Hey mate... I know exactly what you mean, I think it's something most of us go through and continue to go through. From these shots it's obvious you know how to use the camera, so what you're asking about is how to "see" alternatives. The best advice I can give is try and deconstruct the work of other photographers that produce work that inspires you... while in the beginning that will probably feel like you are ripping off the ideas of others, it ends up with you being able to build your style/techniques and apply it in ways unique to you. People often talk about originality in photography, in reality, it's all been done before so I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to reinvent the wheel.
Having worked media on a number of occasion in the past couple of years I've been amazed at how much mediocrity exists at the professional level, that's not to say I'm any better, I just had this idea that the level of skill would be a huge step up... that said there are numerous very talented people in some of those media rooms that face the exact same conditions as you, with the same or lesser equipment and come away with images that put the rest of us to shame. These are the people to really study and try and learn their approach... some names to get you started that you may or may not know: Nick Dungan, Andrew Gibson, Jayson Fong, Rob Gray, Shurazero Hide, Rajan Jangda, Xynamic (Gary & Pedro especially), Shivraj Gohil, Andrew Hone, Jamey Price, Darren Heath (obviously)... there's many many more.
Just looking at some of these shots you've posted (they are a little too garish in the saturation department - maybe tone that down a touch), #1 is perfectly fine but it's been done by just about every photographer that's ever been to Brands, it's always going to be that way #4 and #5 would benefit from less distracting backgrounds, it's tough but sometimes you need to abandon a spot if the background doesn't work... this is speaking purely artistically as if you shoot an interesting moment, a lock up, an accident, a pass etc... it happens where it happens and is what journalists want (nice backgrounds, blur and motion is not that pressing for their uses, unless you want to be in the arty sections of magazines anyway) #6 is fine, but the square doesn't really bring much to the shot at it probably should be straightened ... I like a wonky shot but it needs to look intentional. #7 hmmm selective desaturation has been done to the point of cliche, that's not to say it's a bad image at all... but what does it really do for the image, except say 'I'm trying to make this more interesting that it is' that's not me judging you, but that's what a lot of people automatically think when they see this kind of treatment. #8 you chopped the front and back, it's all over... we all do that [emoji16]
There's a lot to be said for shooting to a brief to make you work a certain way, but personally, I'd argue that being completely free to experiment is much much better for developing your vision and techniques.... you can always write your own brief before you go to an event. I.e must have a start shot, must get an image of every car, must shoot at least 3 predecided locations, must get a finish shot (if you really want to nerd out, you can add must process all images and upload before the end of the day). But there's variations too, you could go to an event and document it in the form of a story of a driver or team and just focus on that so paddock stuff, track stuff, driver stuff (difficult as a spectator but not impossible for some of the smaller series).
