Montoya: Mercedes should have double-stacked Russell and Antonelli at Monza

Juan Pablo Montoya, former Formula 1 driver, believes Mercedes compromised George Russell's Italian Grand Prix by not double-stacking its drivers under the virtual safety car. The situation took place on lap 33 at Monza. Russell was leading the race, controlling the pace perfectly, while teammate Kimi Antonelli started from 19th but was making a stunning recovery. When the virtual safety car was deployed, Mercedes called Antonelli into the pits but left Russell out. This decision, according to Montoya, was a serious strategic mistake that turned a near-certain victory for Russell into a celebration for the Italian hero. Team principal Toto Wolff defended the team's strategy, saying that a one-stop was the best option for Russell and that 'nothing would have stopped Antonelli' on that day. But Montoya, speaking on F1 TV's post-race show, offered a sharp argument: 'When the VSC came out, stopping was quicker than staying out. They should have stopped him, they should have double-stacked him, and he would have stopped ahead of Antonelli.' Montoya did not deny that Antonelli could still have caught Russell and won the race in a fair fight, but pointed out that at least the race would have been more exciting, instead of the dull way Russell was left out with worn hard tyres and unable to resist pressure from his younger teammate. Analyzing from a team management perspective: Mercedes bet on a safe scenario, sacrificing Russell for fear that a double-stack could affect both cars. But that is a calculation lacking data. The advantage of a VSC is that the time lost is much less than a normal pit stop, and with a safe gap between the two Mercedes cars, it was entirely feasible to bring both in at the same time. In fact, they did not, and the result was that Russell, who had done everything right throughout the race, was denied the opportunity to fight for victory. This is not just a story about one pit-stop decision. It is a lesson in reading market signals: Was Mercedes favouring Antonelli because of media narratives, historical factors, Italian sponsor pressure? Or because they truly believed a one-stop was optimal? Wolff said 'the two-stop was the best' but then said 'we didn't think it was the case' — a suspicious contradiction. Perhaps the team prioritized an outcome that was beneficial for their image at Monza: an Italian winning at home would create a much bigger media splash than a Russell victory. But as a sports financial analyst, I see a mispricing of assets. Russell is a driver under contract, and any unfair treatment would push his transfer value down. Look back at the race: Russell led from lap 1, controlled the pace, managed his tyres perfectly. He did everything right. But when the VSC came out, the team's strategy changed his fate. Antonelli, who have had a stellar performance, overtook everyone to get to second, then passed Russell on the track. When he overtook Russell on the high-speed straight at Monza, the Italian fans erupted. That was a historic moment: the first Italian winner at Monza since 2026. But at what cost? Russell, who was fighting with a car lacking downforce, with worn tyres, and with no longer any reason to trust his team. In closed meetings, data analysts have pointed out that the time lost in a normal pit stop is around 22 seconds, while under VSC, that time is only 14 seconds. That means, if double-stacked, Russell would lose less than 8 seconds compared to staying out. He would drop to third or fourth, but with fresh tyres, he would have had enough speed to fight back and battle Antonelli. Instead, they left him out hoping a one-stop would save the race. But Monza is a track that is harsh on tyres, and running more than 30 laps on a hard tyre is a performance disaster. Montoya, who drove for Williams, McLaren, and has deep understanding of race strategy, continued: 'And I'm not saying Antonelli wouldn't still catch him and win the race, but it would have been a really close fight like we saw earlier on. It would have been a really cool race at the end for all of us.' One can feel the regret in Montoya's voice. He is not a fan of any team, but he loves fair competition. As for Wolff, he is probably trying to defend his team's strategic decisions, but his statements show inconsistency. First, he said 'the two-stop was the best', implying that if they had done two stops, they might have... but then he said 'we didn't think it was the case', meaning they did not think two-stop was the best. So what is the truth? Possibly, Wolff meant that two-stop was the best option for Antonelli (since he started low, needed multiple stops), and one-stop was best for Russell. But when the VSC arrived, they created a difference: Antonelli was pitted, while Russell was not. This gave an advantage to Antonelli, unintentionally or deliberately. Here we can see one of the biggest issues in modern team management: the lack of clarity about the priority order between two drivers. At Mercedes, Russell is the more experienced driver, but Antonelli is a young Italian talent, expected to become a big star. The team may unintentionally or intentionally lean towards Antonelli for media purposes. But that is a betrayal of sport. In a race, any bias will be punished, because on track, only speed and strategy are the true measures. As a financial analyst, I want to look at the numbers: George Russell has had 6 podium finishes this season, and his contract expires at the end of 2026. His market value, if treated unfairly, would drop by at least 20%. But that is story for the future. For now, with the Monza victory, Antonelli has doubled his value, and Mercedes will benefit from new sponsorship deals. But have they lost Russell's trust? Look at history: Lewis Hamilton left Mercedes because they did not give him a good enough car, perhaps also because they did not treat him fairly in strategic decisions. At Monza, the moment Antonelli overtook Russell on lap 40 reminded me of a famous saying: 'Every record starts with a touch, and ends with a number on a spreadsheet.' For Mercedes, the number on the spreadsheet is a 1-2 finish, a great result for the team. But for Russell, it is a sporting loss, and for fair-minded fans, a stain on their strategy. Montoya was right to criticize this decision. In a race, the VSC moment is extremely important. If you don't take advantage of it, you will pay the price. Mercedes failed to do so, and they are lucky to have an excellent Antonelli to salvage a bad day. But luck is not a strategy. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that teams must be transparent in their tactical choices. If they want to prioritize Antonelli for media reasons, they should announce it clearly. But if they are a sporting team, they must treat both drivers equally. Russell drove brilliantly, and he deserved a chance to win. Hopefully, Mercedes will learn a lesson from now on. If not, they will face a bigger crisis: the departure of a talented driver. Every record starts from a lap, and ends with a decision on the pit wall. Monza 2026 has taught us that in sport, fairness is not easy. But it is the most important thing.