Like some others I suspect, I often wonder at the reasoning behind some choices for DoTR. How much is genuine appraisal of a driver's performance, and how much biased by personal favouritism? Either way it does not matter as it is an individual's opinion, and therefore can not be 'wrong'.
Belgium Grand Prix;
Lewis Hamilton is the best driver in the best car, so should start from pole and win the race. Having managed that was there anything about his drive that made the feat praiseworthy?
Sebastien Vettel is the second best driver in the second best car. He started second and finished second. Nothing special about that I feel.
Daniel Ricciardo is not he best driver, and does not have the best car so to finish third is a good result. He was ahead of Kimi Raikkonen in the second best car, and Valteri Bottas in the best car, so we can dismiss them from our considerations
Nico Hulkenburg was next, a decent driver in a decent car, a decent result. Grosjean far from the best driver in a far from best car did well, as did Felipe Massa in the Williams. Both, I suggest worthy of consideration. Ocon in the fourth best car made a complete bog of his race, and can not possibly be DoTR. Sainz a reasonable driver in a reasonable car did reasonably well, Stroll did no more and no less than expected, while Kyvat, and Palmer failed to impress to any great degree. Vandoorne finished in the a very poor car, an achievement in itself but not outstanding, and Magnusson was way behind his team mate so fails the test. Ericsson did as well as can be hoped with the Sauber, but did no more than that. Perez proved to be Wally of The Race, and Max Verstappen and Pascal Wehrlein were unable to make their mark due to early retirements. Fernando Alonso did well enough with a car way below his talent level, but spent too much time complaining.
In my view it has to be between;
Ricciardo.
Grosjean.
Massa.
All did better than expected.
You may take this analysis seriously or not it is a personal choice each one of you has to make.
