Max Verstappen Wins Monaco Grand Prix, Beaks Alonso’s Heart
Red Bull driver Max Verstappen stands during practice for the Formula One Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Friday, Dec. 10, 2021

Red Bull’s Max Verstappen bags another with, this time in Monaco as he won the Grand Prix, beating Aston Martin’s Fernando Alonso along the way.

“It was quite a difficult one because we were on the medium and Fernando was on the hard. We didn’t want to go that long but we had to stay out with the rain coming,” Verstappen said in an interview.

“It was incredibly slippery and when you are that far in the lead, you don’t want to push too hard but also you don’t want to lose too much time, so it’s quite difficult in that scenario. I clipped the wall a few times and it was super difficult out there. But that’s Monaco.”

“It’s super nice to win it in the way we did today with the weather and everything, to stay calm and bring it home.”

It was a rain-dampened race with the downpour starting lighting in Lap 51 and gradually getting stronger as the race went on.

The few laps in the rain were hectic as many of the cars skidded and slid.

Verstappen appeared to have it easy that is until his team put him in some jeopardy as they delayed his pitstop to accommodate for the rain.

Alonso’s team may have contributed to his loss as they fitted him for dry tires as the rain was getting worse.

This win is Verstappen’s fourth in six races this year. It moves him 39 points clear of Sergio Perez, who had a nightmare race as he had to start from the back because of his crash in the qualifiers.

As for Ferrari, Ocon held off Lewis Hamilton and George Russell to the end. Ferarri lost out because they chose to delay their pit stops one lap more than Alonso or Verstappen. It was seen as a questionable decision for the team.

This led to Sainz raging on the radio after, saying that it was exactly what he had warned the team about not doing.

Maree cartujano
Sports Pundit staff writer
Sports writer and editor....

Comment on This Article

Reply to