@Dex of course loyalty is one of the greatest qualities in a human. Does that mean that Senna should have been loyal to Toleman and stick to the team throughout his career? Should Schumacher have stayed with Benetton beyond 1995? After all, they gave him his first 2 world titles. And could Raikkonen leave Sauber, after giving him his chance in F1?
I'm not approaching Schumacher hurrying leave of Jordan nor Frentzen's stay in Sauber in 1994 instead of jumping to Williams. We could debate their reasons. But whenever I hear Enzo Ferrari complaining that Fangio was not loyal to teams, I can't think but of a sore loser. The market is open and the sport, ultimately, is based on a open market. Best drivers look for the best teams and the best teams look for the best drivers.

Ultimately, notagrumpyfan is quite right in the point that we will never witness another driver beating Fangio's record of winning the title with 4 different teams

Every driver makes errors under pressure and in fact many of them cost a lost of points. Leclerc's get amplified because he also drives for a poorly run team driving also a poor race car.

But I don't think that's a conversation that many would like to engage in.

The only better options were Mercedes or Red Bull. Mercedes are about even with Ferrari these days and Red Bull is unlikely. At least he’ll pick up some wins and a big paycheck.

Leclerc cracks under pressure? Maybe you need to rewatch Austria ‘22 or Monza ‘19. Leclerc is one of the only guys on the grid who’ve taken the fight to Verstappen and Hamilton at their peak and won. No driver is free of mistakes but somehow the few Leclerc has made get brought up every time is name is in a headline.

Loyalty is one of the greatest qualities in a human. I guess it's important in F1 as it is important in any other sphere of life. Of course, no one is forced to appreciate it in someone.
Speaking of F1, today most drivers don't have alternative choices anyway. Where else could Hamilton go, or Leclerc? Only lateral movements were maybe (and that's a bit maybe) possible. It's usually the teams that can show loyalty to drivers now; and I struggle ti find many modern examples of that (Helmut Marko comes to mind).

I don't entirely disagree, but those are problems that tend to plague the drivers in the 'just not quite there' cars. Hamilton, Verstappen and Vettel all had those moments too in years they were struggling to keep up with the faster competition.

That said, while I really like watching Leclerc drive, in qualifying especially, and as someone partial to Ferrari, I think I'm settled on him being more of a Häkkinen kind of guy. Super fast, and he should be able to win the title if Ferrari puts a fantastic package together. But I don't think he has it in him to really push the entire team forward and even bring people over who want to work with him.

By way of contrast; I thought it was quite interesting that in the F1 Beyond the Grid episode from 2021 with Ron Meadows, Andrew Shovlin, Simon Cole and James Vowles of Mercedes (!), they each led with Michael Schumacher as the favourite driver they worked with. Especially interesting was the part about Brawn saying to them: "Michael is gonna come, he is gonna change everything, you wait and see."

Yeah, Hamilton has probably settled on being a Mercedes-only driver throughout his F1 career.

That's fair enough, and he's also not getting any younger. This would have been a better idea a couple of years ago, but the conditions at both Mercedes and Ferrari didn't make it a great prospect at the time. It wasn't like Alonso going to McLaren after winning two titles at Renault, or Schumacher going to Ferrari after winning two at Benetton. At no point did Hamilton have a good reason to want to leave Mercedes, nor did Ferrari present itself as the ideal place to go to.

Now if Rosberg had stayed in 2017… who knows! One for the #AlternativeHistory folks.

Both sensible and spot on perspectives, here

An interesting point. Why should loyalty be important?

MichaelN,
Hamilton has never shown serious interest with regard to driving for Ferrari. His mention of the Ferrari name seems more like a negotiating tactic with Wolff to secure better financial terms. Having achieved everything a driver dreams of in his F1 career, the decision to move to Ferrari in 2020, despite winning his 7th title, was a noo-brainer. He even met John Elkann at Maranello but that was as I said part of putting pressure on Wolff.

Ferrari wouldn't hesitate to offer Hamilton a more lucrative deal than Mercedes. They could leverage his fame to promote other brands owned by Elkann, such as Alfa Romeo, Jeep, Dodge… especially in the States where he is extremely popular.

I think the point was these were all drivers that stayed at the same team a long time, and hakkinen, though I don't remember if he had contract negotiations with other teams at the time (wasn't looking into that stuff) was indeed very loyal to mclaren.

Just like hamilton with mclaren and then mercedes, even though after the car he got in 2014, staying until 2021 was a given, it's only after that I consider it loyal of him to stay.

Leclerc also seems too passive when Ferrari makes mistakes, while Sainz is more willing to talk sense into them. Max and Lewis also seem more willing to challenge the team than Leclerc, even though they need to do so a lot less.

I understand your point, actually. Eventually Keith could do an article with statistics about top drivers rate or frequency of changing teams. These last four decades are likely more prone to longer contracts.

My true point is that the sport keeps always getting different every 10 years or so. If you check the main characteristics of it, regarding engineering, financing, sports rules, ethic rules, driving styles, etc., every 10 years you get a different sport.

Today we all revere the "clash of titans" represented by Senna and Prost between 1988 and 1990, which included two title-deciding crashes. The polemics around the ethics and legality of it are now almost forgotten. But that could not be more different of the titles of 1956 and 1958 which were (especially 58) decided by gentlemen. Unthinkable today.

There was a huge backlash in 1968 when commercial sponsoring was introduced. It "killed" F1. Some 45 years or so, people were complaining about the disappearing of sponsoring.

There was a period of 20+ years of mad technical innovation and rules somewhat open that made all but impossible for a driver to win consecutive titles. That was the period where we find a bigger number of one-time champions. Somehow, after the horrific 1982 season, the sport regulators imposed stability and avoided such mayhem, further. And the fact is that from 1984 onwards the norm is for Drivers and Constructors to be able of building success cycles that are very hard to topple or break.

I believe that this last period, as Keith analysed the V6 era, is the most stable of all. But, even so, the larger cars from 2017 meant some changes in what is required from the drivers in the races… It makes sense for teams to keep a competent driver for as many times as possible. And, most drivers are now Lauda-Prost-Senna-Schumacher-like professionals, so there are less reasons to kick them out. If you're a James Hunt you'll get nowhere, because the bar is now much higher. Throw yourself bravely and fiercely into the corners is not enough - and every driver out there does it…

Good come-back until you included Hakkinen :p

But even if you look at jumping teams, it should be clear that each single great driver in your list had the same amount of moves as (or more than) Verstappen, Hamilton, Leclerc, and Norris combined.

Luckily we still have Alonso.

:) Great reply! :)

Agreed, it's all a bit stale. But that's the board, from an engine freeze, spec tyres through to the very restrictive technical regulations.

For both parties this is nevertheless a sensible pick. Red Bull doesn't want Leclerc, and Verstappen doesn't want Ferrari. So this is the best both can do.

Still think Ferrari should have gone all in with an attempt to get Hamilton, but hey.