Isack Hadjar has sparked controversy by suggesting that Max Verstappen would have won the 2026 Singapore Grand Prix by an even greater margin had he been driving a Ferrari rather than the Red Bull RB22. The claim, made ahead of the United States Grand Prix in Austin, is certainly a bold way to praise his team-mate. But it overlooks one rather important detail: at Marina Bay, Red Bull was the car to beat, not Ferrari.
“If my grandfather had had three balls, he would have been a pinball machine.” It is a popular Italian expression, with several regional variations, slightly vulgar but remarkably effective. Where I come from, it is used to dismiss fanciful hypothetical scenarios that, however entertaining they might sound, serve little purpose when trying to describe what actually happened. And today, with all due respect to those who disagree, it seems the most appropriate way to respond to certain comments emerging from the Formula 1 paddock.
I will allow myself a brief departure into first-person editorial commentary, something I rarely do, because the remarks made by Isack Hadjar during media day at the United States Grand Prix, the 18th round of the 2026 Formula 1 World Championship, deserve closer examination. The French driver argued that Max Verstappen would have won the Singapore Grand Prix by an even larger margin if he had been driving a Ferrari. He then defended his right to express an opinion. Of course he has that right; freedom of expression is not in question. It is the substance of the statement that raises more than a few doubts.
Max Verstappen, Ferrari and Singapore: what the circuit actually showed
Let us begin with one fundamental point: Max Verstappen is an exceptional driver. I do not believe that requires any elaborate demonstration, because his career speaks for itself. His ability to extract the maximum from a car, his single-lap speed, race management and composure at decisive moments are qualities that place him among Formula 1’s greatest competitors. I have absolutely no intention of diminishing his talent.
But precisely because Max Verstappen is so good, I cannot understand the need to construct narratives that attribute hypothetical achievements to him, almost as though his actual accomplishments were somehow insufficient.
At Singapore, the Red Bull RB22 secured a victory that confirmed just how competitive the Milton Keynes team had become at this stage of the championship. The car looked extremely effective, demonstrating both speed and consistency across the different conditions encountered throughout the weekend. If anything, it was Red Bull that set the benchmark. Not Ferrari.
Ferrari, particularly through Charles Leclerc, demonstrated flashes of competitiveness and impressive speed. But there is a considerable difference between being competitive and possessing the outright fastest car of the Grand Prix. At no point did Ferrari demonstrate such overwhelming superiority that it would be reasonable to conclude that Max Verstappen could have won by an even greater margin in the SF-26.
This is not about personal preferences, rivalries or team loyalties. It is about evidence from the circuit. And as far as I am concerned, that evidence must take precedence over speculation or the extraordinary interpretations offered by anyone.
Indeed, Charles Leclerc responded to the comments made by Max Verstappen’s young team-mate, making it clear how questionable he considered such an assessment. The Monegasque knows the capabilities of his own Ferrari and understands the difference between a competitive performance and the kind of technical superiority that Isack Hadjar appeared to suggest. His response to the argument is examined in greater detail in Charles Leclerc’s reaction to Isack Hadjar’s controversial Ferrari claim.
Red Bull’s RB22 performance cannot be ignored in the Singapore debate
The wider comparison between Red Bull and Ferrari is particularly important because Formula 1 performance cannot be reduced to the abilities of one driver. A car’s characteristics, race pace, tyre behaviour and ability to exploit different phases of a Grand Prix all influence the final result. Max Verstappen’s talent is beyond question, but that does not make the contribution of the Red Bull RB22 irrelevant.
Ferrari certainly had strengths around Marina Bay, especially in the hands of Charles Leclerc, but those strengths did not automatically establish the SF-26 as the superior race car. The performance differences between the two teams are explored in the Singapore Grand Prix race-pace and strategy analysis, which examines how Max Verstappen established his advantage and how Charles Leclerc attempted to respond.
The same distinction matters when evaluating Red Bull’s broader improvement during the 2026 season. The development of the RB22 has given Max Verstappen a stronger competitive platform, and its progress is examined in the analysis of Red Bull’s two major RB22 development steps. Recognising the quality of that machinery does not take anything away from the driver who extracts its potential.
Max Verstappen does not need anyone exaggerating his greatness
I therefore find myself wondering what purpose a statement like this is supposed to serve. Perhaps Isack Hadjar simply wanted to emphasise how unbeatable he considers his team-mate, to the extent that he imagines Max Verstappen winning in virtually any car. It may be a form of admiration — or perhaps even excessive deference — but it is also an exercise in imagination that risks turning the very talent it seeks to celebrate into a caricature.
Modern Formula 1, after all, seems increasingly fascinated by provocation. Headlines are manufactured, disagreements are amplified and statements are packaged with the expectation that they will go viral. Technical discussion slips into the background while exaggeration becomes a preferred means of attracting attention. In that environment, even a comment like this can help someone secure a place in the endless stream of media coverage.
Isack Hadjar is showing promising qualities and building his career in a category where establishing yourself is anything but straightforward. Yet alongside Max Verstappen, it is almost inevitable that his profile will remain somewhat overshadowed. Perhaps that is precisely why comments of this kind can prove particularly effective in generating attention, even when the price is an unconvincing interpretation of what happened on track.
I do not pretend to know the French driver’s intentions. I cannot say whether he wanted to provoke a reaction, please his team-mate or simply express a genuine personal belief. What I do know is that the discussion risks losing sight of the central issue: Max Verstappen does not need to be transformed into a mythical figure to be recognised as an extraordinary champion.
Does the four-time world champion really need these manufactured narratives, premature celebrations and hypothetical scenarios that nobody will ever be able to verify? In my opinion, absolutely not. His greatness does not depend on what he might have accomplished behind the wheel of a Ferrari, a McLaren or any other Formula 1 car. It depends on what he has achieved, what he continues to accomplish and his ability to demonstrate his quality every time he takes to the circuit.
Talent is measured through results, performances and consistency. It is not measured by comments from those attempting to make an already exceptional driver appear even greater through imaginary comparisons. So, Isack Hadjar, allow me one final joke: if my grandfather had had three balls, he would have been a pinball machine. Max Verstappen, meanwhile, is already a champion without needing this kind of media flattery.
Leave a Reply