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

Monza is a circuit that does not forgive the complacent, whether driver or strategist. At the moment the virtual safety car appeared during the 2026 Italian Grand Prix, George Russell was leading, and Andrea Kimi Antonelli was just a name behind him. But Mercedes called only Antonelli into the pit. Juan Pablo Montoya, sitting in the F1 TV commentary booth, immediately questioned: “He was leading, he should have had priority on the pit stop. When that virtual safety car came, it’s quicker to stop than staying out. They should have stopped him, they should have double-stacked him, and he should have stopped ahead of Antonelli.” The context of this statement is not simple. Mercedes leaves Monza with a 1-2 finish, a dream result before the race began. Antonelli started from 19th on the grid and carved through the rest of the field to become the first Italian winner at Monza since 2026. The tifosi erupted. But for those who followed every meter, the tactical story has another dimension: Russell controlled the pace for most of the race, and he was forced to finish with worn hard tyres while his teammate was given fresh rubber at a particularly favourable moment. Not everyone agrees with Montoya. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff defended the decision. Wolff told Sky Sports F1: “Today there was nothing that would have stopped Antonelli. George fought with worn-out tools at the end.” When asked if there were any other options for Russell, Wolff added: “No, George was on the hard and we needed to go on the one-stop so there was no chance.” That is a data-driven reading based on tyre degradation and compound durability, but data only tells one part of the story; the rest lies in knowing how to listen. Listen more carefully to Montoya. He is not saying Antonelli would not have passed Russell in any scenario. He is saying that a double-stack – both cars stopping under the virtual safety car – would have allowed Russell to preserve his lead over his teammate while also getting fresh tyres to defend. That would create a real contest in the final seven laps instead of a simple surrender to a driver on newer tyres. Montoya, a former racer who tasted victory on high-speed circuits, understands that in F1, the advantage is not about speed alone but about managing the moment. Russell was leading, and the leader should never be left behind in a pit race. Simple in theory but complex in execution. When a virtual safety car is deployed, the speed of every car is limited and the time lost by pitting drops almost to the minimum. Teams can take advantage to change tyres almost without losing position to cars that do not stop. Mercedes, by letting only Antonelli stop, gambled that Russell’s hard tyres would be good enough to last to the end. That is a gamble that often works when the gap is large enough. But at Monza, with its high-speed nature, forcing a car with worn tyres to defend against a car on fresh tyres is almost a death sentence. Every collapse has a premise; only few people are willing to see it beforehand. Looking back at the race, there was a signal that Russell and the whole team were trapped in their own logic. Russell said on the radio that the car was losing grip in the final laps – a clear warning that the tyres were degrading more than expected. Had the team chosen a double-stack, they could have solved that problem from the start. But they did not, and afterward Wolff stated that there were no options. That is a classic example of people defending their initial decisions with retrospective reasoning. We need to ask deeper: Did Mercedes unintentionally put Antonelli in a better position because he was the one chasing from behind? Russell, with the lead, tactically deserved priority in the pit stop. But in racing, priorities are often shuffled by many factors: tyre compounds, positions of rivals, or the instinct to protect a historic win for the home race. Antonelli is Italian, Monza is his home, and that victory has huge symbolic meaning for Mercedes. But does that mean Russell had to pay for it with his own victory? Montoya suggests that without that pressure, the team’s strategy might have been different. Antonelli’s talent cannot be denied. He drove a tremendous race, passing many cars from a low starting spot and perfectly using the fresh tyre window. Even if Russell had pitted at the same time, Antonelli might still have won through pure speed. But Montoya is not talking about who was faster; he is talking about creating fair conditions to determine the winner. However, the price of fairness within a team is sometimes too high for team bosses, especially when a 1-2 result is already in hand. Montoya also highlights a less obvious aspect: the Monza grandstands were not empty that day, but the silence of expectation can be more frightening. When a leading driver is left out with old tyres, his mental pressure does not appear on any data sheet. Russell may have seen Antonelli being called in, understood that the team was betting on him, but also understood that he was about to become a sacrificial pawn for a historic result. In F1, mentality is inseparable from tactics. Every tracking number needs to be put on the operating table, not on the altar. From my own perspective, having worked with technical departments, I believe Mercedes’ decision was not necessarily wrong in terms of calculation, but it ignored the element of timing. Russell was the only driver leading at the time. In a race without a real safety car, keeping the leader out on track under VSC is acceptable if the tyre life is safe. But with a car behind on fresh tyres and converging at high speed, the risk of being overtaken is enormous. And Mercedes itself turned Russell’s race into an impossible defensive mission. Toto Wolff defended the one-stop choice by saying George was on the hard tyre and needed to follow a one-stop, so there was no chance to do a two-stop. But that does not explain why they did not bring Russell in under the VSC – the only window to change tyres without nearly losing position. Once the VSC was out, the idea of making the hard tyres last should have been reassessed. If Russell had stopped immediately, he would have switched to fresh tyres capable of running to the end without worrying about degradation. The one-stop strategy was still possible, but with a fresh set of tyres. This is exactly Montoya’s point: “I’m not saying Antonelli wouldn’t still catch him and win, but it would have been a really close fight like we saw earlier. It would have been a really cool race at the end for all of us.” The thought that deserves attention is how a strategic decision can affect the balance of power within the team. Russell has shown that he is a capable driver, but being denied a chance to fight is not just a Monza story. If Mercedes’ goal is to create a fair environment for both drivers, decisions based on emotional or media-driven factors can create cracks in the locker room. Russell did not publicly criticise the team, and perhaps he accepts the result for the team’s sake, but those silent cracks often surface in later races. Will Russell trust the team to put him first in similar situations? That question cannot be answered immediately, but it will return in the coming races. Montoya, at 57, sees it as a man who has watched many teams collapse over seemingly harmless decisions. He is not taking Russell’s side or Antonelli’s side; he is on the side of logic. In a race, when the leading driver is not given strategic priority, the team is no longer a sporting entity but a theatre favouring an individual. Antonelli may deserve the victory, and that victory may shape his future. But again, Formula 1 never forgives the complacent. If Russell confronts a similar situation next time and he does not get the best option, the consequences could be bigger than a second-place finish. The lesson from Monza is not necessarily that Mercedes were wrong for not double-stacking, but that they did not trust their driver enough to give him the best weapon. Russell was the leader; he should have been the first to pit. The team can say all calculations were verified, but when the race calls out an Italian hero, all that remains for the second-place driver is a question: what if, at the moment the virtual safety car came out, they had given me that chance. Data may dominate the standings, but what happens on track is remembered through emotion. And for Russell, that emotion may become motivation in the rest of the season.