Nigel Roebuck: Fifth Column

Recently I talked to someone who has known the Hamiltons, pere et fils, for many years. "I like them," he said. "They've worked hard to get where they are, and they're unfailingly polite. But don't make the mistake of thinking they're softies..."

I wasn't surprised by what he said, not because I've seen either Anthony or his son behaving uncharacteristically, but because without a steel core you don't get to the top of anything as competitive as Formula 1. And that, in the space of a few months, is what Lewis has done.

We all know what happened in the closing minutes of qualifying at the Hungaroring, in the sense that we know what we saw. When the lollipop in front of Alonso's car was raised, 10 seconds went by before Fernando moved off, and the McLaren mechanics could get to work on Hamilton's car - by which point Lewis didn't have quite enough time to get through his 'out' lap, preparatory to a final banzai run. Alonso, meantime, took the pole.

Wherein lies the truth of why this situation arose?

Did Alonso wait those 10 extra seconds simply to screw Hamilton, or was he being held by the team (despite the lollipop being raised) until the moment was right for him to go back out, in terms of traffic?

Given that Hamilton was waiting behind, and that time was extremely short, the latter explanation took a bit of believing - particularly since Alonso, as evident from his agitation in his previous stop, was already livid about something.

That turned out to be the fact that, at the start of the last segment of qualifying, Hamilton had agreed to let him by, so as to allow him an extra 'fuel burning' lap, but then, despite repeated requests, declined to do so. Lewis later explained that his decision was taken because he was afraid that, in allowing his team-mate by at the first corner, he would also let Raikkonen's Ferrari through.

He said it like an altar boy, smiling and wide-eyed, but Lewis can do disingenuous at least as well as Fernando. Raikkonen was nowhere near the McLarens when they got to the first corner, and there was anyway ample opportunity for the McLarens to swap places all the way round the lap - and the next one, too.

When Alonso waited those 10 seconds in the pits, with Hamilton delayed, I didn't like what I saw - and liked it even less when it became clear that Lewis had lost what would have been his last quick lap.

At the time I immediately thought of Schumacher's contemptible 'parking' ploy at the end of Monaco qualifying last year, but at the time I didn't have all the facts - didn't know of the disregarded agreement by Hamilton to let Alonso through. Not quite the same as Michael at Rascasse.

This is not to suggest that what Alonso did was acceptable, of course. But racing drivers sometimes act in hot blood, and Hamilton must have been aware that, whatever else, his team-mate was hardly going to be thrilled by not being allowed by.

F1 is not like other sports. A footballer can have an off day, or even several, and it's the same with cricket or golf or whatever. Just one of those things - it'll come right. But although there are 22 drivers in F1, in the end the one that matters most is your team-mate, because he alone has the same car, and he alone is the driver by which you will be precisely judged. F1 is all about fragile egos and the merciless clock - every single day.

Team principals always say they employ the two best drivers available to them, and you can't take issue with the theory - logically, you want a pair of potential race winners. In practice, however, it's rather less simple than that. Run two absolutely top rank drivers in today's ultra-complicated F1, where nuance is all, and any deviation from 'procedure' is likely to lead to a full-scale punch-up.

These days Frank Williams is rather more politically correct than he used to be - or, at least, more circumspect when speaking on the record - but, 15 years ago, he was much to the point when I asked him about the pitfalls of running two top drivers. Was it asking for trouble?

"Up to a point, yes - it's bound to be, putting two bulls in a field, isn't it? And if I've learned one thing about racing drivers, Nigel, it's that the great ones are bastards!"

All said without a hint of malice. Frank was merely stating the bleedin' obvious. The late Colin Chapman put it another way: "I put drivers into two groups: those who want to win - and those who have to win. And usually it works best when you have one of each..."

I remember once suggesting to Ken Tyrrell that there had been superstar team-mates who worked well together - even became friends: Mario Andretti and Ronnie Peterson at Lotus, for example. "Yes," he laughed, "but they were adults..."

You can go too far down that path. Roy Salvadori has suggested that, in the 1950s, the friendship between Mike Hawthorn and Peter Collins actually worked against the interests of their team, Ferrari: "Neither seemed to mind if he had a bad race, so long as the other did well..."

My feelings about the events of last Saturday are that neither McLaren driver served his team well, and that is really the whole point. At this stage, it seems unlikely that the Alonso-Hamilton pairing will continue in 2008, which is another way of saying that I doubt that Fernando will continue with McLaren, however much the hierarchy would hate to lose a driver of such immense talent.

That said, what I really cannot understand is how the FIA stewards came to be involved in what seemed to me purely an intra-team dispute. The actions of Alonso and Hamilton hurt no one outside McLaren, after all, and quite why it became a 'police' matter is a mystery to me. Nanny's fingers are exceeding long in the 21st century.

Only one of the two drivers was punished - and yet, most iniquitous of all, the entire team was robbed of the opportunity of scoring constructors' points. If McLaren ultimately lose the constructors' championship by fewer than the 15 points Lewis and Fernando earned on Sunday, I shall find it difficult to take the result seriously. And if I were a McLaren employee, dependent for my bonus on constructors' points, I just might be a touch miffed, with the powers-that-be - and Hamilton and Alonso.

As far as the mere fans were concerned, of course, the action of the stewards robbed us of what could have been an unforgettable contest between the McLaren drivers. As it was, Alonso got predictably trapped at this silly little circuit, and it was left to Raikkonen to pressure Hamilton, albeit without any realistic possibility of overtaking him. No wonder Kimi described the afternoon as 'boring'.

In many ways, Raikkonen and McLaren couldn't wait to part at the end of last season, but perhaps, with hindsight, the team might have had an easier time if they had kept him, as team-mate to this whirlwind called Hamilton.

Kimi the party animal may not be easy to control, but Raikkonen the racing driver is the most insouciant God has yet put on earth. Doesn't give a bugger what his team-mate's doing. McLaren could use a bit of that just now.