F1 bosses shouldn't be afraid to criticise drivers

No one likes being criticised. They like it even less if that criticism is handed out in front of other people. Doing so in the public eye is considered to be the worst. It only amplifies a feeling of humiliation.

Manchester United boss Jose Mourinho is not afraid to slam his footballers in public if they have not performed. Defender Luke Shaw was the latest to feel the edge of his tongue last month. He was not the first and it is doubtful he will be the last.

Shaw is understood to have been hurt by the public dressing down. The club said it backed its manager's approach. It trusts his methods will bring success. Time will tell whether that works. But if one of football's leading managers is doing it, there must be a belief it works.

A common response, from the criticised party, will be to stay quiet while others may choose to retaliate in defence. There will also be those who that threat to motivate themselves.

Used wisely, a public slating - when really necessary for poor performance - may be the final straw. Or it could be used to aid growth and development rather than as a tool to shame them.

Maurizio Arrivabene piped up with an interestingly-timed critique of Sebastian Vettel during the Japanese Grand Prix weekend.

He said Vettel has to "earn" his place at Ferrari beyond next season, when his contract expires. He added that Vettel is interested in many areas of the team but should re-focus on driving the car.

The comments were the talk of the paddock. Many were unsure how sensible such a move was. Vettel is Ferrari's star driver and won three races last year when he joined the team. He has the talent to win its first title since 2008's constructors' glory.

With Arrivabene effectively threatening his position in the team, some felt the comments could prompt Vettel to leave at the end of his contract. And should Kimi Raikkonen decide to also call it a day, Ferrari would be left with two seats to fill.

But, ultimately, Vettel is not performing. He has admitted that is the case. Raikkonen is the stronger and more consistent Ferrari driver at the moment. Vettel needs to improve and earn his salary, one of the highest on the grid.

Arrivabene will not have taken the decision to make those public comments lightly. After all, he has spent his whole tenure protecting both drivers, no matter how disappointing the performance.

He has refused to criticise either of them, to the point where the defence was becoming laughable. But in Japan, he made a stand. He knows Vettel can do better.

Vettel brushed aside the comments, insisting he has a good relationship with the team boss. That may well be the case. But more questions are being asked of him, not only by the team but also by the media and the fans, following those comments. Vettel needs to step up his game.

Perhaps the private chats weren't working. Let's see what impact the public comments have.

In the pursuit of excellence, everything is under the microscope. Everything from a driver's consistency and tyre management to time lost under yellow and blue flags will be delved into in the finest detail. The data will be laid bare and analysed. And then analysed again. A plan will be put into place to eradicate those weaknesses as part of the constant fight for perfection.

A driver will never walk out of a debrief thinking everything is perfect. There is always something to work on, and they take that feedback on the chin. By spending hours with engineers, going over telemetry, they can see where they are going wrong and then they can try to correct it.

Team bosses will have no qualms hauling in their drivers and laying down the law behind closed doors, if an action warranted it.

Sauber boss Monisha Kaltenborn called both Felipe Nasr and Marcus Ericsson into a room after their Monaco collision and impressed on them - in no uncertain terms - such an incident would not happen again.

She was fuming in the aftermath and did not mince her words when dealing one-to-one with them. But when speaking publicly, she protected them, simply saying the incident was "unacceptable" and that the situation had been dealt with. It's the same with most of the team bosses. They choose to keep their real feelings for private meetings rather using the Mourinho technique. They want to protect their investment.

Mercedes has been slightly more forthcoming in the public, thanks largely to non-executive chairman Niki Lauda. He spoke out after collisions between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg in Spain and Austria.

Lauda flatly blamed Hamilton when interviewed immediately after their first-lap crash at Barcelona, only for team boss Toto Wolff to then say it was "not clear cut" after they had held their debrief. Lauda then blamed for Rosberg for the collision on the last lap in Austria.

In both cases, the drivers were called into a meeting to discuss the incident privately before the PR machine moved to smooth the situation over.

But did Lauda's comments have a detrimental effect? Did it dent their confidence? Did it cause them to throw their toys out of the pram publicly?

Not in Hamilton's case. The Briton went on to win six of the next seven races after the Spanish collision. It may have even helped the situation. Rosberg did not respond so well after Austria - as was the case after he collided with Hamilton at Spa in 2014. But he did regroup over the summer break and is now in the strongest position he's ever been to win the title.

Again, it is impossible to prove how much of an impact, if any, that public criticism had. But in Rosberg's case, it doesn't appear to have been detrimental in the long term. If anything, you could argue it has been positive.

He went away over the summer and has come back a stronger driver. He has won four of the last five races and is now favourite for the world championship, while the challenge of his team-mate appears to be crumbling.

Mercedes has not publicly criticised Hamilton for directing media to his social media accounts for answers to questions and messing around on his phone in the Japan pre-race press conference. Or when he decided not to answer any questions in his post-qualifying media session on Saturday.

Do teams fear causing damage if they annoy the driver? Do they feel they will react badly and become a liability, therefore risking their multi-million pound investment?

Possibly, but equally, they are being paid those millions to do a job. If they are not doing that job to the best of their ability and/or damaging the brand they are paid handsomely to represent with their conduct, should they not be held to account in public?

Some drivers may deal better with an arm-around-the-shoulder approach while others are robust enough to deal with it and respond accordingly.

But this is F1, the pinnacle of motorsport. To get to the top, you need to be hardened to criticism. You cannot be overly sensitive. Every driver responds differently to criticism and the way it is delivered.

When a howler is made, such as colliding with your team-mate, why should a driver be shielded?

Daniel Ricciardo has faced pressure from rising star Max Verstappen since the teenager was drafted in from Toro Rosso mid-season.

In one way, that could be interpreted as Red Bull telling Ricciardo that he needs to keep delivering or he risks getting knocked down the pecking order. But who is to say that he wouldn't have responded well if boss Christian Horner came out and said he needs to up his game now that Verstappen is onboard?

The former is more subtle than the latter, but it amounts to the same thing. Both devices are aimed at trying to get the best out of a driver.

Ricciardo reacted by upping his game. He even admitted that Verstappen's had a positive impact on his own driving, even if at that point he felt he was pushing himself to his limit against then-team-mate Daniil Kvyat.

The chances are a driver of Ricciardo's capabilities would have reacted positively in the same way in both scenarios. So if that's the case, F1 bosses should get over their fear of being publicly disapproving.

The best drivers will be strong enough to deal with it. The weakest may not, but then you could argue they don't have the mentality to get to the very top.

The result is F1 will be more interesting. That's what the fans want. The drivers will like it, too. And so will F1's incoming new owners.

Some drivers certainly don't have a problem criticising their team. Romain Grosjean has been a prime example this season. His boss Gunther Steiner says he has no problem with Grosjean speaking out, so there should also be no problem if the scenario was reversed.

Meanwhile, last season Red Bull did not hold back when it came to condemning Renault's poor performance and reliability. It was one of the talking points of the season and, whether or not it is linked, Renault has made huge strides since.

A balance needs to be struck. The fear of upsetting drivers by airing their dirty laundry in public is simply too excessive.

This is not about having a go at drivers in public for the sake of it, even if it does create headlines and talking points. It is a method that can be used to get the most out of a driver and holding them to account if used in the right way.

It will benefit the team, the driver and F1. What is not to like?