Formula 1 2023 - A Round Up of the Last 5 Grand Prix of the Season

A number of factors have caused these to be delayed. 

1 - Most of these Grand Prix were in awkward time zones for me to watch/listen to live, which always makes it more difficult to catch up with the races, because the replays are at even odder times. (More on this in the Las Vegas wrap up) 

2 - A distinct feeling of "after the Lord Mayor's show" about the whole thing. It feels like Red Bull won the title so long ago that there's nothing to fight for, and three out of the five races were at street circuits so there wasn't going to be much racing either to keep people interested. 

3 - Oh my prophetic soul, when I made the comment about the races being one Ferrari driver strong, one having a nightmare, I was complaining about an existing pattern, but it's carried on. Which makes for painful watching as a Ferrari fan. 

United States Grand Prix: The Circuit of the Americas is my favourite of the American races, not unsurprisingly since it's the only one on an actual race track #JustSayNoToStreetCircuits 

It's also one of my favourite tracks, because of the elevation changes and the potential for racing (and the cowboy nonsense, this year's highlight being giant cow terrifying Tsunoda). 

Of course, all the things I like about came back to bite Ferrari in the tush after a good performance by Leclerc. 

Ferrari race summary: The circuit hated Leclerc. Sainz jnr. got a podium 

I understand the FIA's point that they don't have the time to test more than 2 cars after each race, and as long as it's random draw, I can live with it, but if both cars fail a test, it might be worth testing a few more to make sure it wasn't the track doing that. 

(In re: randomness of the choice, does anyone know where I can find a list of which cars are checked after each race? That looks like something that can be graphed and analysed.) 

Mexican Grand Prix: The Mexican fans deserve a much better race. I say this despite them booing Leclerc. 

Ferrari race summary: The circuit hated Leclerc, just not as much as Austin did, given he managed third place with a broken car. Somehow Ferrari got a 3rd and 4th place. 

Brazilian Grand Prix: I loathe the sprint races. I don't think the suggested changes for next year go far enough, nor do I think they will actually change anything. 

Ferrari race summary: The circuit hated Leclerc, to the extent that I agree with Leclerc that there's a curse (https://www.reuters.com/sports/motor-sports/leclerc-crashes-out-before-start-brazil-2023-11-05/) I just want both cars to have functional hydraulic systems, is that so much to ask?! 

Las Vegas Grand Prix: Las Vegas was the Grand Prix that really suffered from the odd time zone effect, because it was too late for the Americas and too early for Europe. As one internet wag put it, "finally New Zealand and Hawaii have a Grand Prix in their time zone." 

The problem is while Monaco can work around the Grand Prix, Vegas, even in the holiday off-season, can't. I don't think they can move the grand prix to another time of year and have it be any better suited because the whole point of Vegas is that it's a year round holiday destination, and most of it's attractions don't need good weather. 

It does need to be a night race. I've walked around Las Vegas during the day and it's *not glamourous* in daylight. But because of that, it can't be in the early evening, or else it would mess with trade too much, which leads to the absolute curfew issue, which led to so many of this year's problems. 

Not all of them mind you. 

I am aware that accidents happen, and that manhole covers attacking F1 cars has been a thing before (https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.new-chassis-required-for-russell-after-fp1-drain-cover-incident.2y9GeluOw6zYqJlnchaff4.html), and that time, no leniency was given for spare parts, but that was because Baku is too early in the season, or was then, to already be in "replacement part counting" mode. And, yes, once a precedent has been set, it's hard to unset it, and yes, due to the closeness of the race for second place in the constructor's title at least one team would complain. None of that means I like it. 

Or accept it. 

Or feel anything but annoyance at it. 

Given all the things that went wrong, the race itself went quite well. Most of the changes that really need to be made are to the stuff around the event not the race itself, and it'll be interesting to see if those changes are made. 

Ferrari race summary: In which Sainz jnr is punished for events entirely out of his control, but Leclerc got a podium. 

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: 

Ferrari race summary: In which the track hated Sainz jnr but Leclerc got a podium 

I swear I listened to this Grand Prix live. I just don't remember any of it beyond having to do speed maths about who was where in the constructor's title. 

That Leclerc could do that while driving an F1 car blows my mind. 

It wasn't enough, but boy how he tried. 

Three points away in the race to second place in the constructor's championship, despite a car that fell to pieces if you looked at it funny. 

I'm not satisfied with it, I am a Ferrari fan, only victory is good enough, but I feel that was probably the most that could be achieved with that car. 

Last year's car had go, but the strategy team had none. This year, the strategy team have reached the giddy heights of "probably not actively conspiring against the team", but the car had no go for the first 3/4s of the season. 

The SF-23 Fretful Porpentine was exactly as fragile as I feared following it falling apart during Bahrain qualifying. As well as the engine and electronics failures I do have on my Ferrari Foul-Up bingo card, if I'd had brake failure, fuel line failure and hydraulics failure, I could have dabbed them once each. 

I didn't have a box for "somehow, we reach our allocation of one set of parts by the second race" as a square on the bingo card, because I didn't think that was possible. I underestimated Ferrari's intrinsic catastrophe potential. Red Bull's lead was >50 points by the second race, just so everyone can understand my pain. 

Extra future boxes could include, "the drivers are conspiring to give Vasseur a heart attack", looking at you, Leclerc, at the Italian Grand Prix. 

In terms of things Ferrari had no control over, if there'd been a box for "the safety car was at just the wrong time", that would have been dabbed three times.  

"The DRS button hates joy," could also have been dabbed three times (and possibly a fourth time in sympathy with Norris at the British Grand Prix.) I'm glad more people are coming to see it my way that DRS removes a lot of the thrill from the races. 

Somehow, despite a very flat season, I'm still looking forward to next year's races, but I'm really looking forward to the next change in regulations, which I think will be the only way to topple Red Bull. That fear isn't going to stop me hoping Ferrari can do it next year.

A Bushel of the Bard - the Tragedies

I told you I was trying to finish things off.

Antony and Cleopatra: I have only ever seen one version all the way through, the Ralph Fiennes / Sophie Okonedo National Theatre one they shared during COVID.

The Charlton Heston one is not as bad as you have been told, but I might be biased by John Castle as Octavian, Roger Delgardo as the Soothsayer and Eric Porter giving it torn between duty and love as Enobarbus, and very few people do that better than Eric Porter.  (Martin Landau as not Enobarbus is the Elizabeth Taylor Cleopatra is also my favourite thing in that.)  

I have many Enobarbus thoughts, as my review of the NT version will show, I think because his dilemma is just more interesting that the central pair's (I also suffer from "I don't see what's so wrong with Octavian").

King Lear: L remediated my lack by taking me to see the Kenneth Branagh version in November.  L is awesome.

The reason for the lack is that my mother objects to gore, which is also why there is nothing for Titus Andronicus here.

Macbeth: I have strong Macbeth opinions.

The best recorded version I ever saw is the Sean Pertwee modern dress one.  There is no reason for a Channel 4 reasonably-low-budget-undoubtedly-designed-for-GCSE-students version to be so good, but it is.

The first version I ever saw was the Animated Shakespeare one which is beautifully done.  It's still the first one I think of when I hear any of the words.

I've seen it live once, at the local theatre, a tiny production with maybe seven people who were the stage crew, the sound crew and the actors.  And yet, by the end, I was there on the blasted heath as Macbeth had his throat slit.  It's still 20 odd years later one of the best things I've ever seen on a stage.

The worst version is undoubtedly the Jason Connery version - they cut "one fell swoop".  Why would you do that?

I'm also in the minority that aren't huge fans of the McKellen / Dench version (although that is the best take on "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow"), or the Patrick Stewart version (I am done with heavy-handed Soviet iconography) or the recent-ish Eccleston version.

One day I will get round to watching the Nicol Williamson version.

Hamlet: I do not have a Hamlet problem.  Please ignore that I have two copies of Hamlet in the room.  (In my defence, I also have a Coriolanus and the Hollow Crown.  And three different versions of the Three Musketeers.)

Favourite, I'm going to go with the obvious and Kenneth Branagh, because I do love it so.  I am also very fond of the Nicol Williamson version.  He is ten to twenty years too old but he is also the most convincing scholar-prince.

Worst is a tie between the Ethan Hawke version (which does have the redeeming features of Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber) and the terrible Andrew Scott version which I nearly threw shoes at my TV over.  I'm also not that fond of the most recent NT version.

I'm not that wow-ed by the Tennant version or the Zeffirelli version, both of which fail the "am I cheering for Laertes?" test.  Michael Moloney and Nicholas Farrell are tied for "most Hamlet characters I've seen an actor play", because Nicholas Farrell was the voice of Hamlet in the Animated version, which is beautiful.  Mother has called the Zeffirelli version "why won't you die already?" which isn't a good sign either.  I had issues with the Globe's gender-swapped version, although I really liked their take on the Hamlet and her father.  The fight scenes were terrible, like 'give me two newbies and two hours and I can do better than that' bad.  The one time I did see it live was at the RSC, and the program had an article written by a fencer I knew at least to nod at, and it did something really interesting with it's fight scenes (no, I don't mean just the Leon Paul gear).  Laertes fenced sabre in a really traditional style, while Hamlet's was the modern style and it makes character sense.  Characterised fight scenes FTW!!!  I swear the only reason I don't rate it more highly is because the As You Like It that it shared its season with was exceptional.

The Soviet version changes the words, obviously, but the visuals are amazing.  Ophelia's bodice/straight jacket/cage will live long in the memory.

I quite liked the RSC version they showed on BBC4 during COVID, and the Rory Kinnear version.  I'm hoping BBC4 doing a Hamlet night with the most recent National Theatre version will mean the Christopher Plummer / Michael Caine version is on Iplayer for a while, because that's been on the "must find a way to watch" list for some time.

So okay, I probably do have a Hamlet problem.

Romeo and Juliet: Like a great many people, this one I studied at school.  It's also the one where I have a full on theatre concept complete with staging and costumes (admittedly heavily influence by the ballet).

Beloved English teacher let us see the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann versions, and I know everyone always raves about Mercutio and Tybalt in the Luhrmann version, but can I get a shout out for their Benvolio?  My Mercutio is still John McEnery, although writing this had informed me that my first Mercutio, from the Animated tales was the person who played Claudius in the version of Hamlet I saw live.

I was Mercutio-skewed before Beloved English teacher gave me him and Escalus in the class reading, but it may have emphasised the problem somewhat.  I was chosen because I was the 13 year old with the foulest mind, the most percussive Ps and Ts, and the one who would get to the end of the line before giggling.

The skew does mean I judge Romeos and Juliets by their Mercutio which is why I completely passed on the Globe version, because they played my boy like he's Hamlet rather than a firework who likes fornicating and fighting more than anything else.  (They also had Alex Price and had him play Paris not Mercutio.  I just can't at that point.)

(Mercutio and Tybalt are sex and death, and love loses to them, that's why it's a tragedy)

Coriolanus: Dear old Coriolanus is probably the tragedy that works best for me (terrifying mothers etc).  Any version wins for me at the point where I go "Caius, don't do that".

It was also the first play I saw at the RSC (before the redevelopment, back when the Gods were terrifyingly steep).  Janet Suzman takes some beating as Volumina, she had the loudest silence I've ever heard.

I also really liked the National Theatre, Tom Hiddleston / Deborah Findley version.  Which also includes the platonic ideal of a hip throw in the first Coriolanus / Aufidius fight.  

The thing that intrigued me is how the two products handled Volumina's request, Janet Suzman's Volumina knew what she was asking when she arrived, while Deborah Findley's figures it out mid-scene and her face!!!  That scene plays very differently.  They both work, oh wow do they both work, but differently.

I will watch the Fiennes / Redgrave version, but I've still not managed to have the time and the mindset at the same time, because I fear it will break me. 

Withdrawals in Week 3 of the 2023 Tour de France, an overall round up and confirmation that the Olympics didn't cause more withdrawals

We've reached that stage of the year where people desperately try to tidy up the things they didn't quite get around to finishing. 

I have a better excuse than usual for not posting these, because I was flying off to the US when the racers were flying up the Champs-Élysées, and then I got distracted by the Women's World Cup (https://fulltimesportsfan.wordpress.com/2023/08/03/womens-world-cup-2023-last-16-network-diagrams/) when I got back. It's a particular shame because I had finished writing up my notes, and just needed the last day of racing to finish off the diagrams. 

The last week of the race featured Pogacar cracking, which somewhat overshadowed an Austrian winning the queen stage!!!!! (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/66248827) 

It also featured poor Simon Geschke having to literally race the broom wagon on stage 17 (https://twitter.com/GcnRacing/status/1681730004223180812). Although he won, and bless the broom wagon driver for cheering him on, he had to withdraw in the middle of stage 18.  (Yes, in the Tour de France, the elimination line is not something high tech and digital, it's a man in a van, and I'm sorry this is part of why I love cycling.)

Overall, week 3 withdrawals were pretty evenly split between DNS and mid-stage abandonments.  

 When did teams lose riders? Cofidis and Movistar both lost half of their riders, while UAE, FDJ, Bora-Hansgrohe, AG2R, Israel Premier Tech, Jayco, Arkea and Uno-X didn't lose a single rider. 

You can actually see stage 14 happening to EF Education and stages 16 and 17 happening to Cofidis in the Kaplan Meier diagram broken down by teams. EF's green unfortunately covers up the same thing happening to Movistar. 

The overall Kaplan Meier diagram of withdrawals looked like this: Comparing the withdrawals to the 2020, 2021 and 2022 Tours de France, it looks like this: 2021 and 2022 have very similar shapes, while 2023 looks more like 2020. 

I briefly had access to PRISM, so I ran the data through that too. 

PRISM version: That figure made me feel good because my home-brew version looks very similar to it, so I don't think I'm going too wrong with my methodology. 

The main reason I wanted to run it through PRISM is because it provides statistical analysis of Kaplan Meier diagrams. By eye (https://fulltimesportsfan.wordpress.com/2022/05/18/for-guts-or-for-glory-was-the-2021-tour-de-france-attrition-rate-influenced-by-the-upcoming-olympics/) it already looked like the Olympics in 2021 didn't have an effect on the withdrawal rate and PRISM confirmed that view by saying there was no statistical difference in the withdrawals in the different years. 

Withdrawals by stage: Stage 14 was the stage with the most withdrawals by a long way. To refresh your memory, it was a combination of a slippy road, a turn and ill-fortune that took down a swath of riders (https://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/tour-de-france/2023/tour-de-france-neutralised-after-extraordinarily-nasty-moment-on-stage-14-involving-almost-all-teams_vid1951457/video.shtml) 

The really interesting thing was that there were no over the time limit withdrawals.  

I don't know if this is because there isn't as big a difference between the top riders and those at the bottom, that the stages were shorter so it reduces the risk, or whether people were seeing sense after accidents and withdrawing there and then, but it's an interesting fact. 

Looking at the abandonments in more detail: 

Week 2 was the worst for withdrawals with almost half of all withdrawals occurring then, with week 1 and 3 being as bad as each other: This is because of mid-stage abandonments, because relatively few of the DNS withdrawals were in week 2. Things I will look out for next year? Whether this "no outside the time limit withdrawals" pattern happens again next year, and whether the curve shape is the same again, next year being another Olympic year. 

Related posts to look forward to this year (or at the start of next year) - the equivalent post for the women's Tour de France 2023.

The road to explicableness - A closer look at England after their seventh World Cup game

I've spent the rest of these posts complaining that the diagrams of who plays with who when England score and concede make little sense. Following the third place play-off match they have started to make more sense. I think it's because it was the 4th match were Steve Borthwick was able to play his preferred team (built around his preferred fly-half and captain Owen Farrell) vs the three where he couldn't due to Farrell's suspension. 

The who scored, and when did they score charts have always made sense.  

Of the 65 point-scoring moments for England, Ben Earl was present for the most (51/65), followed by Joe Marchant, Owen Farrell and Maro Itoje. Jack Walker and Sam Underhill were present for the least (7 and 8 respectively), which makes sense because they only took part in 1 game each. Bevan Rodd was present for 13 over 2 games. 

The dendrogram makes it clear how mix-and-matchy the squads put out were:  

But the matrix network diagram now clearly shows who the "chosen 15" were, followed by the "sometimes" played and then, palest in the top left, the "I'm only playing you because I have to". (I'm being slightly mean to Steve Borthwick there, it's clear that he would have played Theo Dan only he's an excellent future replacement for Jamie George when he retires, but Jamie George is still there) 

The network diagram is less clear, with a general mush with Underhill, Walker and Rodd the outliers.  

England played Argentina twice in this tournament, so I've labelled the 3rd place play-off team "Argentina2". (England rugby league have done this to me before, so I was prepared.) 

This Argentina team scored the joint most points against England at this tournament. The pattern have of England conceding in minute 20-30 and 60-70 remained, which can be seen in two more charts, one with when England conceded, and then that chart coloured by which team scored against England.   Maro Itoje, Ben Earl and Joe Marchant were on the pitch for the most point-concession moments, but they were on the pitch a lot. They were on for 31/31 point-conceding moments. David Ribbans, Bevan Rodd and George Martin (no, not that one) were present for the least, present for 1,2 and 4 point-conceding moments respectively. 

The dendrogram and the matrix for point-concessions are less clear  

But the network diagram is fascinating, with the central 12 giving a good idea of who Borthwick's chosen are (Elliot Daly, Jonny May, Ollie Chessum, Jamie George, Joe Marchant, Maro Itoje, Courtney Lawes, Owen Farrell, Ben Earl, Freddie Stewart, Manu Tuilagi and Tom Curry).   

I hope you've enjoyed reading these as much as I have making them.