The Balance Between Merit and Upset in Sport

[Maximus Decimus]

As a bit of a sports nerd, I'm quite particular about what I like when I'm watching sport. Obviously, an entertaining sport matters as does one where the rules reward those who play the game well. A big element for me is genuine competitiveness - I like to think either team can win but that the best team is more likely to win.

This is one of RL's biggest flaws. It can be a great sport at times but as we've seen with the recent Ashes series, the best team wins too often and I genuinely think it can hold RL back. If you have two even teams, it can make for a fantastic spectacle but unfortunately there are too many games where you essentially know who will win barring a miracle. There are many sports with a balance like this: basketball, Aussie Rules, tennis, boxing, darts etc

However, the other end of the spectrum I can find equally unsatisfying; I don't want to think that what I'm watching is basically random. Football can be a good example of this; too often for me the result doesn't accurately reflect the performance because of the low number of points involved. If you're following a team you want to think that your team is progressing, but too often a good run and a bad run feels like a statistical matter rather than a demonstration of form. Probably the worst I've seen for this is Baseball. Although I don't follow it closely, I was amazed to find that over a 162 game season, the best team out of 28 will still lose 40% of their games. Similarly, all but 2 teams won at least 40% of their games. There are others like this: short-form cricket can feel a bit like this to me.

So it made me think. Which sport gets this balance the best? Which rewards skill whilst allowing for a genuine possibility of an upset?

Of the sports I'm familiar with, dare I say RU does a better job than either RL or Football. However, IMO it is largely because skillful handling sides can be negated by scrums, lineouts, penalty goals etc. I would say that American Football (NFL) probably has the best balance of any sport I follow. However, I wonder how RL would fare if it had the depth of talent that NFL has. 

Anybody got any sports that they follow where they think the balance is better?

[Futtocks]

I'd far rather the best team on the day won than cynical mediocrity sneaked a result.

Rugby League is a very brutal and merciless meritocracy at times, yes.

The alternative is referees bending the rules* and/or rules that reward negativity and cynicism?. Well, we've seen what that has done to the other Rugby code.

*someone pompous will be along soon to post "They're called laws, ACT-ually", as if that makes any difference at all.

Edited November 28, 2025 by Futtocks

[hindle xiii]

I like watching the highlights on ITV4 of the World Rally Championship. This weekend is the final round where one of three drivers could still win the title. Usually it's very easy to avoid spoilers as it's not well known or reported on. I'm nervous about getting spoilers before Tuesday night though as one contender is Welsh.

[sam4731]

I'll throw golf into the mix. You have genuine top players that will win multiple tournaments over the course of the year, but they are far from guaranteed winning any given tournament.

There have been 17 first time winners on the PGA Tour this year alone but Scottie Scheffler has won 6 events.

[Bostik Bailey]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

I'll throw golf into the mix. You have genuine top players that will win multiple tournaments over the course of the year, but they are far from guaranteed winning any given tournament.

There have been 17 first time winners on the PGA Tour this year alone but Scottie Scheffler has won 6 events.

The thing is with golf you aren’t actually playing against another person (I.e. the skill of another person can’t negate your skill). So a field of very skilled players will lead to whoever plays best over the tournament.

Edited November 28, 2025 by Bostik Bailey

[sam4731]

3 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

As a bit of a sports nerd, I'm quite particular about what I like when I'm watching sport. Obviously, an entertaining sport matters as does one where the rules reward those who play the game well. A big element for me is genuine competitiveness - I like to think either team can win but that the best team is more likely to win.

This is one of RL's biggest flaws. It can be a great sport at times but as we've seen with the recent Ashes series, the best team wins too often and I genuinely think it can hold RL back. If you have two even teams, it can make for a fantastic spectacle but unfortunately there are too many games where you essentially know who will win barring a miracle. There are many sports with a balance like this: basketball, Aussie Rules, tennis, boxing, darts etc

However, the other end of the spectrum I can find equally unsatisfying; I don't want to think that what I'm watching is basically random. Football can be a good example of this; too often for me the result doesn't accurately reflect the performance because of the low number of points involved. If you're following a team you want to think that your team is progressing, but too often a good run and a bad run feels like a statistical matter rather than a demonstration of form. Probably the worst I've seen for this is Baseball. Although I don't follow it closely, I was amazed to find that over a 162 game season, the best team out of 28 will still lose 40% of their games. Similarly, all but 2 teams won at least 40% of their games. There are others like this: short-form cricket can feel a bit like this to me.

So it made me think. Which sport gets this balance the best? Which rewards skill whilst allowing for a genuine possibility of an upset?

Of the sports I'm familiar with, dare I say RU does a better job than either RL or Football. However, IMO it is largely because skillful handling sides can be negated by scrums, lineouts, penalty goals etc. I would say that American Football (NFL) probably has the best balance of any sport I follow. However, I wonder how RL would fare if it had the depth of talent that NFL has. 

Anybody got any sports that they follow where they think the balance is better?

Maybe the balance that you see in the NFL stem from the (ironically socialist) draft system. The worst team from the previous year get the first picks in the draft. Obviously the best players that already exist in the league either stay with their teams or transfer to new teams which keep the balance of power relatively consistent but the draft really matters.

The draft allows the worst performing teams to pick the best new players in the world. A well disciplined draft can be the difference between success and failure.

[Maximus Decimus]

3 hours ago, sam4731 said:

I'll throw golf into the mix. You have genuine top players that will win multiple tournaments over the course of the year, but they are far from guaranteed winning any given tournament.

There have been 17 first time winners on the PGA Tour this year alone but Scottie Scheffler has won 6 events.

Golf is a funny one. Say you were a big fan of Rory McIlroy, the chances of his winning a particular tournament are not particularly high even if he is World Number 1.

The standard of the field is so high, and golf lends itself to elements of bad luck. 

So in some ways it's good as you genuinely don't know who will win, but there isn't much chance to actually root for someone.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

Maybe the balance that you see in the NFL stem from the (ironically socialist) draft system. The worst team from the previous year get the first picks in the draft. Obviously the best players that already exist in the league either stay with their teams or transfer to new teams which keep the balance of power relatively consistent but the draft really matters.

The draft allows the worst performing teams to pick the best new players in the world. A well disciplined draft can be the difference between success and failure.

I understand this of course, but it's the sheer weight of numbers that means you can have 32 teams who are broadly competitive with each other.

If the NFL was 12 teams with very different resources based in the North of England, I doubt it would be much better than RL. 

[Maximus Decimus]

5 hours ago, Futtocks said:

I'd far rather the best team on the day won than cynical mediocrity sneaked a result.

Rugby League is a very brutal and merciless meritocracy at times, yes.

The alternative is referees bending the rules* and/or rules that reward negativity and cynicism?. Well, we've seen what that has done to the other Rugby code.

*someone pompous will be along soon to post "They're called laws, ACT-ually", as if that makes any difference at all.

I agree with this when it comes to the top of the sport. What makes the playoffs so great is knowing you are getting a genuine competition of a high standard and the best on the day will win.

I watched Everton-United on Monday, and Everton played well before the sending off. They scored a bit of a worldie, and United played poor but I got little satisfaction out of the win really. United had 20 chances to 3. The result felt more random than down to a particularly great effort.

I've long accepted that this makes me weird and that it doesn't bother most people one jot. They seem to be happy to accept the scoreline does reflect the game.

[gingerjon]

14 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

As a bit of a sports nerd, I'm quite particular about what I like when I'm watching sport. Obviously, an entertaining sport matters as does one where the rules reward those who play the game well. A big element for me is genuine competitiveness - I like to think either team can win but that the best team is more likely to win.

This is one of RL's biggest flaws. It can be a great sport at times but as we've seen with the recent Ashes series, the best team wins too often and I genuinely think it can hold RL back. If you have two even teams, it can make for a fantastic spectacle but unfortunately there are too many games where you essentially know who will win barring a miracle. There are many sports with a balance like this: basketball, Aussie Rules, tennis, boxing, darts etc

However, the other end of the spectrum I can find equally unsatisfying; I don't want to think that what I'm watching is basically random. Football can be a good example of this; too often for me the result doesn't accurately reflect the performance because of the low number of points involved. If you're following a team you want to think that your team is progressing, but too often a good run and a bad run feels like a statistical matter rather than a demonstration of form. Probably the worst I've seen for this is Baseball. Although I don't follow it closely, I was amazed to find that over a 162 game season, the best team out of 28 will still lose 40% of their games. Similarly, all but 2 teams won at least 40% of their games. There are others like this: short-form cricket can feel a bit like this to me.

So it made me think. Which sport gets this balance the best? Which rewards skill whilst allowing for a genuine possibility of an upset?

Of the sports I'm familiar with, dare I say RU does a better job than either RL or Football. However, IMO it is largely because skillful handling sides can be negated by scrums, lineouts, penalty goals etc. I would say that American Football (NFL) probably has the best balance of any sport I follow. However, I wonder how RL would fare if it had the depth of talent that NFL has. 

Anybody got any sports that they follow where they think the balance is better?

Reference point (US perspective) from The Athletic:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6653998/2025/09/24/most-unpredictable-sport-golf-tennis-soccer-nfl/

[HawkMan]

9 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

 

I watched Everton-United on Monday, and Everton played well before the sending off. They scored a bit of a worldie, and United played poor but I got little satisfaction out of the win really. United had 20 chances to 3. The result felt more random than down to a particularly great effort.

I've long accepted that this makes me weird and that it doesn't bother most people one jot. They seem to be happy to accept the scoreline does reflect the game.

I don't want to push this , and I respect your attitude, but there's no way you're an Everton fan, not a true fan. Oh, your pleased when they win but not getting satisfaction from an away victory is the telling remark. No real fan is bothered by the manner of the victory or either if it was entertaining or not.

Football is a simple game and fans have simple desires,  win win win and **** to anything else.

That's why it has the following it does. You can't appeal to football fans to watch something more entertaining and give up their game, because they're not interested in entertainment.

No football fan leaves a game saying, " well we won that,  terribly boring though wasn't entertained."

Btw- I watched the United Everton game   Everton deserved the win, they took their chance, United didn't,  20 to 3 chances is irrelevant,  the object is to score,  in football nowt else matters.

 

[HawkMan]

48 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Reference point (US perspective) from The Athletic:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6653998/2025/09/24/most-unpredictable-sport-golf-tennis-soccer-nfl/

I wonder where RL would be placed in this chart, I guess at the top , at about 90%.

[gingerjon]

Just now, HawkMan said:

I wonder where RL would be placed in this chart, I guess at the top , at about 90%.

Does the favourite win 90% of the time in Super League or the NRL?

[HawkMan]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Does the favourite win 90% of the time in Super League or the NRL?

SL , I meant,  NRL is top notch, plenty of jeopardy among the top 8 or so clubs. But on the specifics of this thread , 90% of RL teams who play better than their opponents on the day win.

Edited November 29, 2025 by HawkMan

[sam4731]

10 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I understand this of course, but it's the sheer weight of numbers that means you can have 32 teams who are broadly competitive with each other.

If the NFL was 12 teams with very different resources based in the North of England, I doubt it would be much better than RL. 

I think that depends. If they still had the strength of talent pool that they do over 32 teams, I actually think it'd be more competitive.

Thinking about it, a lot of this does come down to talent pool. Think of the RFL WSL. The reason that there is a 'Big 4' is that just isn't enough top talent to sustain anymore than that.

[HawkMan]

I wonder where F1 sits in this debate? A combination of the best car and best driver will always win, barring bad luck, a good driver in a rubbish car will never win. 

This year its very close,  Norris and Piastri same team both in the hunt for title,  so the car is the same, down to the better driver. However teams with two good drivers might give different back up to drivers depending on who they think has the better Championship chance. 

McLaren this weekend have stated they'll allow Norris and Piastri to race against each other,  something they might regret if they take each other out and Verstappen wins, who started the mind games claiming if he was in Norris's car he'd already be champion. Should be a good watch...unusually.

Edited November 29, 2025 by HawkMan

[Gerrumonside ref]

43 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I don't want to push this , and I respect your attitude, but there's no way you're an Everton fan, not a true fan. Oh, your pleased when they win but not getting satisfaction from an away victory is the telling remark. No real fan is bothered by the manner of the victory or either if it was entertaining or not.

Football is a simple game and fans have simple desires,  win win win and **** to anything else.

That's why it has the following it does. You can't appeal to football fans to watch something more entertaining and give up their game, because they're not interested in entertainment.

No football fan leaves a game saying, " well we won that,  terribly boring though wasn't entertained."

Btw- I watched the United Everton game   Everton deserved the win, they took their chance, United didn't,  20 to 3 chances is irrelevant,  the object is to score,  in football nowt else matters.

 

I think Max is a long suffering Everton fan tbf and many decades must colour your attitudes eventually.

That said I think he should buzz off that win as it was a great display by the ten men who were far from just hanging on.

I thought they were great and smart on the ball too whatever the stats say.

This coming from a Liverpool fan too.

Edited November 29, 2025 by Gerrumonside ref

[Maximus Decimus]

3 hours ago, HawkMan said:

I don't want to push this , and I respect your attitude, but there's no way you're an Everton fan, not a true fan. Oh, your pleased when they win but not getting satisfaction from an away victory is the telling remark. No real fan is bothered by the manner of the victory or either if it was entertaining or not.

Football is a simple game and fans have simple desires,  win win win and **** to anything else.

That's why it has the following it does. You can't appeal to football fans to watch something more entertaining and give up their game, because they're not interested in entertainment.

No football fan leaves a game saying, " well we won that,  terribly boring though wasn't entertained."

Btw- I watched the United Everton game   Everton deserved the win, they took their chance, United didn't,  20 to 3 chances is irrelevant,  the object is to score,  in football nowt else matters.

 

So I take it you completely missed the whole point of this thread then and didn't actually read anything I previously wrote? It is also bizarrely antagonistic.

I'm an Evertonian but as for a 'true Evertonian' or whatever that means I'm probably not no. I'm a casual follower, who goes the odd game. If Everton lose, it doesn't ruin my day.

I also freely admitted that I know I'm in the minority and that football fans clearly aren't bothered by it. If it was England in the World Cup I wouldn't be bothered either.

Personally, and in an ideal world, I like to think that the game I've watched is reflected in the scoreboard. In essence, that the better team won. This is where I find football unsatisfying at times. There are so few points scored that it can easily not reflect the game at all. There is little satisfaction in a result like that because it doesn't mean Everton are playing/doing well. We aren't going into the Newcastle game in good form, we just got a win that could just as easily have been a loss. We could just as easily lose 2-0 today, it doesn't mean anything. Across a season yes, but individually no. 

The other end of the wedge isn't desirable either. Nobody wants to basically know 99% who is going to win because they are the better team. Who doesn't enjoy seeing a boxer way down on the scorecards getting a shock KO?

This thread is about which sport best has that balance when watching a game/event. 

Like it or not, Football is not close to being the best for it. 

[Maximus Decimus]

3 hours ago, HawkMan said:

I wonder where F1 sits in this debate? A combination of the best car and best driver will always win, barring bad luck, a good driver in a rubbish car will never win. 

This year its very close,  Norris and Piastri same team both in the hunt for title,  so the car is the same, down to the better driver. However teams with two good drivers might give different back up to drivers depending on who they think has the better Championship chance. 

McLaren this weekend have stated they'll allow Norris and Piastri to race against each other,  something they might regret if they take each other out and Verstappen wins, who started the mind games claiming if he was in Norris's car he'd already be champion. Should be a good watch...unusually.

I think this is one of the worst examples going the other way.

Essentially, if you have a slower car it's very hard to lose to a worse one.

It's not dissimilar to sprints in athletics, there isn't much scope for genuine upset if someone is just faster.

[Maximus Decimus]

3 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I think Max is a long suffering Everton fan tbf and many decades must colour your attitudes eventually.

That said I think he should buzz off that win as it was a great display by the ten men who were far from just hanging on.

I thought they were great and smart on the ball too whatever the stats say.

This coming from a Liverpool fan too.

I'm just not a diehard fan, I'm a casual. I'm not remotely embarrassed by that statement.

I watched it with a United fan, and was obviously pleased we'd won; any away victory is a bonus. I'm not saying it was a fluke either, prior to the sending off we had been the better team. We clearly defended well, but also relied on a bit of fortune/United incompetence at times.

Personally, I like to feel the satisfaction of knowing that not only did my team win but we did so because we were the better team. I didn't get that on Monday. It was a win yes, and especially with 10 men, but it was hardly a very accurate reflection of the way the game went. xG might be controversial but it was 2.27-0.16 in Monday's game. I bet if there was an equivalent xG for other sports like both rugby codes, NFL and AfL, it would much more accurately reflect the game.

Here's the rub for why I didn't find it particularly satisfying: it doesn't indicate anything for future prospects.

I watched the Bears last night (my second NFL team), and they had a statement win against the Eagles away. This was satisfying not just because they won, but because they clearly deserved it, and because it gives hope for how they might go away at the Packers next week.

Everton's result means almost zilch about how we might go against Newcastle later today. Some people might like that, but personally I don't very much. It's just too random for me.

[HawkMan]

24 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

So I take it you completely missed the whole point of this thread then and didn't actually read anything I previously wrote? It is also bizarrely antagonistic.

I'm an Evertonian but as for a 'true Evertonian' or whatever that means I'm probably not no. I'm a casual follower, who goes the odd game. If Everton lose, it doesn't ruin my day.

I also freely admitted that I know I'm in the minority and that football fans clearly aren't bothered by it. If it was England in the World Cup I wouldn't be bothered either.

Personally, and in an ideal world, I like to think that the game I've watched is reflected in the scoreboard. In essence, that the better team won. This is where I find football unsatisfying at times. There are so few points scored that it can easily not reflect the game at all. There is little satisfaction in a result like that because it doesn't mean Everton are playing/doing well. We aren't going into the Newcastle game in good form, we just got a win that could just as easily have been a loss. We could just as easily lose 2-0 today, it doesn't mean anything. Across a season yes, but individually no. 

The other end of the wedge isn't desirable either. Nobody wants to basically know 99% who is going to win because they are the better team. Who doesn't enjoy seeing a boxer way down on the scorecards getting a shock KO?

This thread is about which sport best has that balance when watching a game/event. 

Like it or not, Football is not close to being the best for it. 

I do understand the thread,  we just disagree. I'd say football does have that balance right. It's certainly not totally random who wins, not 90% nor 20% but about 60% of times the better team wins. Enough jeopardy to allow the result often in the balance until quite late in the piece.

As for me being antagonistic, well you agree with me, I got it sussed okay,  you say you're not a true Evertonian , it doesn't ruin your day if they lose. Sorry, but that's all I was inferring,  didn't mean it to appear mean spirited.

As for me, well last season my team won the most mind bogglingly boring and embarrassing Europa Cup final , and I didn't care. I was on cloud 9 for days,  even though United played better and should have won easily.

Edited November 29, 2025 by HawkMan

[HawkMan]

If we're looking for sports that the result is most reflective of the action,  the most times as a percentage, then team sports can be influenced by too many factors. In single competitors sports like Tennis,  the better player on the day wins, but you don't really know who'll be the better player in advance. If its players both ranked in the top 20 then who knows who'll win. On the other hand a tennis match between ranked player 1 vs 200 then no thanks.

Edited November 29, 2025 by HawkMan

[sam4731]

4 hours ago, HawkMan said:

I wonder where F1 sits in this debate? A combination of the best car and best driver will always win, barring bad luck, a good driver in a rubbish car will never win. 

This year its very close,  Norris and Piastri same team both in the hunt for title,  so the car is the same, down to the better driver. However teams with two good drivers might give different back up to drivers depending on who they think has the better Championship chance. 

McLaren this weekend have stated they'll allow Norris and Piastri to race against each other,  something they might regret if they take each other out and Verstappen wins, who started the mind games claiming if he was in Norris's car he'd already be champion. Should be a good watch...unusually.

From what I've read before, people perceive from the outside that F1 is an single person sport whereas, to the people within it (not the drivers themselves), it's very much a team sport.

I'm not sure if that has anything to do with money but if I were to guess, demonstrating a better overall car brings more investment rather than a car which can win the drivers championship with a good driver but finish dead last with a bad driver. I'm assuming that McLaren are more interested in winning the constructors championship and the drivers would just be a nice bonus in terms of publicity and sponsorship.

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I'm just not a diehard fan, I'm a casual. I'm not remotely embarrassed by that statement.

I watched it with a United fan, and was obviously pleased we'd won; any away victory is a bonus. I'm not saying it was a fluke either, prior to the sending off we had been the better team. We clearly defended well, but also relied on a bit of fortune/United incompetence at times.

Personally, I like to feel the satisfaction of knowing that not only did my team win but we did so because we were the better team. I didn't get that on Monday. It was a win yes, and especially with 10 men, but it was hardly a very accurate reflection of the way the game went. xG might be controversial but it was 2.27-0.16 in Monday's game. I bet if there was an equivalent xG for other sports like both rugby codes, NFL and AfL, it would much more accurately reflect the game.

Here's the rub for why I didn't find it particularly satisfying: it doesn't indicate anything for future prospects.

I watched the Bears last night (my second NFL team), and they had a statement win against the Eagles away. This was satisfying not just because they won, but because they clearly deserved it, and because it gives hope for how they might go away at the Packers next week.

Everton's result means almost zilch about how we might go against Newcastle later today. Some people might like that, but personally I don't very much. It's just too random for me.

It’s a game of opinions, but I think Everton will be far happier than Man Utd now.

It wasn’t just the win but the ease of it really, the ten outplayed the eleven they didn’t just cling on for dear life.

The xG is absolutely irrelevant here because Everton played with ten men for 80mins, who cares that Utd had more chances in the box, it tells us nothing about the game and is simply par for the course for 11 vs 10.

More telling stats are that Barry won more aerial duels against the Utd defence in a single game than anyone else this season against anyone.

Couple that with the touches for Jack Grealish, the overall heat maps and Everton had a surprising amount of possession in the Utd half particularly in the last 15 mins when it should have been like the Alamo, but instead they cruised home.

 

Edited November 29, 2025 by Gerrumonside ref

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

If we're looking for sports that the result is most reflective of the action,  the most times as a percentage, then team sports can be influenced by too many factors. In single competitors sports like Tennis,  the better player on the day wins, but you don't really know who'll be the better player in advance. If its players both ranked in the top 20 then who knows who'll win. On the other hand a tennis match between ranked player 1 vs 200 then no thanks.

I would think of tennis as a bad example. There have been plenty of periods of almost complete dominance of a few players. At the moment, with Sinner and Alcarez you know a bit too much who is going to win.

Darts is like this but the statistics make it even clearer. When you have a played who is averaging 95 for the season and they play somebody averaging 91, then you basically know if it is a longer form game. At the World Championships, the upsets usually happen in the early rounds over fewer sets/legs. Once it starts getting longer, the lesser players often have spells where they are great but can't keep it going.