How many times have we heard it:"Max Verstappen, record-breaking triple world champion, doesn't agree with sprint racing". And, from the corners, his detractors on comment walls and discussion threads throw the dart: "well, if he doesn't like it, let him retire". However, dominant champions like Verstappen are what they are because of the way they understand, not just the category, but motorsport itself, so Liberty Media and F1 would do well to listen to the champion.

Why haven't Sprint races worked?

Let's leave aside the fact that sprint races are an artificial way of giving teams and drivers opportunities to get a good result, and to maintain balance and competitiveness throughout the field in the lower categories. Sprint races don't work in F1 because, no matter how many times you try to change the format, there is one principle inherent in the pinnacle category of motorsport that cannot be transgressed: the fastest always goes first.

Say to a Charles Leclerc, a Lewis Hamilton, a Fernando Alonso, or even a Verstappen, "look, you put him on pole, but you're going to start tenth" and they're not guaranteed to run the short race, because if they and their team put in the effort and achieved the monumental task of beating everyone else, how is their work and the quality of it going to be rewarded by starting at the back? After all, it is F1, the best drivers in the best cars, racing on the best circuits to be the best, the number 1.

While Hamilton and Carlos Sainz both suggested the use of reverse grids last weekend at Interlagos, they did so by way of "fixing" the sprint format, which means the format itself is broken. Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Charles Leclerc after qualifying for the 2019 Singapore GP were asked about their opinions regarding reverse grids in F1, all three strongly disagreed with the move, with the German going so far as to describe it as "bullsh*t". It should be noted that all three drivers were talking about the possibility of introducing reverse grids for a Grand Prix, not a sprint.

But, the principle remains the same. The teams work to be the fastest, because if you are the fastest, you will be 1st and that is usually the best position. Otherwise, we could have the farce of everyone trying to be 10th. "Figuring out the exact delta between P9 and P11 has been very difficult. The team has done a great job. To avoid this, drivers would have to be ranked according to their position in the championship.

That would put us in a very dangerous position of being able to decide championships in a sprint race, as already happened this year with Verstappen in Qatar. And when it comes to the interviews, who answers the questions, the one who starts 10th or the one who starts on pole position? Then let's have sprint races on Thursdays, before the weekend, with hypercars from the different manufacturers under balance of performance (BDR) parameters, as in the WEC, to ensure an equal level of performance and a more even competition. But we are no longer talking about formula cars and we are back to square one: these are things that do not belong to the ethos of the category.

That's why no one dares to seriously suggest the inverted grid, an essential element for a Sprint car to work and create spectacle. But, we must go further. In the quest for show business relevance, F1 has lost sight of sporting principles. With the implementation of DRS, the broadcasting of radio messages, it has provided artificial ways to bring excitement to the spectator and increase the overall value of the series - after all, it is a business.

And while many may disagree, these initiatives have served to provide entertainment and in the case of DRS in particular, to mitigate the impossibility of overtaking, resulting from the regulatory direction the FIA has given the category, which could be characterised as misguided. A race series where aerodynamic effectiveness prevails over on-track performance is always going to suffer from these ills. But, returning to the subject at hand, the last Grand Prix saw two areas of opportunity not only in the Sprint format, but in two crucial aspects that have made Formula 1 what it is today, a category that wants more than what it can offer, which is already a universe in itself.

Hamilton and Sergio 'Checo' Pérez are locked in a fight for P2, which says a lot about the Englishman's performance and very little about 'Checo'. Last weekend at Interlagos, the Mercedes team was unable to help its driver get any closer in the fight. Entering Parc Fermè so early in a Sprint weekend prevents the teams from being able to arrive as well prepared as possible for the main race, which is what we want to see as fans and enthusiasts of the sport: 20 battle-hardened guys, aboard the fastest cars, going as fast as possible around complex tracks like Interlagos, fighting for positions.

It is said that to avoid a disqualification like the US Grand Prix, the German team opted for a more conservative set-up, but ultimately suffered from excessive tyre degradation, zero grip in the corners and very little top speed, factors that ultimately doomed their weekend to a fight for points. The lack of testing and practice time makes it difficult for the chasing teams to catch up with the current pace-setter, Red Bull. Competition drives evolution. Conditioned competitiveness that ties the hands of the participants hinders it. F1 teams need more testing and practice time. The time they already have is too little and should be respected so that they can present themselves with the best possible car for Sunday.

But, it's not just the Sprint format

Tyres have become a very controversial topic. Pirelli has done everything in its power to meet the changing needs of a category that seems to be moving further and further away from the principles on which it was founded. Artificial degradation. This refers to a tyre feature that F1 requires from the Italian manufacturer to artificially bring excitement to the races. By artificially increasing tyre degradation, drivers and teams are forced to make pit stops, with the aim of making strategy more important.

However, the racing also suffers, as drivers are forced to manage their tyre usage instead of going as fast as possible, pushing on every lap, greatly increasing the difficulty of the event in every respect. Speaking to Viaplay's microphones Verstappen had this to say of his fight with Lando Norris: "He pushed quite a lot on one lap and then I had to defend a little bit, but I think he also realised very quickly that he had to start saving, otherwise of course you don't do that stint.

The need to save rubber overrides the ability to run at the other car. Instead of being free to push to put his Dutch counterpart under pressure, Norris had to manage in order to complete his initial stint, robbing us of a fight everyone has been waiting for in anticipation, Verstappen vs Norris. Are we talking about motor racing, in which sporadic resource management can play a role, or a category where management and strategy are law and order over direct on-track competition?

Liberty Media, F1 and the FIA must listen to their champion. By wanting to provide a better spectacle, they have ended up restricting it by not respecting basic fundamentals of racing and the sport in general. Greg Maffei and Stefano Domenicalli should pay attention to what the reigning champion has to say - after all, who can know the category, both its attributes and its shortcomings, better than the driver who dominates it? Very few, in fact. Indeed, one incentive to take the Dutch champion's words seriously could be the fact that the criticism comes from the driver who has benefited most from the current state of the category.