While frustrating at the time, Ferrari boss Mattia Binotto admits the clash between his two drivers in Brazil is an "opportunity" to learn.

After a season which has seen tensions flare between Sebastian Vettel and Charles Leclerc, Sao Paulo was the first time it ended in contact as the pair touched on the run to Turn 4, taking both out of the race.

It was a scenario which had appeared likely sooner rather than later, however, Binotto insists the line-up is still positive for the Italian team.

“I’m still convinced it is a luxury because they are both good drivers. Very good drivers,” the Ferrari boss said via Crash.net.

“They both represent a good benchmark for each other and we have seen how well they have improved, and Seb in the second half was certainly very fast.

“So I think overall it is still a luxury. The fact that what happened, I would say it is even lucky it happened this season because there will be opportunities to clarify in view of next year what is not to happen.

“So I’m happy to take this opportunity of what happened, to clarify for the future.”

Also Read:

• Pundits warn Vettel as fallout from Brazil clash with Leclerc continues
• Ferrari threatens to end 'free to race' approach after Brazil clash
• Prost fears Ferrari infighting in 2020 as Leclerc is compared to Senna

Some pundits believe the events of Interlagos prove it is time for Ferrari to back Leclerc as their lead driver given his long-term potential.

But whatever Binotto decides, he feels that will always be criticised.

“When we tried to manage the drivers this season we have been criticised [for] doing it, and when they are free to fight we may be criticised because of ‘free to fight’," he told RaceFans.

“I think there is always a reason for what we are deciding to do and it was right to let them race, certainly, because we [already] secured the second place in the Constructors’ Championship.

“But when you’re free to fight, you’re free to fight and that’s a driving matter: how much you can take as a risk.

“Certainly here [in Brazil] the risk was not necessary.”