Ferrari's long history of wrecked driver relationships

A highly sagacious individual - formerly on the staff of this very magazine, in fact - once said to me, "You know, the problem with Ron Dennis is that he always falls out with his best drivers..." And indeed, let's take a brisk roll-call of handy pilots who've said "do one, Ron" over the years: Niki Lauda, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna, Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton...

But those fall-outs were generally transacted behind closed doors, and were predominantly a result of the McLaren boss having an occasional tendency to be gauche. On-track performance - or the lack thereof - seldom came into the equation. Quite the opposite: the majority of those drivers departed with at least one world championship courtesy of Woking machinery.

Ferrari, on the other hand, has a rich history of reverse alchemy - of turning partnerships freighted with promise into a soap opera of frustrations and disappointments. You could argue it's been happening since the early days of the world championship itself, when Alberto Ascari fell out with Enzo Ferrari over his salary and slung his hook.

The tradition has continued down the years, no matter who happens to hold the Scuderia's reins: John Surtees, Lauda, Prost, Michael Schumacher, Kimi Raikkonen, Alonso and most recently Sebastian Vettel have all jumped or been pushed. These are just the high-profile names.

• Vettel's Ferrari departure
• How Vettel's Ferrari dream died
• The highs and lows of Sebastian Vettel's Ferrari tenure
• Why Leclerc/Sainz line-up won't solve Ferrari's biggest problem
• How Leclerc beat Vettel to be Ferrari's favourite
• Why F1 would be poorer without Vettel

It's pretty clear from Vettel's tale of diminishing returns that some responsibility for his failure to bring the world title to Maranello resides with Ferrari. The Scuderia's peculiar ability to shoot itself in the corporate foot is almost maddening.

In the past decade and a half alone we've had the tawdry spectacle of Schumacher being pushed into early retirement to make way for Raikkonen, who was then paid off to leave a year early to furnish a vacancy for Alonso, who then took his leave after one screaming match too many during the Year Of The Three Team Principals.

There's more than one common thread in this narrative, beyond sub-optimal on-track performance. It's a blend of short-sightedness and internal politics.

Vettel was on a sticky wicket from the minute he arrived: Montezemolo was in the process of being shunted aside even as he tied up the deal to bring Seb to Ferrari

Luca di Montezemolo decided that Schumacher was yesterday's man and Raikkonen was a better fit for the future (millennials might well describe the timing of the press release announcing Michael's retirement - mid-way through the 2006 Italian Grand Prix - as "a dick move"). Montezemolo moving-and-shaking was also the reason for Raikkonen being elbowed out - and, indeed, Luca also lubricated the wheels for Alonso's early departure.

Too often at Maranello the desired outcomes are skewed by the need to fight fires: rumblings from senior management in the Fiat empire, pressure from the Italian media. Ditching a driver who is perceived to have under-performed, or who is seen to be demotivating the team by complaining too much, is a cheap way of buying time and positive PR.

Yet the irony with the Vettel situation is that he was on a sticky wicket from the minute he arrived: Montezemolo was in the process of being shunted aside even as he tied up the deal to bring Vettel to Ferrari. For once, a high-profile recruitment wasn't enough to save Luca's career.

And that meant - for all the grazie ragazzi over the next couple of seasons - Vettel arrived in an environment that was already potentially hostile, for he was the previous regime's hire. New chief Sergio Marchionne and his yes-man, Maurizio Arrivabene, immediately began spinning against him. In hindsight, it's a surprise Vettel lasted this long...