I know the announcers have to make the race as exciting as possible, but 50 laps of Lando is gaining on Max because he has fresher tires got old.
Yes he is gaining on Max who took all that time out of Lando by pitting first.
Yet if you just listened to them you would think Lando started 20 seconds behind and was gaining the entire race.
Which lead directly to my final pointless complaint, Lando should not have won driver of the day. He started on pole, had the faster car and lost because he was not the best driver.
From watching races for 20+ years - I have found that the "has fresher tyres" arguments usually really suck - more than 90% of the time track position is king and the announcers are just trying to give you something to watch for (that almost never never happens).
There is a window right when the fresher tyres first go on where the undercutter has an advantage, but usually the undercutter is too far back (because of the pit stop) to make an actual pass for position, and the advantage of the fresh tyres seems quite marginal after 4-6 laps of running - the pit stops cost 15-25 seconds depending on track and safety car conditions and the fresh tyres are worth like 0.5 to maybe 1.0 sec per lap in extreme cases, often only 0.2-0.4 sec/lap, I never see it work out. Even when the undercuttee comes in for their stop, the gains from the couple laps of fresher tyres aren't enough. (Here, discounting a bad stop, which is a real issue and has happened - but that's a different thing altogether than tyre strategy.)
There is a second window at the end of the tyre life where the "overcutter" (or non-undercutter, maybe more accurately) is trying to avoid an extra pit stop and extending a final stint, and then maybe there is a chance for the person behind to close gaps and make a move (because really trashed tyres are sometimes 2+ sec/lap slower), but all too often we have seen that closing-in gets stalled out in the 1-3 second delta ranges because of aero effects (even with these supposedly "less harmful" aero setups it seems to be the case at least some of the time) and the closing cars tyres are *also* falling off, or just the difficulty in executing the overtakes against a well-defended front-runner - even DRS assisted!
I *think* there was a little bit of this kind of strategy in the Nico Rosberg championship year (IIRC) where both Mercs were equally good (are far ahead of the rest) and it was just down to differing strategy in the two Merc garages. But that is a really rare case and I am hard-pressed to think of many races since then where it actually worked out.
The best drivers rarely make mistakes anymore (the second tier drivers, this is not the case and they can be forced into errors), and other than Ferrari's bone-headedness, the top 3-5 teams rarely make huge blunders because there is a kind of "safe baseline strategy" that most of them seem to adhere to - basically there is a acknowledged meta game and it's really hard to beat the meta-optimal strategy, precisely because it is meta-optimal. Then the results really just come down to the raw performance of the car (with the driver - so Max > Checo in same equipment) that's already baked into the quali results.
Whether it's more car or driver is the perennial question - a few years ago there were lots of Lewis vs Max questions when Mercedes clearly had the better car, for example, and Lewis was at his peak, but Max was ascendant. I guess there could be a similar Lando vs Max discussion now but the driver-car pairings are what they are, so I never really got into the whole "who's better in equal machinery" type of thing.