the next big hope, the charms of IPL engulfed him and cross batted thwacks in perfect batting conditions upset his fabled rhythm that once troubled Ricky Ponting. The excesses of T20 cricket also reared its ugly head in Bhajji’s case. Playing all formats of the game, day in and day out, with the burden of lead spinner to boot, he forgot how to enjoy his game.

Yet none of this is the root cause to India’s teething bowling problems, and we only have to look at Zaheer for that. How did he grow up from a bulky left-arm pacer to a lanky seam bowler, nipping the ball both ways? He was always fragile, that comes with his weight which he seemingly can’t get rid of. But when fit, he was the solution to all of Dhoni’s problems, taking up the mantle of Javagal Srinath and leaving a mark of his own. True homage has to be paid here for Indian cricket is back to the nineties. They are dependent on one man, only this time he is a bowler and not a spinner, but a quick one. When did that happen last in our history?

In 2004, Zaheer signed for Surrey. His hamstring injury prevented him from playing much but he knew what he had tasted. Two years later he played an entire season for Worcestershire, notching up 600-plus overs. He worked it all out by bowling and bowling, and then bowling some more. In contrast, since the ECB didn’t allow its players to freely take part in the IPL (beginning 2008), young Indian bowlers haven’t been given permission to sign up for counties, depriving them of crucial experience.

Put two and two together, and the answer to how the Indian bowling attack got so poor, will lie in the summation.

This article was first published at CricketNext.com.

But talk World Cup and an Indian cricket fan’s thoughts go back to 1983. India would never have made the final on June 25 but for Kapil Dev’s epoch-making hundred seven days earlier. On June 18, the Indian team had turned up at Tunbridge Wells needing to beat Zimbabwe to stay on in the hunt for a semi-final place. “I had a look at the pitch early on and it appeared quite damp. I remember Kapil discussing with me what to do if he won the toss. Bat first and put pressure on the opposition, was my answer. I don’t know if he followed my advice but he did choose to bat first. That was the beginning of trouble,” says senior journalist and the former cricketer’s close friend, R Mohan.
The Indians were reeling at 9 for 4 when Kapil went in to bat. Before he had settled in, the score read 17 for 5 as Yashpal Sharma walked back with nine runs to his name. Says Balwinder Sandhu, who was part of the 1983 World Cup team: “The wickets went so quickly that we could not even come up with a counter plan. We could not believe what was happening; batsmen were walking out, getting out and coming back. Finally, Roger Binny went in and stayed some time in the middle with Kapil. We thought even if we get 125-150 on board, we could fight for the match. Then Syed Kirmani got going and put up a partnership with him, and Madan Lal in the lower order contributed as well.”

“The thing about Kapil was that he took a lot of responsibility to win us matches. He always wanted to lead from the front and this was perhaps a tailor-made opportunity for him,” adds Madan Lal. In their company, Kapil had quietly taken the team to 140 for 8. “We were all superstitious in the dressing room when he was batting,” says Sandhu. “No one moved from where they were standing just so he wouldn’t get out,” he adds. Kapil’s innings was the catalyst for India winning the World Cup. “It was the greatest innings anyone can ever watch, but sadly it was not recorded,” laments Sandhu.

Yes, the irony of it all. The BBC were short-staffed that day because of a strike and whatever resources they had available were diverted to the other match being played in London between Australia and West Indies.

One assumes this glitch only adds to the legend of that World Cup victory and to the magic of Kapil’s innings. It is singularly remarkable that an innings not captured for re-runs and living only in the memory of those few hundred present back then at the ground is the one that has shaped the way cricket is worshipped and indeed watched by millions in this country and across the globe.

It might also explain why Kapil’s innings does not rank as the best, for you cannot play it back. There is no replay button. And so, when a few more knocks have been added to the greatest innings’ list years down the line, Gilchrist, De Sliva and Lloyd will probably get moved down the order. But the aura of the ‘ghost hundred’ will never diminish.

This article was first published in Business Standard Weekend dated 6th November 2010.

That Schumacher fans are disappointed is because Mercedes GP got the weight distribution of their car wrong. The five contenders, meanwhile, have burnt rubber, sizzling circuits across the world and notching up 16 wins amongst themselves. Webber (220 points) and Alonso (206) have won four times each, Vettel (206) and Hamilton (192) thrice each, and Button (189) has won twice. They are separated by 31 points.

Many would point to the change in the points system itself, implemented from this season onwards, as a major reason for that. 25 points are awarded for a win now, 20 for 2nd place and 15 for 3rd. That notion is far away from the truth. If we revert to the old points system, wherein 10 points for a win and eight and six for 2nd and 3rd, this is the points’ situation we get after 16 races — Webber (88), Vettel (84), Alonso (83), Hamilton (79) and Button (77), separated by a mere 11 points.

In reality then it is reflective of the highly competitive season F1 is experiencing at present. In motorsport terms, it is better known as a vintage year, when you don’t find any one team so dominant that the championship is decided by early September. It happened in 2009 with Brawn GP and earlier in 2003 with Ferrari. This year Red Bull may have been the quickest car on track but errors on their part meant the chasing pack were able to pounce and keep tabs. The last time there were five title contenders with three races to go, was in 1981. Nelson Piquet, driving a Brabham-Ford, came out on top ahead of Carlos Reutemann (Williams), Alan Jones (Williams), Jacques Laffite (Ligier-Matra) and Alain Prost (Renault), a mere seven points separating them in the final standings.

Now, with the unknown element that is the inaugural Korean GP, the tough demands of the Brazilian GP and the spectacle of the Abu Dhabi GP, it is anybody’s guess what might happen in the next five weeks. A single mistake, a blown engine, an untimely pit-stop, rain or any untoward incident (and they do happen often) will be enough to pull out contenders from the mix. In Formula One, it is often said, ‘to finish first, first you have to finish (the race)’. The drivers might just be mulling on that for a bit, as even one point has separated champions from also-rans in the past.

Championships won by a single point:

1958 – Mike Hawthorn (Ferrari) over Stirling Moss (Vanwall)

1961 – Phil Hill (Ferrari) over Wolfgang von Trips (Ferrari)

1964 – John Surtees (Ferrari) over Graham Hill (BRM)

1976 – James Hunt (McLaren) over Niki Lauda (Ferrari)

1981 – Nelson Piquet (Brabham) over Carlos Reutemann (Williams)

1994 – Michael Schumacher (Benetton) over Damon Hill (Williams)

2007 – Kimi Raikkonen (Ferrari) over Lewis Hamilton (McLaren)

2008 – Lewis Hamilton (McLaren) over Felipe Massa (Ferrari)

This article was first published in Business Standard Weekend dated 16th October 2010.

There had been widespread speculation after enjoying his rallying stint with Citroen this year, paid for by Red Bull, he would be returning next season in their car alongside Sebastian Vettel. Mark Webber’s contract ran out this season but his stupendous form has seen him sign a year’s extension with Red Bull and at that time team boss Christian Horner did say that Kimi was never really an option. Of course it is only conjecture how much of that claim is true, for it might have been interesting if, as per another speculation, Webber would have chosen to walk over to Ferrari where Massa was yet to sign on.

Raikkonen’s approach to Renault meanwhile has soured the pitch for Vitaly Petrov. The Russian has 19 points compared to his team mate Robert Kubica’s 108. Team boss Eric Boullier says the F1 rookie still has a shot at keeping his seat for next year if he can improve on his race day performances, but it seems a bit improbable for he has only out qualified Kubica just the one time and wiped the floor on Sundays. Russia might be a future market for Formula One but a former world champion in the team is a different proposition altogether.

Put Raikkonen in this equation instead and you can see Renault fighting Mercedes for the fourth spot and maybe pushing further. That may be music for the French manufacturer who are said to be looking to buying back their stake from investor Genii Capital owner by Gerard Lopez. Whether that will happen or not is something that remains to be seen but one thing is for sure, the team has moved on from its problems of two seasons back – poor performances and the 2008 Singapore GP crash scandal.

This past week McLaren boss Martin Whitmarsh has hailed the 2010 season as an epic one, with five drivers fighting for the championship going into the last five races. Sample this: Mercedes make a good car for Michael Schumacher while Renault signs Raikkonen to partner Kubica and makes good on their promise to challenge for the title. That means six teams and twelve drivers in the fray for honours when 2011 kicks off in Bahrain come March. Another vintage year in the making?

Amongst them will possibly be Sourav Ganguly, who hasn’t made a decision yet, if he will keep on playing in the IPL- atleast that is the official line! Ask Sanjay Manjrekar of the situation and he will come out with the famous ‘elephant in the room’ remark of his and as compared to the previous occasion, this time it will be quite apt. Now before all Dada fans start kicking their computer screens, consider the big headache in front of his team owner, or for that matter, any of the eight team owners who have this power of retaining their favourite and/or best players.

A purse of nine million USD to assemble a thirty-man squad for the next two seasons has been afforded to all parties involved. If the eight existing teams do exercise their right of retaining players, then for the first player a fee of 1.8 million will be cut from their purse, irrespective of player fees agreed. The second player will cost 1.3 million, a third 900,000 USD and the fourth 500,000 USD, which is the cap – no team can retain more than four players with a maximum three Indians and two overseas ones. This in turn means if four players are retained by any franchise, they would have to pick the rest of the 26 names with a purse of only 4.5 million will be available to them. Does that sound like good business or good team balance to you?

The Indian Premier League is after all a business and a most result-oriented one that we have seen for sometime in Indian sport. With the kind of money invested in buying the franchises, building teams and a brand name, they would want a good shot at glory – and the prize money – to have a decent return to show for their investment. Spending half your money on just four players isn’t the kind of venturing many would want to indulge in, yet there are names around that seem to be priceless, or there about.

Would Mukesh Ambani not want to retain Sachin Tendulkar for his Mumbai Indians team? Can you even imagine Sachin playing for any other team? Maybe MS Dhoni can be pictured in a different jersey than the canary yellow of Chennai Super Kings. But he is the biggest draw in Indian cricket today, as per the number of ads he is doing, so can India Cements really bear to lose him? There are others in the same mould, without whom their teams might have achieved less in the last three years; Jacques Kallis for Bangalore, Shane Warne for Rajasthan Royals and Virender Sehwag for Delhi, though one has to say they are not as sure-shot deals to go through in comparison to the two names prior.

There are others to consider; Kings XI are in a fix whether or not to sell their franchise, and if not that, then it must be whether or not to retain Yuvraj Singh. While even a blind cricket fan will tell you that VVS Laxman will possibly miss the cut at Deccan Chargers, the likes of Herschelle Gibbs, Andrew Symonds and Adam Gilchrist haven’t exactly become indispensable either. Of course the less said about Kolkata Knight Riders, the better. Point is retaining a player merits an argument based on either of the three – ability to win matches, brand image and sentimental value. It is indeed tough to find a lot of players – starry ones or otherwise – who would fall in this intersection. But the big question is, even if players fulfil one criterion, is it worth 1.8 million USD and so on?

Records suggest that no player has been consistent across all three seasons of the IPL. Stars ate dust in the first season when youngsters rose to prominence and then the roles were reversed in South Africa in the second season. In 2010, it was a fine balance between the two. About the branding part, there is just so much sponsorship and marketing associated with this game in India and in particular the variety of cricket associated with IPL, that getting new faces to sell everything from apparel to face-creams to motorcycles to pain relievers, won’t be a big problem. The big conundrum is regarding the sentiments of the Indian masses and if history is anything to go by, they should not be messed with.

And therein is the problem for Mr.SRK. Just as Sachin cannot be fathomed playing against Mumbai in Mumbai, can anyone imagine Ganguly turning up against KKR? While the first could happen ideally speaking – although the chances of that transpiring are about as bright as the world ending in 2012 – the second is more likely a possibility. When the Kolkata team owner sits down to evaluate his options, will he go with a near-forty year old who doesn’t play cricket around the year but can fill the Eden Gardens to the brim? If he does so, won’t that entice him to loosen up his purse strings a bit more and keep someone like Chris Gayle or Brendon McCullum as well? How about either of them instead of Ganguly?

The bottom line is not to pick on any one team’s plight, but to highlight the calculations which will keep the franchise honchos awake till the very night before the auction, and quite well, during the bidding process as well. This is where they will earn their pay or lose their jobs, like after the first season – anyone remember the dirty linen washed in public by Vijay Mallya? The new rules have allowed for a lot of permutations and combinations which will shake things up a bit and lead to quite a few interesting battles on the pitch next fall. And that is indeed needed, after the mess one Lalit Modi has left behind!

This article was first published at www.dreamcricket.com.

If we think about incidents from this year alone, there have been other teams who have done the same. Sebastian Vettel got the new front wing at Silverstone ahead of Mark Webber and at Turkey before that Jenson Button was told to save fuel when he was trailing Lewis Hamilton in second position. The absurd part therefore is not that Ferrari did use team orders to get their lead driver some advantage. Instead it is that this season is probably shaping up for a grand stand finish with five drivers and three teams having a mathematical chance of being crowned champions. And with only six races to go, it might just get dirty if a couple of races do not go as per plans for any of these five drivers.

In letting Ferrari go and declaring that they are re-thinking the ban on this team-order rule, they have sent out the message that if something like the German GP is repeated blatantly – and what Ferrari did was blatant enough – then there won’t be many consequences. A precedent has been set unfortunately and in any court hearing such as the WMSC one in Paris yesterday, anybody in the dock can use it and get away with murder on track. It is not to say that there should be team orders. I think that teams should have the freedom to do what they want for they invest millions and millions more are at stake along with reputations. But they – team orders – should come with a rider, like naming a number one or number two driver before the season or each race, or probably should only be implemented when one driver has no mathematical chance of winning the championship. However this debate is for later when we do know what re-thinking the FIA have done regarding this issue.

For now, the point is, do we really want a season building up to be as close as this, to be affected by team orders now that even FIA doesn’t deal with them too harshly?

People can take their pick as per their whims and fancies. Some would fancy a ton made incidentally on their birthday or marriage anniversaries or job promotions, and would have no qualms in saying that maybe it was just the Little Master’s way of wishing them. Others would remember most the innings they witnessed not from the confines of their dressing room but in the stadiums of their respective cities, where the Indian team might have been touring. Speaking from personal experience, even students pick and choose – the one that enlightens their moods so much that the exam next day goes very well, is the best hundred.

Very recently, Sachin Tendulkar pronounced as his best the hundred he scored immediately after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The Test match was played at Chennai and against England, his 103 not out allowed India to chase down a massive 387-run target. You can almost immediately see the reasoning why he believes so: in 2008, the country witnessed the scariest terrorist attack in its history and hailing from the same city, he is bound to feel satisfied that an Indian win on the back of his hundred somewhat soothed the people of Mumbai, parched from all the hurt.

But there is another reason – valid only in cricketing terms and if one can say so, not based on sentiment. Throughout his career, critics have often questioned his ability to take India over and across the winning line. The likes of Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara stood ahead because Sachin hadn’t scored a match winning hundred in the fourth innings of a Test or whilst chasing down a target in ODIs. To some extent these absurd allegations were true, but only in terms of statistics. For such innings were truly missing from his arsenal of records, though that doesn’t mean he is a lesser batsman in any sense of the word.

However, think of it from the player’s point of view: he is regarded one of the best batsmen – if not the best – to play the game and has on umpteen occasions set up a chase for his team or played a great hand in the first innings of a Test, again setting up the game for his mates. Cricket after all is a team sport, and not unless an individual’s efforts are backed up by his mates, they will not win as a unit. The last time any one remembered such a match-winning innings from him was almost a decade prior to his efforts in 2008. We know it better as the Desert Storm.

In that sense, 2008 was a landmark year for the Indian batsman. Earlier in the year he had scored a ton in the first final of the CB series and just so that his detractors take note, that innings came in a successful run-chase. Combined with the hundred in Chennai ten months later, it is evident that he paid back a full reply to any disparaging comments that had come his way over the years. But at this juncture is the need to question: is the best cricket he played to be judged against hollow criticism?

The answer is no, for his genius transcends victory or defeat. How many times have we visited the stadiums wondering that our trip be made worthwhile with a century from his blade, so what if India loses? If we have to go to work, we wish he plays a swashbuckling innings that can be caught on television before scurrying off to our offices, never mind what the remaining players dish out. Students preparing for exams take breaks that coincident with the time period when Sachin is at the crease, and they keep praying that his stay is considerably long. Why, even Pakistani fans pray first for a win for their team and then a hundred from him!

Point is, if we take out the pressures of victory and loss from the equation and measure his innings’ worth purely in terms of their cricketing genius, one is afraid even the Master himself may have read their value wrong. There is no denying his 2008 Chennai hundred was a top notch innings, but talking of victory, it was actually Virender Sehwag who had set it up on the fourth evening. Compare that to his 136 against Pakistan in 1999 and people will remember the tears they shed when he fought through severe back pain and some excellent spin bowling by Saqlain Mushtaq, yet fell just ahead of the finish line. Did any of the English bowlers posses such guile and craft? Could they have put the remaining Indian batsmen under the same pressure even in a hundred years as did Wasim Akram and company that afternoon some nine years ago?

Back then he was considered to be in pristine touch, so what of the double ton procured in Sydney in 2003? The runs had been flowing in a trickle throughout the tour, his favorite cover drive proving to be his downfall on more than one occasion. What does he do? Cut out the scoring on the off-side and bide out his time until the runs start coming with ease again. As much as pressure and conditions, doesn’t form come into the equation? When the mind is pulling you in a different direction than you want it to go, when the footwork isn’t as nimble as the rest of the batsmen and when the willow just won’t listen to the commands you send out, scoring 241 runs in such an environment is the most enviable job on the planet.

It is an endless debate this, for a hundred arguments and counter-arguments can be deliberated over all the runs he has scored. Are the runs scored early on in his career on bouncy Perth tracks or hostile English conditions against bowling attacks better than any in world cricket today any less? Is the half-century in his maiden Test series scored with a bloodied nose not worth savoring again and again, and then again? Or, the 98 in the 2003 World Cup amidst the media frenzy building up for more than a year, and the stamina displayed in scoring a first double hundred in ODIs not proof enough of his insatiable hunger for runs?

Point is, when you are spoilt for choice in a mouth-watering buffet, post-dinner it is indeed tough to pin-point the most delectable offering.

This article was first published at www.dreamcricket.com.

One wonders though if it will indeed be that simple. The way Red Bull Racing have gone about putting a lid on things, it suggests that they seem to be favoring Vettel. Certainly their young drivers’ program chief Helmut Marko seems to tow that line and has indeed exerted some pressure on team principal Christian Horner to talk in that manner. A very interesting piece by noted F1 commentator James Allen seemed to point towards the possibility of Horner being under pressure to support one driver over the other and we all seem to know who that is.

Webber’s immediate task is a bit easier compared to the long term problem. Right now, he can sit down with Vettel, share a can or two of icy Red Bull drinks between them and say, ‘ok maybe you should have given me more room and maybe I should have given you more room. Let us just promise to do that from here onwards.’ And for Canada, it might even work for the Red Bulls are not expected to run riot over there. There it will be down to which driver can make the most of the Montreal circuit with its long straights and restrict the damage to their chances.

However from the British GP onwards, the problem might just resurge. At Silverstone, with its flowing high speed corners, the Red Bulls are again expected to fly and, Webber and Vettel will look to start winning again. What happens then? What if Vettel wants to make a statement and Webber doesn’t want to relinquish whatever lead he may have over his teammate and possibly other drivers? Can Webber then trust his team which he suspects of siding with his competitor? Can Red Bull cope with a split garage? It is a situation not unknown in Formula One especially when the car is a championship contender and both drivers capable of winning.

The last time that happened was in 2007 when the Fernando Alonso-Lewis Hamilton partnership blew up in the face of McLaren. Ron Dennis’ radio intercept to Lewis in the Chinese GP that ‘they were racing Fernando and not Kimi Raikkonen’s Ferrari’ should be the stuff of legends and included in a tutorial for team principals how not to favor one driver over another. The Woking team was left clutching at straws as Raikkonen stole the championship from their hands at the last race in Brazil. Of course, isn’t it ironical that McLaren are waiting to pounce if the Red Bulls do go to the gutter this season?

However that is easier said than done. This particular race’s incidents has fueled speculation that the Red Bull garage isn’t as neutral a place as it was earlier made out to be. The official line of the team remains that both drivers were at fault in the on-track clash, but team principal Christian Horner and young drivers’ program chief Helmut Marko have inclined a bit towards blaming Mark Webber for the incident. The two have not spoken in forthright terms in this regard but have indicated that they expected Webber to move over because Vettel had his nose ahead when approaching Turn 12. It was even evident in TV replays that Horner, on the pit wall, was pining for one of the drivers to give more space to the other and it is anybody’s guess who that might be.

The question that arises now though is this: Vettel didn’t have a clear advantage over Webber going into turn, so what is their basis of forming such a judgment?

The answer to this lies in the fuel the two cars were carrying at that stage. Horner stated, after the two drivers’ debrief, that Vettel had one lap more worth of fuel than Webber and could still run his car at his prevalent race pace, while the Aussie was in conserve mode as he had used more in the initial stages of the race. Vettel achieved this while trailing Lewis Hamilton earlier in the race while Webber had to drive the wheels off his car to keep ahead of the McLaren.

In effect, this also explains why Vettel seemed to be gaining on Webber in the build up to the incident. Also, Marko says that both drivers were made aware of the situation and Vettel had to make a move when he did, for he would have lost performance in terms of fuel from Lap 41 onwards. In other words, Webber was told that he had lesser revs available than his team mate ahead of the clash and still decided not to yield easily to him.

Does that mean Mark Webber couldn’t understand the disguised ‘team order’ to let Vettel pass? Or after the mistake he made to let his younger mate through earlier in Malaysia, he wasn’t going to let him go through easily any which ways? The true story of the fuel levels and revs available to the two drivers is known only to the team and no one else. But the underlying point is this: with a car that is capable of winning the championship, Webber has put Vettel under pressure with his recent performances and this was an important race for the German to get back. Clearly the camaraderie within the team will be affected by this incident and from here on, it will be interesting to watch if Red Bull will be able to keep things calm and surge ahead like they did in the first part of the season, or will everything fall apart for a team that is not used to these high pressure situations. Furthermore if the situation doesn’t deflate between Vettel and Webber, or explodes again later on in the season, will the Aussie still be in his present team, come 2011?

The fuel level story affected another team in the race but got overshadowed by the Red Bull fiasco, and also because they benefited with their opponents’ slip-up and kept their heads to get a 1-2 result. After the Red Bulls went out of contention for the win, the McLaren pit wall relayed a disguised ‘team order’ of their own for Lewis Hamilton to save fuel and told him that Jenson Button behind would be doing the same. However, Button soon tried a move on his younger team mate which was repelled, but highlighted a second time in the race when team directions had been ignored. That the two McLarens made out of the scrap without hassles is reflective of the respect and space their two drivers still give each other. Perhaps that will also change in the near future if the Woking team will carry its momentum forward, and indeed challenge the Red Bulls for the championships from here on.