Montoya criticizes Mercedes: Russell should have had priority over Antonelli in Monza pit-stop

When the virtual safety car appeared on lap 29 at Monza, George Russell was leading with an 8.4-second gap over his teammate Kimi Antonelli – who later became the first Italian driver to win at this circuit since 2026. But instead of pitting both cars immediately, Mercedes only brought in Antonelli, leaving Russell on track with worn hard tyres. That decision, according to former F1 driver Juan Pablo Montoya, robbed Russell of a genuine chance at victory. The context of this situation lies in a race where Mercedes had almost total control. Russell started from third place but quickly took the lead after the first corner. Meanwhile, Antonelli had to carve through the pack from 19th on the grid. The Brackley team's strategy was a one-stop, exploiting the durability of the hard tyres. Everything went to plan until Esteban Ocon's car stopped at the side of the track, prompting the race director to deploy the virtual safety car. Under VSC rules, drivers must slow down and maintain gaps. This is the golden window for teams to pit without losing as much time as in a normal lap. Montoya, who has seven F1 victories and is renowned for his tactical acumen, argues that Mercedes should have double-stacked – bringing both cars into the pits on the same lap, with one waiting behind the other. "Russell was leading, so he should have had priority on the pitstop. When that virtual safety car came, pitting early is faster than staying out. They should have stopped him, double-stacked them, and let him come out ahead of Antonelli," Montoya told F1 TV after the race. "I'm not saying Antonelli wouldn't still catch him and win, but it would have been a really close fight, similar to what we saw earlier. It would have been a really cool race at the end for all of us." Montoya's argument is supported by simple data: the average pit stop time at Monza is about 22 seconds, while the time lost under VSC is typically only 15-18 seconds per lap. When the VSC comes out, drivers benefit greatly from pitting immediately, as they keep their position without paying the real-time penalty. Leaving Russell out meant he had to run an extra lap on old tyres, while Antonelli got fresh rubber and fuel. The difference became clear as Antonelli, on new tyres, was about 1.2 seconds per lap faster than Russell in the closing stages. But was this a strategic blunder or a calculated choice by Mercedes? Team principal Toto Wolff defended the decision. Speaking to Sky Sports F1, Wolff explained: "The two-stop was the best but we didn't think it was the case, so that was good for him actually. Today there was nothing that would have stopped him [Antonelli]. George fought with worn-out tools at the end, so I'm really happy for the one-two." Wolff denied any favouritism toward Antonelli. However, a closer analysis shows there was a simple way to handle the situation without choosing between the two drivers. If Mercedes had called Russell in first, then Antonelli a lap later, Russell would still have emerged ahead of Antonelli on track. Instead, leaving Russell out placed him in an impossible situation, having to run a long way on used hard tyres. When Antonelli caught up, Russell was an easy target. But it's also worth noting that at Monza, overtaking is not easy on the long straights and high-speed corners. If Russell had pitted early and retained the lead, could Antonelli have overtaken him on track? Montoya has his doubts. "He (Russell) was having a great race. I think he had enough pace to defend his position. But the strategy didn't give him a real chance," the Colombian emphasised. Historical context also makes this situation noteworthy: Antonelli's triumph was the first for an Italian driver at Monza in 60 years, a symbolic moment of immense significance. Mercedes, as the home team, may have wanted to create a historic moment for their young Italian talent. But does that justify sacrificing the winning chance of a driver like Russell, who is fighting for third place in the championship? This situation echoes similar controversies in F1 history, when teams made contentious decisions to favour one driver for branding or promotional reasons. We remember at the 2026 German Grand Prix, Red Bull asked Mark Webber to let Sebastian Vettel pass for the win, despite Webber leading. In this case, Antonelli is not only a young Italian talent but also a symbol of Mercedes' future. It's no wonder the team wanted to let him shine in front of the home crowd. However, from a pure data perspective, there is no evidence that Russell was unable to complete a one-stop. He had managed his pace well throughout the race. But staying out during the VSC without pitting cost him the crucial tactical advantage. With a lap length of about 5.7 km, every slowdown under VSC typically presents a 'free' pit stop with no loss of position. Therefore, failing to seize that opportunity is an unacceptable waste. Some suggests Mercedes might have worried that a double-stack could cause delays in the pit lane, especially if any technical glitch occurred. But Monza has a wide pit lane, and Mercedes' pit crew is trained to execute double-stacks in just over 5 seconds. Data from previous races shows that double-stacking is far less risky than leaving a driver out on old tyres. In the media, this topic is a hot potato. Russell, who was clearly frustrated when speaking over team radio at the time, called the decision 'crazy' in a leaked radio message. Although he later tempered his public stance, his attitude showed his displeasure. Meanwhile, Antonelli, despite the victory, admitted he benefited from perfect team support. Looking at the bigger picture, Antonelli's win is a major success for Mercedes, who had not won at Monza since 2026. But it comes at a price: it could disrupt the trust between the two drivers. Russell, who signed a long-term contract, will not easily forget that the team didn't put him first at a critical moment. This is not the first time either. In 2026, at the British Grand Prix, Mercedes made a controversial strategy call that cost Lewis Hamilton a chance to win at his home race. Tactical experts argue that, in both football and F1, favouring a star is often justified by long-term interests. But when you have two strong drivers, unfair treatment can fracture team unity. Mercedes needs to clarify its stance. Is there an unwritten policy favouring Antonelli? If so, Russell deserves to know. If not, the team must explain the logical reasoning behind their choice. From the outside, it seems Mercedes is caught between two approaches: one is a strategy built on data analysis, positioning Russell as the lead driver; the other is an emotional and brand-driven decision, centred on Antonelli. Former Williams engineering head Patrick Head once said: "Winning racing teams do not rely on emotion, they rely on numbers." If Mercedes truly believes in data, then not pitting Russell was a logical error. If they believe in emotion, they must accept the consequences. At age 60, I have seen too many races decided by such small details. Data never hurries, but people always do. Mercedes, with its massive resources and top-tier analytics team, must have had numbers in front of them. So why did they choose to go against the data? Perhaps Antonelli's victory came not from the tyres but from an internal political decision. And that is a battle Russell, no matter how exceptional, could not win. In the end, the biggest lesson from Monza is not Antonelli's historic triumph, but the fragility of strategy in a race. Even a global team like Mercedes must have every decision dissected. And when the spotlight shines, the truth lies in the numbers, not in moments of glory. Monza has shown us that even a powerhouse like Mercedes cannot escape difficult questions.