This talk about Glock is silly. Neither of the Toyotas changed to wet tyres. It was a risk that almost paid off, but the rain got worse. Glock and Trulli had almost identical times for the final lap - i.e., Glock didn't drive badly, he drove at the same pace as Trulli, which was as fast as possible in those conditions.
If you had watched the data flow instead of listening to Brundle and Allen babbling, you would have seen that Glock started to lose time on the final sector of the penultimate lap. He started the last lap 12 and a bit seconds ahead of Vettell and Hamilton, lost another 3 seconds in the first sector and it was already clear that it was going to be very close. But Brundle and Allen didn't know that, so kept on babbling about Hamilton needing to overtake Vettell, which wasn't the issue. He then lost over 9 seconds in the middle sector, so it was almost all over before Brundle and Allen even woke up to what was happening.
Glock's sector times on the last lap compared to Trulli were 1.2 quicker, 1.0 quicker and 2.2 slower (and by that time he had been overtaken). So there is no evidence whatever that he was going slower than he could have gone. If you think he did drive slowly on purpose (and why?), then please explain why Trulli drove even slower.
I think it's just a matter of Brundle and Allen misleading the audience and thereby upsetting people who had believed them - and to be fair, they obviously had nobody with them to put them right. Goodbye ITV-F1 and good luck.
