Rosberg has his own verdict on why Vettel lost out to Hamilton

Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton aren't merely separated by just one world championship. They are also separated by their respective abilities when it comes handling pressure and crisis.

Nine in ten would know which driver had the mental edge over the other this season and there's little sense to debate an infallible logic.

But we are no one to down-talk or demean any driver vis-a-vis a comparison to the other.

That Hamilton won, in the end, had more to do with his own skill and consistency than it did with regards to Vettel's erroneous driving.

Having said that, he did benefit from Vettel's mistakes and Ferrari's flippant attitude in circuits where it was expected to roar, for instance, Singapore or Hungaroring.

Similarly, that Vettel lost was, in the same way, more to do with Hamilton's incredible form than the German's faulty drives, as seen at Hockenheimring, Baku and other races.

Yet, his own undoings on the track only exacerbated the woes.

Having said that, there are others on the grid and similarly, away from the grid having battled with the two who hold their own views in the epic Hamilton versus Vettel contest, a saga made superior by Mercedes' nearly faultless show this season.

Among these names is a certain Nico Rosberg, former Formula 1 driver and currently, an occasional commentator and post-race presenter.

Rosberg, the 2016 World Champion is perhaps among the few men who understand the close rivalry between the two drivers the same way veterans like Kimi and Alonso do.

Rosberg, after all, was Hamilton's teammate, and more than that, a rival to the Briton, whom he was able to beat in 2016. He understands Hamilton's craft despite having been able to beat the mercurial hero only once during their pairing.

Now, Rosberg has offered his view as to how Vettel lost out, in 2018, yet again.

The former Mercedes driver says in 2018, Vettel lost out to Lewis owing to the mistakes he made in that Ferrari.

Probably, it wasn't entirely owing to Hamilton's driving superiority.

Popular publication, Daily Mail, published the following in regards to Rosberg's observations of Vettel:

"The 2016 world champion believes Hamilton's ability to cope with pressure better than Vettel has been key towards his former Mercedes team-mate securing the world championship for the fifth time."

Right before the start of the season finale at Yas Marina at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, Vettel, according to Rosberg, had to put together a great win. This, however, wasn't achieved. The best that Vettel managed was actually a tribute to his own standing to Hamilton at the conclusion of the season: second!

A P2 is what Sebastian managed. Hamilton went on to win at Abu Dhabi again, having won here in 2014. Rosberg, interestingly, clinched the night-safari twice starting 2015, concluding with his 2016 win.

But all that said, isn't Rosberg right in his view? Or is suggesting that Hamilton was victorious in the end, was more owing to Vettel's faults somewhere a damp assessment of the Briton's race craft?

Race wins are what matter to all at the end of the day. Yes, Hamilton might have had it really difficult had Vettel been the fastest all weekend at Singapore and had supposedly gone on to win the race. Similarly, had the two key mistakes not happened, first up, at Baku- where Vettel locked up under braking only to see three drivers pass through for ahead- and later, at Hockenheimring- where Vettel, who was leading, once again, made an error and skidded out of the track under wet weather only to end his run- who knows what might have happened?

But Hamilton's incredible consistency at the European leg of the season manifesting in commanding wins at Spain and France were just as hard to deny as were his efforts at tracks and temperatures that were absolutely different in context and construct, picture Brazil, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Singapore. How solid did Sebastian look in these contests to usurp Lewis, who ensured Hammertime would prevail?

Probably, Rosberg isn't entirely wrong in his views. Yet, he isn't entirely correct in his assessment. Or is he?